Slashdot Mirror
Data Quality Act
The New York Times has a heads-up about a little-noticed add-on to a massive appropriations bill, signed into law by Clinton but taking effect in October. The amendment allows anyone to challenge data published by the Federal government and have it changed or deleted. The main proponents of the law are pro-business groups seeking to tie up environmental and similar regulations by challenging the government's data.
I seem to recall people doing this kind of thing to try and get out of a speeding ticket too =)
--- I'll have a Bloody Mary, a Steak Sandwich and a uh Steak Sandwich.
Anyone that does not realize that such data is often willfully misrepresented or fabricated, or at best just a result of horrid incompetency and abuse by your friendly tax funded company/agency, has been asleep or is in a constant state of denial of reality. The question IMHO is not whether we should allow a reexamination of data from these organizations, but how that process is performed. At a bare minimum, the individual should have as much right as any formal organization (which includes lobbiests, companies, special interest groups, etc) Since there have been an increasing number of lies regarding environmentalism, it is important for a number of reasons to get the facts straight AND hold those responsible for misrepresentations accountable. Otherwise, the issue will continue to galvanize and polarize the positions and feelings of the very ones who are supposed to be the reason for all this... 'the Children[/people/future/etc]'. Maybe that is why honor and integrity are so important? Eco nazis that radiate nothing but irrational and inconsistent views, scorn, hate and malice have only given a weapon to those that would use that behavior as a weapon to gain more money and power. While the corporation is labled evil in a pavlovian jerking of the knee by those who lack gray matter and self thought, the fact that there will always be small to large companies who have people in them that WILL abuse such powers is the issue.
Wow, and I thought the government moved slow as it was. If they're having to devote staff to following up on any possible error pointed out by anyone they're either: a) going to grind to a complete halt or b) not post any information in the first place (which I guess is the point).
Libel law states that if someone publishes false and damaging statements about you, they can be forced to retract the statements and/or publish a correction. (If they published the false material deliberately, they can also be required to pay monetary damages.)
This is just the logical extension of that: Instead of having to prove that the statements caused harm to you, it is merely necessary to prove that the statements are false.
This is a Good Thing. Yes, it will result in less material being published... but the material which doesn't get published will be primarily the material which wasn't defensible in the first place.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Maybe we can say goodbye to the myth of manmade global warming.
Anyone who has been following this stuff for years will remember the dire predictions of the "new ice age" back in the 1970s. The way things go, it is likely within 10 years that the Chicken Littles will be offering their perfect "scientific proof" that the same fossil fuels and greenhouse gases that are said to be causing "global warming" right now will freeze the earth.
I mean, it's a step in the right direction, but to the /. crowd, it should seem pretty darn obvious - if someone points out a mistake, you have to fix it. Oddly enough, since the government is there to serve the people, if the people point out that the government is a bozo, this is exactly what *should* happen.
The problem with this bill is just what the article says - no one is going to be challenging the data where a minor functionary has his phone number listed incorrectly. The *big* companies that probably want this sort of ability to challenge data would be the tobbaco companies. After all, those surgeon general warnings are technically government data.
Theoretically, it will depend on how this data can be used, once changed. A whole hell of a lot of court cases have been won and lost through government researched data. If some important stuff gets debunked, appeals will flood the system more than they do now, digging up old cases from as far back as human memory.
As an aside - remember the FOIA? It turns out that if the paper you're writing is a draft, it's not FOIA-able. Which is why, (and I'm in government service, sorry to say) that I spend so much time stamping draft on things.
As I read is, it is about changing or deleting incorrect data, not questionable conclusions drawn from correct data.
If moderated wisely, this is a Good Thing. It might be a way to deal with those "estimations of lost revenue" that keeps popping up as soon as we don't buy enough copyrighted stuff...
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Good point, valentyn. With slightly different spin, the ability of anyone to challenge data would have been seen as a Good Thing. I have no idea why you were modded "Offtopic."
-- MarkusQ
Fact of the matter is, half the environmental "data" that is produced by the federal gov't comes from private organizations who are already hell-bent on saving every last inch of nature at whatever expense is necessary (fraudulent/deceiptful data). It's bullshit.
Everyone knows 60% of all statistics are just made up - Homer J Simpson.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
The only problem with this philosophy is: who has more lawyers available to them to define the truth, citizens or companies? What will prevent Philip Morris using their lawyers to strike out any claims that links cigarettes to anything except a glamorous lifestyle? How long until the automotive and oil industries funds lawsuits to strike out any correlation between automotive exhaust and environmental or health effects?
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
They already are.
It's just that the groups currently framing the "facts" are the ones with which you apparently agree.
I agree with everything you've just said, except for this line:
The fact is that the US, like the other established, prosperous nations, is producing cleaner and cleaner all the time.
This statement, while arguably true, does not represent the "whole picture." Cars today pollute less than they did 20 years ago. But there is also an increase in the total number of cars! In a very general sense, it's like a stock split. Our cars pollute half as much, but there are twice as many of them. The net result is that total pollution from automobiles hasn't changed.
Now, I don't know the actual stats, and I'm not sure how we would come up with them, since there are so many oddities (like the hugely popular SUVs that aren't categorized as "cars" by certain gov't standards) but to simply say "Look, the average car is so much more efficient and less polluting than before, we're making great progress here" is only half the story.
The U.S. does deserve a pat on the back for having a decent environment and air quality. But the U.S. also needs to recognize there's still plenty of work to be done. Moreover, we should realize that the work will never be done, until we make it to the Rodenberry Utopian age. The article on SlashDot a month or so ago about computer waste is just one example of the new challenges we'll have to face as an ever-increasing American population continues to foul our own nest with the latest disposable plastic crap from Wal-Mart/China.