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.
With all the news about fraudalent accounting can we challegne gov's data from SEC and FAASB concerning frims liek MS and CISco who play accountign scams?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Given enough eyeballs, all your documents are shallow.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
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.
Fabulous. Now lawyers will be the final framers of the scientific and technical truth. They've done such a spectacular job with the concept of "justice" that this is only the next logical step.
Lots of things have been described as "Orwellian" lately, and this just follows the trend...
The main proponents of the law are pro-business groups seeking to tie up environmental and similar regulations by challenging the government's data.
Whine, whine, piss, bitch and moan. OH NO, big business is going to destroy mother nature!!! OH NO! Quit your bitching.
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.
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).
Does it really surpise anyone that the government is taking a similiar approach to the Internet as the RIAA?
Who wants to be the first to challenge the extraordinarily limited government data that video games are incapable of expressing ideas?
-Evan
AN the easy distribution of data promised by the Internet actually bring the type of scrutiny that ultimately leads to less information being available?
That is the question being raised by a new law called the Data Quality Act, which requires the government to set standards for the accuracy of scientific information used by federal agencies. It is the latest move from Washington highlighting the balance of risks and rewards when disseminating information on the Internet.
The law, which takes full effect on Oct. 1, creates a system under which anyone could point out errors in documents; if an error is confirmed, an agency would have to remove the data from government Web sites and publications.
The Data Quality Act, along with recent efforts by government agencies to scrub their Web sites of information to guard national security, indicate a substantial shift to a more conservative culture of information, said Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown who tracks government information on the Web.
Though the Internet created fewer fortunes than had been expected, it did deliver riches of information, creating an age of government disclosure not seen before. Not so long ago, the mantra was openness; some legislators even scrambled to get lists of campaign contributors into cyberspace where the voters could see.
But that age may be over.
"The open-access people just put things online and worried about the consequences later," Professor West said. "Now we're hitting the consequences."
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, a primary backer of the Data Quality Act, has already started requesting changes in government information that is published in print and online.
This year, the center requested that the United States Global Change Research Program withdraw dissemination of the National Assessment on Climate Change on the basis of "numerous data quality and scientific flaws," according to a letter posted on the group's Web site.
The center also asked the Environmental Protection Agency to modify its Web site on global warming to reflect the scientific uncertainties about global climate change.
William Kelly, western representative for the center, said the poor quality of federal data created problems for everyone who used it, from regulators to consumers.
"With the blossoming of the Internet, it's turned into a huge problem for industry," Mr. Kelly said. "Agencies were encouraged to post virtually everything on the Internet. It wasn't such a problem when people had to go through a Freedom of Information Act request."
Some watchdog groups say that agencies need to create policies on how to treat information on the Internet, arguing that otherwise, haphazard decisions would lead to more restrictions.
"The problem is, it's much easier to make decisions about taking down information," said Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group in Washington. "The policy seems to be, take everything down, and we'll make decisions later."
Employees of the Interior Department learned the consequences of that approach earlier this year, when a federal judge ordered all the department's computer communications shut because its Web sites were vulnerable to hacking. Agencies fielded complaints from a wide range of people, from those planning vacations to national parks to those seeking the status of bird species. Most of the its Web sites have since been restored.
Removing information from Web sites became more of a government interest after Sept. 11, as agencies took down information they thought might be useful to terrorists.
A nonprofit group in Washington called OMB Watch is trying to assess just how much information agencies removed from public Web sites under the new directives. The group sent requests under the Freedom of Information Act to a dozen agencies in January. So far, only the Environmental Protection Agency has sent back a list.
According to OMB Watch, E.P.A. officials have restored much of the information that they withdrew from its Web sites last fall, including pages dealing with watersheds in New York City and the Envirofacts database, which allows users to retrieve information about air pollution, chemicals at government and business installations, water pollution and grants.
Responses to the group's inquiry indicate that other agencies may have removed a significant amount of information from the Web. The Energy Department, according to OMB Watch, reported that it had stacks of information waiting to be organized before it could be sent.
"We have nothing we can nail them down on, and we have no index of what they had in the past," said Sean Moulton, a senior policy analyst with OMB Watch. He said the directives to remove data and the new data-quality guidelines were part of "an overarching mosaic that is about restricting information and removing information from public access."
"Unfortunately," Mr. Moulton said, "Sept. 11 is being utilized as a pivot point for industry to push an agenda they already had."
OMB Watch has advocated creation of an office that would oversee what data agencies publish online and the security measures they use.
But even when done with care for quality and security, publishing on the Internet can still bring unexpected trouble to agencies.
Five years ago, the Social Security Administration set up a service on its Web site that let individuals look up their income histories and check what benefits were available. People had to enter five pieces of information: full name, Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth and mother's maiden name.
"By requiring those five items, we felt that was adequate security. It was addressed," said Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration.
That is more information than most people need now to check their bank accounts online, but the agency received a letter from several senators with concerns that hackers could steal individuals' personal information from the site.
Though no fraud was ever reported, the agency took down the database. Now, Social Security sends earnings records each year by mail.
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.
Anyone can challenge the numbers, not just businesses.
However, "from the corrupt to the profiteers" is an improvement. The profiteers only profit by providing needed goods and services; corporations (except where government interferes) exist to serve the people through the accountability of the free market.
So it is OK that political power groups would remain the final framers of scientific and technical truth?
I'm usually the last to defend lawyers, but in this case I have no problem with lawyers getting involved in damaging the power of the ruling class to control our lives and create whatever "truth" it wants to perpetuate its own power.
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.
Gosh, what if the data is wrong or like the case out west, where gov't scientists falsified reports (planted fur from a rare animal on a scratching post) in order to support their environmental aims?
rm -i `find / -name \*truth\*`
vi `find / -name \*truth\*
Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
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
So how do we challenge CIA data?
I assume that now means that no CIA data wil ever be published whether it has been un classified or not..
lets see politician wants to hide acrime..oh thats National Security you can;t have access to it..
Can you see where this is going?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
This isn't exactly shocking news.
We have:
1) Lies
2) Damn Lies
3) Statistics
The part of this that's really irritating of course is: Who is it that ultimately decides the validity of the data? I've read very few reports commissioned on behalf of any government agencies that contained figures that could be considered concrete, i.e. "there are X widgets in the DOD inventory". Generally what are reported are statistical results - "eighty two and a half percent of all households headed by white males are likely to own one or more upright vacuum cleaners". So who is it that decides? Are the originators of said data allowed a rebuttal of any kind? Is there an arbitration process to determine whose figures are closer to reality? Or is it just the party involved who can afford the better lawyer?
Orwellian indeed.
"Nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." -Clarke
whoever mod'd this as interesting deserves a ban from moderation
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Fabulous. Now lawyers will be the final framers of the scientific and technical truth.
Yeah, I agree! Only former lawyers (legislators) should get to decide what is scientific and technical truth!
If the dataset is big enough, it *will* have errors in it. If it is the case that data must be pulled if it is found to contain errors, it's going to be a trivial exercise for anyone vaguely numerate to remove any kind to scientific data from consideration in say a legal case.
In many years of working with large datasets, I am yet to find one that doesn't have some kind of error in it. The key thing to remember is that most of the data is right and it usually doesn't matter if there's a few problems.
(hoping this legislation has some kind of sanity clause to prevent such abuses)
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
There are already mechanisms for getting rid of fraudulent data, this provision seems to be more about getting rid of inconvenient data.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Then again, as the man said, "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal."
Is any government website that is "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer".
--Joe
This act will enable politicians in individual states yet another inroad to challege the Census findings in their districts. I doubt much good will come from reworking numbers.
Since a conclusion is derived from the originating data, it follows that it should be fairly easy disrupt the conclusion by making changes to the said data.
With all the flaws bureaucracy has, I would still trust a bureaucrat to be considerably more reliable and truthful in an analysis that affected the viability of any particular product or industry than any of the proponents of said industry.
Rememeber, at the end of the day, a civil servant is there to serve us. A business man serves the almighty dollar and the stockholders of his/her business.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I don't remember this, but it rings true. The one effect that this law can never have and will never have, is to control the massive social influence that scientific lies spoken by politicians have. We need a law against BS spoken by public figures. Scientific slander? If you can't find any scientific authority to back up your data or conclusions, then you go to jail.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The main proponents of the law are pro-business groups seeking to tie up environmental and similar regulations by challenging the government's data.
Great. Its about time we get the ability to challenge many of the governments poorly done studies. Especially for businesses, as they often are forced to spend needless money due to regulations based on half-baked theories, such as global warming.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
I did a little looking and found an interesting article on the FCC web site about the Data Quality Act and their proposed implementation of it.
Apparently the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) is responsible for administering this new law under the Paperwork Reduction Act. and each agency is responsible to tell the OMB how they are going to implement it.
Read any good sonnets lately?
Is libel print or is that slander?
:P
No sig for you!!
Does this mean we can resume counting of ballots in West Palm Beach? Chads were so much fun
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
I fail to see how laws that force te government to tell the truth can be "harmfu" or be "exploited" y business. Environmental agreements like the Kyoto protocol will have unfair and devistating effects on the American economy, and they are based entirly on scientific opinion that is highly questionable at best. "Global Warming" is generally accepted to be true by just about everyone, although there is only limited data proving it. Shouldn't the public be allowed to question massive, sweeping legislation that is based largely on distorted, unproven or sometimes outright fialse scientific data?
Ok, so just get a private University like Harvard, Berkley, or MIT to publish the findings, and they can't be challenged. Problem solved.
This is a good point. The post refers to environmental numbers on government sites - but wait until other well funded, lawyer approved organizations get into the act. Then the battles won't be between Organization X and the US Government, but between Organization X and Organization Y, with the US Government trapped in the middle. One group will sue to have the information taken down, and another will sue to have it restored.
Eventually you're going to see massive legal battles between groups such as Handgun Control, Inc. and the NRA over the numbers put on various government sites such as the Centers for Disease Control. There's lots to fight over there, from the raw numbers and how much estimation is going on, to the definition of the word "child" (doing research for a school paper I found one CDC definition for children that included 25 year olds - they probably meant to say "young adults and children" but now it becomes a legal point you can sue over).
IMHO this is a big mistake. Pick *any* government study, from the National Park Service research papers [think Glacier Bay & commercial fishing] to the FBI crime reports [think gun control]. You'll find two well funded opponents for just about anything published, and they'll soon have the green light to take every little issue to court.
Lovely. What a wonderful use of government staff time - chasing down details for opposing lawyers in endless lawsuits and counter-suits.
null sig
Here are some claims in the bill submitted by Sen. Hollings et. al. that could potentially be affected by this law (the interesting ones in bold):
The Congress finds:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programming and content owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet. [OK, this is probably true since it does not mention the level of protection.]
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement on the deployment of existing technology in digital media devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on digital broadcast television.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for digital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or satellite.
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes.
(I got the above text from the politechbot page.)
Now, I don't have a clue whether the above document falls under the new law or not. Certainly it makes a number of claims and conclusions without using statistics (except the vague "millions"), so perhaps it would be protected by its ambiguity. But: If it is subject to the new law, then that means that any citizen can challenge the veracity of any phrase in proposed legislation. Big can o' worms! And if it's not subject, then expect even less actual background information in future bills as they are made more and more ambiguous so they do not become subject to the new law.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Look at the government lying about the "tonkin gulf attack" that lead to the nam war.
Actually the Gulf of Tonkin incedent may have been a mistake. As I heard it:
A US ship was cruising around to "show the flag" in the Gulf of Tonkin. Some small fishing boats were nearby. Sonar reported a pair of torpedoes coming at the ship from the direction of the fishing boats. The ship manouvered and was not hit.
The problem is that when a ship makes a turn, sonar reflecting from its wake looks like two torpedoes zeroing in on the ship. The sonar man SHOULD know about this effect and be able to discount it. But giving that they expected a possible attack (indeed, were serving as a shoulder-chip at the time), he might have reported it as a possible and had it blown out of proportion later.
So maybe an honest error. Or maybe a deliberate error. (Or maybe a story I heard that has no relation to fact - things were hectic back then.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
from correct, to being incorrect in the eyes of someone else or vise versa.
Remember that the next time someone decides to tax you because you live on a waste reclemation site. What you don't live on one? Well we can't spare anyone to come and check, so what we say sticks! Don't forget to pay the EPA on the way out.
Om, nomnomnom...
What battiness "libertarianism" produces!
Female Prison Rape in NY
Think about it for a while and it seems that while pro-business groups could abuse it, it would also provide power to other groups to do good things. Envirmental groups wouldn't just sit there and let businesses create false results anyway..
at the end of the day, a business man, having made his profit, will have no further incentive to lie to the public
Except to make further profit.
Will I retire or break 10K?
there is no right to privacy as protected in the Constitution.
An argument along the lines "because the word 'privacy' is not mentioned in the Constitution, the Constitution does not protect privacy" is completely bogus. According to the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In addition, the Fourth Amendment protects "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Actually believe it or not, the elimination of the Trabant alone Germany managed to meet its entire obligations for reductions in sulphur, nitrous oxide, Co etc. emissions. This is none too suprising when you learn that the Trabants output of pollutants were 10 to twenty times higher than those of Western cars, so the Trabants alone created as much of those types of pollution as all the cars in Western Europe put together.
However such anecdotes aside, better fuel efficiency is not just good for the environment, it is good for America. Making SUVs meet the same fuel efficiency standards as other cars would save more oil each year than the entire reserves in ANWR. If finding new oil resources is good for national security then so is conservice those we already have. Making air conditioners meet higher efficiency standards means lower running costs for owners and needing to build fewer power stations. Quite important in states like california where air conditioning is 30% of peak load and Bush affiliated companies like Enron have been gouging the state by manipulating the energy market.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I only said that businesses could abuse it in my first sentence. You'll probably agree that there is a possibility that such a thing could occur. In the second half of the first sentence, I indicated that if the bill becomes law it could be used to correct wrong data by groups other than businesses. Doing so, could have good results. In the second sentence, I merely stated that enviromentalists wouldn't let businesses cheat.
I didn't suggest either side *was* dishonest, only that it is possible to be dishonest. You're jumping to conclusions.
The American flag has thirteen stripes, not twelve.
Yes it's off-topic, but it's informative, too.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Yeah okay, so I didn't really vote for Bush.
In that case...
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
But, the article only mentions provisions for taking data out of public view, not for correcting it.
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
I'll bite on this troll.
Relatively current records show a trend of rising carbon dioxide levels. Geological trends paint a more worrisome picture. Going back several hundred thousand years, periods of major glaciation (that's an ice age to you ACs out there) were preceded by measureable increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
It turns out the Earth reacts to high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere first by heating up (the so-called greenhouse effect). Higher air temperatures aren't interesting, what's interesting is what happens when higher water temperatures alter the flow of the oceans' currents. You see, the oceans have an enormous mechanism for exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen. Ocean currents flow away from the equator, warm water on the surface. As the water nears cooler climates near the poles, it cools and surface content sinks, including carbon dioxide in solution. That carbon dioxide becomes rich food for underwater vegetation, which of course produce oxygen. The water heats up (due to thermal vents in the ocean floor, for example) and rises, releasing oxygen.
Things get nasty when this falls out of balance, however. When water is warmer, it stays on the surface longer, traveling further north, or further south, encroaching on the poles. Eventually, this warm surface water starts to melt off ice at the poles. Not all of the ice melts, some of it begins to migrate. This starts to happen at an increasing rate. Now colder and colder water (and thus colder air temps. and precipitation) make their way toward the poles. Major glaciation, or, an ice age.
OK, that's nice, you say. But so what, there've been ice ages before. Pollution being a factor in this vast mechanism is all B.S. right?
Well... If you follow that second link, you'll see that studies, right here on Earth, show that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are significantly higher than they've been in the last 420,000 years. Do a Google search and you'll find studies showing that this peak begins it's upward curve beyond the median back in the 1700s.
Humans affect the environment. Period.
Female Prison Rape in NY
No, seriously. There is, at the moment, a lot of bad data being used by the goverment. Often it was originally thought to be correct, but then the scientists realized they'd made an error or a mistake, or hadn't taken something into account, and they changed their minds. It happens a lot, and is the corner stone of the scientific process.
Goverment, however, (especially big ones like ours) don't change to well. The US is *STILL* using some enviromental models that turned out to be less accurate than a table of random numbers. The rest of the world has moved on, and the IPCC's new models are pretty good, but the US hasn't, which means it's worrying about the wrong things in the wrong places. This is bad. If you live near a river than flooded a lot, and the goverment could afford to build ONE dyke, wouldn't you want to make sure they built it on the correct river?
Yes, people will try and abuse the act, and some will even suceed, but you can then turn around and challenge the NEW data. At the moment any lobyist who suceeds in getting bad data entered into the record has won.
Or maybe _some_ states have stricter emissions standards than others. For example, California (and Texas, IIRC) require smog tests, and California has _very_ strict emissions standards for new cars. Given that these states represent a large market, car companies design for the standards. But other states, like Indiana aren't nearly so progressive in this area.