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.

Comments

Eyeballs

[valentyn]

Given enough eyeballs, all your documents are shallow.

Change or Delete the Data?

[Angry Toad]

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...

Re:Change or Delete the Data?

[guran]

Take it easy.

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...

Logical extension of libel

[cperciva]

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.

Sadly, it doesn't really matter.

[Latent IT]

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.

Re:Sadly, it doesn't really matter.

[Clemence]

"After all, those surgeon general warnings are technically government data. . . .and I'm in government service, sorry to say."

I concur in your regret that you're in government service.

First, the Surgeon General's Warning is most certainly NOT government data under the Data Quality law. It is a legally mandated regulatory statement, like the VIN number of your car or the safety warnings on your airbags. There is absolutely no way anyone could challenge those mandates under the Data Quality law, or the OMB Guidelines or Agency Procedures issued in the Federal Register to implement it. To change this a party would need to change Federal laws and regulations, not challenge data.

Everyone is ranting generally about these challenges. The law and the OMB Guidelines and agency procedures will require more than a mere challenge. A request to correct or remove data must be accompanied by a specific explanation of the basis for the challenge and proof that the challenge is legitimate. In other words, a challenger must prove not only that the gov't is wrong, but that s/he is right.

Second, merely stamping a document as "DRAFT" does not automatically exempt it from FOIA. To paraphrase "A whole hell of a lot of court cases have been won and lost" through government folks applying such a simplistic understanding of the FOIA. To be exempt from disclosure, the document generally must be exempt from discovery in litigation - there must be a privilege such as attorney work product, attorney-client privilege or deliberative process privilege. Also, the document must be both "pre-decisional" and "deliberative." This often includes drafts, but not because some functionary simply stamped the document "DRAFT." No wonder no one has faith in the FOIA anymore.

More important, just because a document is exempt doesn't mean it's not "FOIA-able." The FOIA is a *disclosure* law, not a *secrecy* law (i.e. the Privacy Act or the Bank Secrecy Act) - it is intended to encourage disclosure by leaving to the agency's discretion whether to apply the available exemptions. Request whatever you want, the agency is not required to assert an exemption and it is often in the agency's interest to release drafts at some point. LatentIT's agency's practice undermines confidence in the gov't and the FOIA because it is failing to actually consider whether any given document should be disclosed and avoiding the trouble by reflexively stamping it "DRAFT" - that's lazy government at work.

I share many reader's frustration with lawyers and with the government, but being a lawyer and having some small experience with government service, I also know that much of that frustration stems from ill-informed judgments of what lawyers do and how the law works (and is supposed to work). IMHO it is *always* more effective to gripe about the law and the government based on actually reading the law and the procedures rather than react to the media's characterization . . .

For the OMB Data Quality Guidelines:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg /iqg_draft_gu idelines.pdf
BTW - the comment period is open through July, make all this back and forth worthwhile - read the proposal and submit some comments "this is exactly what *should* happen."

For good FOIA information:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/

+1 Ontopic on the MQR standard

[MarkusQ]

Given enough eyeballs, all your documents are shallow.

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

Re:Challenge it all

[00_NOP]

The heart of this is democracy in its most purre form.

The problem is that the truth is not democratic. Just because some corporate fat cats - or even every member of the US Senate - finds a fact uncomfortable it does not mean it should be deleted or litagated against.

There are other freedoms at stake here too - the freedom to state the facts, no matter how inconvenient.

Re:Challenge it all

[mumblestheclown]

No, the heart of democracy is not "... challenge the government and make __them/it__ own up ..."

The above implies that "the government" in a democracy is something seperate from "us." What you have described is a closely monitored custodianship that can occur in any policical structure--democracy, communism, monarchy, etc, but is most closely associated with european-style socialist bureaucracies.

If a democracy is rule by the people, then the "most pure form" of democracy would be precisely the opposite--where you could not see the dividing line between "the people" and "the government." There would be no issue of whether you could "challenge the government figures"--it would just be sorta obvious that you could actively participate in any discussion and work on them.

Re:Can We Callanmge the SEC and FAASB?

[Zeinfeld]

No, this will have a major good effect. Right now, the US didn't sign the new greenhouse gas emission reduction treaty. Everyone else agreed to an 8% reduction, yet the US only agreed to 7%. This is a big deal. The EU is now saying that we don't make an adequate effort to protect the environment

You have accepted the Bush admin spin, oh sorry it was the Clinton whitehouse that did spin, the hero of Air Force One on 9/1 does not spin.

The real difference is that the Kyoto treaty mandates an actual reduction of greenhouse gases of 8% for the biggest polluters - which includes the US which is per capita the biggest polluter of all.

What the Bush admin 'committed' to was to reduce greenhouse emissions per unit of economic output by 7%. Why is this different? Well if we lived in the Victorian age when economic output was output of physical stuff the commitment might mean something. The US economy grew by 3-4% each year under Clinton but the actual manufacturing base was almost unchanged, the economic growth comes in industries that do not produce much in the way of greenhouse gases, mainly IT.

So in fact comparing like for like the EU is cutting emissions by 8% while the Bush admin is allow itself to increase them by 30%. So don't be suprised if the EU say that the US is not doing its share.

It will be interesting to see what the car industry does with this act since the recent increase in US steel tarifs will cost them (and consumers who buy cars) hundreds of millions. The data on which the tarif was justified is pretty flimsy, not all of the US steel industry is having dificulties. The mini-mill manufacturers in the US are as competative as the ones in the EU or anywhere and can sell steel to the auto industry for less than anyone because of shipping costs. The uncompetative steel producers are operating the old integrated plants