20110214/Canada open data: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

20110214/Canada open data (view source)

Revision as of 15:53, 17 September 2011

1 byte removed ,  17 September 2011
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Type:''' Ballot Initiatives
On February 14, 2011, I had the opportunity to speak before a Canadian parliamentary committee on the topic of open data. The content was developed at [http://visiblegovernment.ca/w/Ethics_Standing_Committee the Visible Government wiki], including the [http://visiblegovernment.ca/w/Ethics_Standing_Committee/Speaking_notes speaking notes and a parl.gc.ca video of the event]. I've copied the notes below.


'''Status:''' Adopted 11/7/06 in over 130 Townships
It was an interesting experience. I think some of the MPs are genuinely engaged on the topic. Unfortunately, the House collapsed shortly after this event, and there was no real follow-up.


'''Text:'''
I'm going to take a chance here and post some thoughts.


Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the President and Congress of the United States to end the war in Iraq immediately and bring all United States military forces home.
Open data is a funny movement. Despite being about openness and connections, there are many complexities and disagreements, and most people don't really cooperate easily.


'''News coverage:'''<br>
Chief among the complexities is the question of whether open data should have a "share-alike" restriction. This means that anyone who uses (in this case) government-provided data must make any derived content available under the same terms (sometimes called a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license viral license]"). Those arguing against "share-alike" generally think it makes using data too complicated, and that it makes data  re-use unfriendly to business; they believe that business will provide more value if they don't have to meet this restriction.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2007/baldwin0107.html


'''Voting to Bring the Troops Home'''<br>
People who want to see share-alike, like myself, are probably generally more idealistic.  As I tried to say in the session, I would like to see linking and participation more normal parts of everyday culture; for example, a classroom session would link directly into the same databases government use. We're already seeing at least the mechanism for this with near-ubiquitous internet, smart phones and social networking.
By Ricky Baldwin


Press reports nationwide proclaimed the most recent U.S. elections a “referendum” on the war in Iraq and on the president’s performance and policies, but mostly without noting the hundreds of actual referendum votes on these very issues in towns and counties from California to Massachusetts. Adding legitimacy to voter-driven municipal resolutions passed by almost 300 local governments across the U.S. in the last 3 years, activists in at least 4 states gathered signatures and jumped through other hoops to put forth ballot measures calling for “immediate” or “orderly and rapid” withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.  
I don't see why business can't benefit from being more open, and I would like to see people expect it. Those arguing against this view state most people don't care, and that's true, especially when they're blocked or not expected to care.


The results surprised even organizers. “We hoped to win significantly,” said Paul Shannon of the United for Justice with Peace Coalition (UJP) in Massachusetts, “but we didn’t expect this.”
Anyway, everyone doesn't have to care, opening this up to a small percentage of people will have a profound effect. Most people know a few people who are 'nerdier,' and those friends can be edges into more supportive knowledge networks. Even idiots (which I can be at times) can be contributors if they expect real answers to their questions. Social media provides an ideal setting for these networks to develop. I think we need to look forward about ten years to what we want to see. A linked, open world is much more likely with share-alike type license, and I think it's most appropriate for publicly funded and concerned data.


In three dozen Massachusetts legislative districts, encompassing over 130 townships, every single “troops home” referendum passed, most of them by two-to-one margins in favor of withdrawal. Overall in ten Wisconsin municipalities the vote was two-to-one in favor. Milwaukee voted 72 percent for “rapid withdrawal.” Eight towns and two counties in Illinois also approved “troops home” initiatives, 71 percent overall in the state, with voters in Chicago approving their withdrawal referendum by 80 percent.  
I am not at all anti-business, but the current scheme will always involve creating more compromise. It's not just business either, my experience shows again and again that hospitals and other public institutions have incredible problems that are too readily accepted. I don't think there are any dangers involved in a more open world (barring witch hunts against corrupt players and simple human inabilities we all know exist), and I think we should work very intentionally toward a world where we don't need Wikileaks because everything is connected and open.  


Republican strongholds like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s home turf in Whiteside County, Illinois voted “yes” to bring U.S. troops home by significant margins. Rock Island, Dixon, and Sterling, Illinois, usually “in the red column,” voted 57 percent yes. Communities such as Draper in Sawyer County, Wisconsin that voted strongly for Bush in 2004 voted 65 percent for troop withdrawal this November.  
The interesting thing about opening and organizing systems is the "missing pieces" become very evident, so it would be possible, with enough people and perspectives involved, to create great systems. There are too many good people who are disadvantaged, and I don't believe "full employment" serving business will ever be a solution. I believe the effects of massive openness and participation will lead to transformational efficiency and integrity that will allow more people to be positive and involved in shared systems.


“The value of a referendum like this,” says Steve Burns of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, “is that you make the war stand on its own.” Candidates, he says, represent a “package of issues,” but clear language specifically addressing an issue like troop withdrawal directly is a better gauge of voter desires.  
Idealistic, yes, but with share-alike, we can work on creating that practical and better world. Without it, it's ultimately the same old, a new layer will form over the old layer and everyone in those layers with true access and ability will be squatters vying for more power as part of the pyramid scheme, fighting as much for the proprietary secrets as they do for real improvements. But I guess they gotta eat, right?


“The significance of results like this,” Burns says, “is that now we know the public is not the problem.” National pundits, he says, like to claim that people are unhappy with the war but they don’t know or can’t agree on what to do about it. “Here they are endorsing a plan.”
<blockquote ><div style="background-color: #ddddaa; padding: 5px">
<br />
* Official announcement http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=CommitteeMeetingNotice&Acronym=ETHI&Mee=44&Parl=40&Ses=3
* View this presentation http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=7323 (skip to 49:30 — Tracey Lauriault and David Mason).
<br />


Several anti-war organizers expressed the same sort of surprise as Paul Shannon, not just at the referendum votes, but also at the much-touted Democratic sweep. After all, it was only two years ago that Republicans dashed Democratic hopes in nationwide elections. Anti-war organizers, as skeptical as they typically are of Democrats’ talk of “change,” had still hoped for a rejection of the Bush agenda in 2004 and didn’t get it. Clearly something happened in the last two years.


The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has continued going badly, of course, with higher numbers of U.S. deaths, many more Iraqi deaths, and more opposition. Resentment has also begun to set in among military families who had thought the war would be over by now. Republicans have faced scandals and failures on other fronts as well. But anti-war organizers who keep track of opinion polls say problems with the war reached a critical mass.  
== Introduction==
In our [http://visiblegovernment.ca/w/Ethics_Standing_Committee crowd-sourced briefing document], we covered an array of topics around open data, open government, and more involved citizens. We covered topics such as the usefulness of open data inside government to enable connections, and better enable relationships with vendors. In science communities, open data helps create wider standards for more data sharing, and enables a culture of scientist-citizen. In education, notable institutions enable free access to the world's best information.  


“What accounts for the difference is the war,” says Paul Shannon. “Primarily the war, and secondarily Katrina. I think Katrina was a turning point for some people in terms of the competence of the Republicans. Of course, there were other things—Foley, Abramoff, and gas prices—but the war was the overriding issue that played out in every state, number one, two, or three everywhere.”
We talked about poisonous data and systems that assume individuals would never get access to their own health care record, as well as inspiring signs from GCPedia and our geomatics community. Others have spoken about how open data can make Access to Information a more efficient and useful service.


Anti-war organizers have also been looking for new ways to express opposition to the war. Steve Burns says many Americans had stopped attending anti-war demonstrations after massive turnouts failed to prevent the U.S. invasion. But, Shannon says, “the ballot is right in front of them.”
Business is exploring more open and social modes; consumer-serving openness is a competitive advantage.


A number of Wisconsin towns had voted in April 2006 on resolutions calling for troop withdrawal, including some traditionally Republican towns in the state. At that time 24 out of 32 of the measures passed.  
We talked about creating a *culture* of innovation and problem solving, built on the fact so many Canadians are online. How what we're building can create consistent, re-usable knowledge system for everyone. Where a fourteen year old or eighty year old can access the same data and networks as a researcher, organize it according to their perspective, and connect with others. Where people stop using their computers as typewriters and instead create re-usable data. How many more people can be deeply involved in democratic processes, and how this can be used to build up trust in government.


The idea was catching. By summer 2006 dozens of communities in other states had referendum efforts underway; some already knew their referendum would appear on the ballot while others would not know for sure until September or October 2006. As it turned out, it is not that easy for Americans to get what they want on their ballots.
== Hospital finder ==


The Massachusetts referenda probably represent some of the hardest-earned grassroots votes in the nation. Activists with United for Peace and Justice-coordinated groups had to gather hundreds of signatures in each legislative district—including extras in case of challenges—and hand them in to each town hall for verification by the secretary of state and then the state attorney general had to agree to the language. The entire process took from January to September.  
I want to talk about a specific open data project. Today, if I go to a health clinic, I may be told I can't be seen that day. If I search many completely different sources of health clinic information, I might get a better idea of the best clinic to visit at that moment.


Referendum advocates elsewhere gathered hundreds of signatures, as in Chicago and its suburbs. “We have tens of thousands of signatures,” says Carl Davidson of Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, “and a map. There are clusters of people who signed. We plan to contact them and try to start up to 50 new neighborhood groups in the Chicago area.”
Modern internet based software can provide easy solutions to this kind of problem. In an afternoon, I scraped the locations of hospital emergency departments across Montréal, put them on a map including the user's current position and the closest hospital, and added scraped information about capacity and resource usage.  


A few communities in Illinois also failed to get their referendum on the ballot due to technicalities or challenges from local officials.  
* [http://subvention.zooid.org/finder/ Hospital finder]


The easiest win may have been in twin cities Champaign and Urbana, Illinois. At a statewide conference of the Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice in Champaign in March, local activists with the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort (AWARE) learned of an annual town meeting, prescribed by state law, where a majority of those who show up can add a referendum to the November ballot. The township meeting was in two weeks.  
Even this effort would be useful for someone trying to make an informed opinion and take more responsibility for their own health. It could help many people waste less of their own time sitting in a waiting room, and help balance the health system by choosing the clinic that's closest to them, and likely to be least crowded.  


AWARE activists hit the ground running. They faced no opposition in Urbana, but in Champaign the conservative mayor, former cop Jerry Schweighart, attempted to turn out local veterans’ groups to block the referendum, to little avail. In the end voters crammed the town meetings in both cities and added a “troops home” referendum to the local ballot in each town (by one vote in Champaign).  
But if hospitals and clinics intentionally published information as quality open data, much more could be built. We could learn what clinics are best for different conditions, and develop real-time and predictive views of when to go to particular locations. Past the technical design, people could contribute their experiences to help measure problems and successes. This would result in a low-cost, harmonious feedback loop for individuals and the health system. With open data, lightweight Internet tools, and crowd-sourcing, the budget impact would be minimal, and the effects profound.


In November the “troops out” referendum passed in Urbana by 65 percent, in Champaign by 58 percent. Champaign-Urbana also joined San Francisco and Berkeley, California, as well as a handful of smaller cities in Wisconsin and elsewhere, in calling on Congress to begin the process of impeachment for both the president and vice president for “misleading our nation to war with Iraq, for permitting the illegal use of torture, and for conducting domestic spying on U.S. citizens.”
Because hospitals and regions are fragmented, we may never have an official comprehensive system. But with a minimal level of open data support, we can have useful, constantly developing views that institutions could never build in the foreseeable future.


Mayor Schweighart told the press, “I can’t understand it.” Central Illinois’s conservative Republican Congressperson Timothy V. Johnson, a war supporter, was forced to admit in his victory speech on election night that Iraq was a “quagmire” and that “the American people will not tolerate another two years” of war. Referendum results by election district showed that even Johnson’s supporters had voted for withdrawal. All told, organizers say, referendum results showed that opposition to the war in Iraq cuts across party and other ideologocal divides.  
Many people like me are able to create this kind of system in an afternoon, because it's what we do during the day. We work with free, world-scale systems that let us put interactive data into the best and most recognized Web based interfaces in the world. The proprietary and custom interfaces often used by institutions usually can't compete with this. They make the user relearn a system that's usually not nearly as good as the best on the Web, cut and paste an address to get transit directions or see what's nearby. They don't let users easily add information that can be helpful to others.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had promised to “drain the swamp” if the Democrats took over, was very clear as soon as the election results were in: impeachment is “off the table.” Pelosi and others in the Democratic leadership, when asked about the details of their alleged “new direction” for U.S. policy in Iraq, hedged. Asked about the possibility of cutting off funding for the war, as in the Harkin Resolution (SR 93), Democratic leaders were pretty clear about what their “new direction” was not. SR 93 provided that after December 31, 2006, there would be no further money for military activities in Iraq except those related to withdrawal. “We can’t cut off money to troops in the field,” Pelosi said, borrowing the Republican spin.


“We have to make the Democrats listen to us,” says Laurel Lambert Schmidt of Near West Citizens for Peace and Justice in Illinois. “They’re going to do nothing if we don’t pressure them.” Antiwar organizers elsewhere offered the same warning.  
In the last few days I read two news items where government didn't take advantage of the best the Internet has to offer. In one case, the UK government paid a consulting firm 200 thousand pounds to create a system, which collapsed under load when put online. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/04/crime_mapping_police_uk/ An individual wrote a system in eight spare hours that was much more robust].


“The Democrats and the Republicans are both completely supportive of the goal of U.S. domination in the Middle East,” says Paul Shannon.  
In another case, the BBC announced it had to shut down 172 content web sites for budget reasons. [http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/10/bbc-to-delete-172-un.html An individual scraped and archived them using a $4 a month plan].


On the other hand, organizers see the election as having created a much-needed opportunity for leverage. “The peace movement has earned some political capital,” says Schmidt. “We have to spend it. We can’t just put the Democrats in office and trust that they’ll do the right thing, because they won’t.” Still, she says, “The election gives us hope and a lot of possibilities.”


“What’s been debilitating for the peace movement,” says Steve Burns, “and what’s kept a lot of people away from demonstrations, is not apathy. It’s that nobody in Washington has been listening for six years. Now at least there is some hope that we can make some difference.”
Using the best, low cost tools online today, for free people use digital maps to find restaurants and bus routes that suit them perfectly. Craigslist demolished the newspaper classifieds business with a free, easy to use volunteer based service. People count on looking up information on the collaboratively created Wikipedia. Fine grained news travels quickly in social networks, with personalized comments. Sites like OpenParliament publish and allow finer examination of proceedings. These are examples of the benefits digital networks; a basis of open data enables people to effectively re-use information to participate in democratic processes, and enable lifelong learning.


Several national peace groups are promoting a “Mandate for Peace” petition as a follow-up to the election, which as an organizing tool could have value. National demonstrations in Washington, originally delayed until March, have also been added for January to greet the new Democrat-controlled Congress with anti-war demands. And local grassroots activists are busy. Carl Davidson’s plan, with Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, to springboard new neighborhood peace groups is indicative of efforts around the country to build on the success at the polls. “Organizing,” Davidson says, is how you keep the pressure on, plus a healthy dose of “street heat.” Elsewhere activists are starting new postcard or letter-writing campaigns and Congressional visits to remind representatives of the recent votes and to press the anti-war agenda, even state resolutions in favor of withdrawal.
== Precedents and benefits==


In 1968, Shannon notes, with opposition to the Vietnam War growing, the Nixon administration developed a “new direction,” after which thousands more Americans and Vietnamese were killed. There is already talk in Washington about “new directions” that do not involve keeping U.S. hands off Iraq.  
In a generation the Internet will be deeply embedded in everything we do. We'll continue to see problem-solving waves of innovation from the best and most motivated minds around the world. Most people may not profoundly interact, but some will, and it will affect everyone.


Exhausted as activists are, Shannon says, the next few months may be the most critical in the anti-war effort. “We have to focus on undermining the negotiations that are now taking place within the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and between the Republicans and Democrats over a new strategy in Iraq. Once that consensus happens, there will be a falling off of opposition as people decide to give them a chance, but it will not be what the public wants.”
All this  potential is based on existing features and design of computer data and the breakthrough Web, created by Tim Berners-Lee, who leads open data development in the United Kingdom government.


The anti-war vote was a landslide, says Davidson, “Now the question is what do we do with it.”
Berners-Lee's mandate is to make data open and accessible, including individual direct involvement.


Ricky Baldwin is a long-time community organizer and writer. His articles have appeared in ''Z Magazine'', ''Dollars & Sense'', ''Labor Notes'', ''In These Times'' and elsewhere.
Openly learning from, using and advancing efforts and standards around the world must be a key part of the Canadian approach. We know there are qualities of open data, ranging from the opaqueness of a PDF, to richly organized and connected data using open standards and licenses. Accessible means data needs to be consistently organized according to many perspectives, in a culture that embraces this as the right thing to do. And though most people are online, and computers can be equalizers for vision and mobility disabled people, one third of Canadians are not online, and may never be. So we look to social networks to connect people. Many two-way knowledge translators will be required, inside and outside government.


[[Category:Ballot Initiatives]]
This is an enormous undertaking. But it's an investment that will yield smarter, more capable people and genuine quality of life improvements in a knowledge economy. There will be short term rewards, but we need to create long term goals, visions and concrete milestones, with the open involvement of many people.
[[Category:Massachusetts]]
 
[[Category:Peace]]
== Steps forward ==
[[Category:Townships]]
 
Thinking about real steps forward, as more information becomes available, it needs to be carefully organized using systems like CKAN. Otherwise it will never be found, or will be redundant and opportunities will be lost. Data directories that don't use these structured standards are a step backwards.
 
Licenses need to be determined. For many reasons, Creative Commons by attribution can be considered best. It's well recognized, and creates links with the origins of data.
 
Government needs to negotiate openly with firm like Google, to make sure data available in cloud based services doesn't become dependent on any provider, that they instead become standards like those developed for transit services.
 
My experience in hospital systems informs me there are clear sets of data that can be shared, and others that can't. Government departments need to enable their existing experts, and appoint people to determine how to draw clear lines in data reuse, as well as instituting an open data culture.
 
Getting people to widely understand how data is re-used is a harder problem. But government could serve many purposes by producing an awareness and participation campaign, supporting privacy and anti-fraud interests to instill an entertaining and realistic culture of inquiry in social networks. That attitude is the best starting point to create a trustworthy, participatory culture.
 
Finally, if government is going to conduct an e-consultation on this topic, that sounds like a great opportunity to work openly in a real first step to organize the issues and truly involve individuals in these discussions as first class participants.
 
----
 
Tim Berners-Lee's five levels of re-usable open data:
 
*  simply making your data available on the web with an open license, about equivalent to a fax and other nearly non reusable information;
*        make it available as structured data, where data can be re-used with the right software;
*        release it in non-proprietary formats;
*        map it to [persistent public] web locations so it can be reliably re-used, and;
*        rich linking between data sources.
 
</div></blockquote>
 
{{Blikied|Sep 17, 2011}}
Retrieved from "https://wiki.zooid.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/5247"

Navigation menu