Once Again, If The Gov't Has Data, It Will Be Abused

from the seen-it-before,-will-see-it-again dept

We've pointed this out over and over and over and over and over again, but whenever a government puts together a big database of info on people -- the data gets abused. The latest example, found via Michael Scott is the news that a police chief in Iowa has been suspended after he supposedly revealed data that he never should have had in the first place, supposedly handing out information on someone's driving record and criminal history, despite having no legal reason to even have that info, let alone distribute it to anyone. So why do we keep assuming that governments won't abuse such data collections?

Filed Under: abuse, databases, government

Once Again, Congress Wants To Blame Limewire For Stupid Staffers, As Arts+Labs Propaganda Campaign Works

from the limewire-ain't-the-problem dept

This started a few years ago, when suddenly grandstanding Congress-folk started blaming Limewire for "leaking" a confidential terrorist threat assessment. Of course, that was misguided. The problem wasn't Limewire (or any file sharing software), but idiotic gov't employees who (a) put file sharing software on gov't computers (b) didn't properly wall off the software and (c) put confidential info where it could be shared. Earlier this year, suddenly, the issue came up again (again targeting Limewire). It was instigated by some aggressive entertainment industry lobbyists, who have concocted this huge story about how Limewire is to blame. And politicians always seem willing to buy it.

The latest is that some in Congress are planning legislation after claiming that "Secret Service safehouse locations, military rosters, and IRS tax returns" were available via Limewire (funny... those are the same things mentioned in the PR email I got from the entertainment industry lobbyist's PR person...).

Our Congressional critters tried to one up each other in stupid proposals, with one, Rep. Bill Foster, even tossing out the idea of passing a law to block the Gnutella protocol (though, he admitted it wasn't likely to work). Others just planned to pass laws that would ban the use of file sharing software on gov't computers (you need a law for that?!?) and to have the FTC investigate Limewire. And, of course, the real goal in all of this, politicians want to pass a law demanding that the gov't "undertake a national campaign to educate consumers about the dangers of file sharing software."

That last one, of course, is actually the end-goal here. The entertainment industry and their shills such as the group Arts+Labs (who was behind much of this campaign) have been demonizing file sharing software completely, and now want the gov't to help. So the best way to do that was to find some folks who misused the software, get some headlines about how P2P software "exposed" Obama's safehouse locations and then get the gov't to put in place some entertainment industry propaganda. Arts+Labs wins completely. It's backers include the various entertainment firms (bonus! gov't pitching their propaganda story) and a few tech companies who sell filtering/blocking technology (bonus! gov't increasing demand for their technology).

Filed Under: blame, file sharing, government, p2p, polticians, propaganda
Companies: arts+labs, limewire

What Does Radical Transparency In Government Look Like?

from the well,-this-is-a-start dept

We've certainly complained when the new administration has failed to live up to its "transparency" promises, but the hiring of Vivek Kundra as federal CIO and Aneesh Chopra as federal CTO has put two real believers in transparency and openness in charge of the technology side of our federal government... and we're starting to see the very first results of that. It's still early, but it's actually quite impressive how much Kindra has accomplished in a very short time. Tim O'Reilly details the new federal IT spending dashboards that can be found at USASpending.gov, and it's really impressive for a gov't project put together in an incredibly short period of time. It actually shows each (participating) departments' projects, including goals and how close they are to meeting those goals. Real accountability? In government? Wow. The whole thing is built in drupal and data feeds are open to the public, so others can take the data on build on it. While it may be a small thing at this point, it's a huge step directionally in showing a commitment to more openness and transparency.

Filed Under: data, government, radical transparency, spending, transparency, vivek kundra

New White House Initiatives Take A Big Step Towards Participatory Gov't

from the good-news dept

I'll admit that I was pretty hard on the new Obama administration when, early on there were news articles playing up how the administration was using its large social network of connections for "participatory gov't," but the details suggested they were really just using the people to sell policies, not give actual input on policies. While it was still early, there was enough talk about how sending out emails to people on a mailing list and begging them to talk up the new budget was somehow "participatory gov't," to make me worried that that was as far as the new administration would go. Thankfully, that's not the case. While it still remains to be seen how far this will go in actually creating and driving policy, the White House has rolled out some new efforts on the web that really do appear to be trying to enable more participation and transparency. While I don't see it yet, the Whitehouse.gov site will apparently "become a repository for citizen suggestions and discussion regarding new open-government policies." And, more importantly, Data.gov has launched, and the administration is working to get various gov't agencies to open up as much data as possible. These are both big steps forward. There's always more that can be done, but it's good to see that sending out emails to supporters wasn't what the administration was really thinking about when it promised "participatory" government.

Filed Under: data.gov, government, obama, openness, participation, participatory government, transparency, whitehouse.gov

Senate Opening Up? Offers Up Vote Data In XML Format

from the fun-to-watch dept

There's been a big push lately to get the gov't to be a lot more open with its data, and both the new federal government CTO and CIO have spoken up about the importance of opening up more data. While it may take some time, we are starting to see things happen -- and happen quickly in some cases. Apparently, the Senate agreed (despite some reservations) to make the data from Senate votes available in an open XML format, and just a few days later that data is available. This is absolutely a good thing, but the real test will be seeing what people do with this and other open government data sources. It's nice to report on the government doing something right every once in a while....

Filed Under: data, government, openness, senate, votes, xml

UK Government To Set Up Online Feedback For Public Services

from the A++++-gr8-doctor!!! dept

While some American doctors are taking steps to try and prevent their patients from reviewing them online, the British government says that it will soon open up a feedback system for people there to review doctors in the country's National Health System. Not surprisingly, a doctors' trade body has taken exception to the plan, saying it "could reduce NHS care to a meaningless popularity contest, encouraging perverse behaviours and an emphasis on the superficial." Perhaps that's true, but it could also put pressure on doctors to be more responsive to patients and pay more attention to how they treat them. The move is part of a wider effort to open up all sorts of public services in the UK to public feedback, rating service providers like police, schools and childcare providers. The value of the feedback when people don't have any choice in provider -- such as police -- may be debatable, but it could prove to be a useful tool to help encourage improvement.

Filed Under: feedback, government, uk

Why Government Backed Businesses Will Always Be Inefficient

from the limitations-on-actions dept

As it appears that the US government will be putting even more money into AIG beyond the $150 billion we've (us, taxpayers) have already spent, Fred Wilson has a good point about why government funded businesses will almost always act inefficiently. The very fact that every move they make is extra-scrutinized for how they're "spending our dollars" makes it almost impossible to act in ways that can help a company actually make the investments and decisions it needs to make. Instead, everything is second-guessed and scrutinized for "how will this look." This results in business decisions that are forced to respond to populist sentiment rather than good business judgment. This again raises questions of why we're propping up businesses that failed, rather than helping new entities open up.

Filed Under: business, government, inefficiencies
Companies: aig

Time To Make Carl Malamud Head Of The Government Printing Office

from the yes-we-scan dept

If you're unfamiliar with Carl Malamud, you haven't been reading much news lately. He and his work to open up government documents and information to the public have been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post and various other publications in just the last month alone. But that's not to suggest what he's doing is recent. For years, Malamud has gone above and beyond in making government information more accessible and more useful to everyone -- rather than just politicians and big companies.

Now, he's positioning himself to be put in charge of the Government Printing Office to be able to do the same thing from the inside of our federal government, rather than from the outside. It's hard to think of anyone quite as visionary in terms of how government information can be presented to the public in a transparent and useful manner. He's looking for support for his campaign, and you can read all about what he would do if given the chance at YesWeScan.org:

For over 20 years, I have been publishing government information on the Internet. In 2008, Public.Resource.Org published over 32.4 million pages of primary legal materials, as well as thousands of hours of video and thousands of photographs. In the 1990s, I fought to place the databases of the United States on the Internet. In the 1980s, I fought to make the standards that govern our global Internet open standards available to all. Should I be honored to be nominated and confirmed, I would continue to work to preserve and extend our public domain, and would place special attention to our relationship with our customers, especially the United States Congress.

Access to information is a human right and the United States of America is the world's leading producer of information. As the publisher of the United States, GPO plays a vital role in promoting useful knowledge, promoting the progress of science and useful arts, and promoting and preserving the public domain.

Filed Under: carl malamud, government, government publishing office, information

Is FEMA The Best Group To Model A Cybersecurity Agency After?

from the proactivity dept

There's been a lot of talk about the cybersecurity policy actions the Obama administration will undertake, with few clear ideas on exactly what such a policy should entail, or what powers the much-discussed cybersecurity "czar" should have. One of the supposed leading candidates for the czarship says that what the country really needs is "a FEMA for the internet" that can coordinate responses to electronic attacks and problems. The wisdom of invoking the idea of another FEMA doesn't seem too wise, given the agency's rather tarnished reputation following its ham-fisted response to Hurricane Katrina and other disasters, but leaving that aside, there may be deeper issues. FEMA's role is largely preparedness for and reaction to natural disasters; shouldn't a cybersecurity agency be focused more on prevention than reaction? The idea of something like FEMA makes sense in the context of natural disasters and emergencies, since they are largely unpreventable and inevitable. But isn't cybersecurity an area in which prevention of disasters and attacks is arguably more important?

Filed Under: cybersecurity, fema, government, politics

Connecticut Government Bails Out Newspapers

from the will-it-impact-coverage? dept

A few readers have sent in the news that Connecticut lawmakers have stepped in to save two newspapers in the state, that were about to be shut down. This is raising all sorts of questions about the separation of government from the press. What's scary is that just a few years ago, such an idea was used as satire. Then it became a serious suggestion and now it's happening. Of course, the big question is about how this will impact coverage. It is possible for the government to own a newspaper and still have that newspaper report critically on that government... but it's definitely harder, and a lot of people may wonder about how closely the papers will monitor government officials.

Filed Under: bailout, connecticut, government, newspapers