Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Require Public Information To Be Online
Andurin writes "A bill that was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week would require all Executive Branch agencies to publish public information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats. The Public Online Information Act would also establish an advisory committee to help craft Internet publication policies for the entire US government, including Congress and the Supreme Court. Citizens would have a limited, private right of action to compel the government to release public information online, though common sense exceptions (similar to those for FOIA) would remain in place."
While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.
I wonder how loosely defined public information will be for this? Meanwhile what's the use with foia exemptions?
user-friendly formats
What is considered user friendly?
Word docs (but then you'll get docs with options such that only MS Word can read ?)
text ?
PDF ?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile. It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
It's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
I don't know that we have such a law in Ireland despite a *lot* of online information. Some Irish examples:
Irish Statute Book: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/
Oireachtas (Houses of Parliament): http://www.oireachtas.ie/ (including all past parliamentary debates)
Citizens Information: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/
All very useful for both everyday use (particularly the latter) and political research (although it would seem our journalists aren't that interested in searching the parliamentary debates to dredge up interesting material - there's a *lot* there but it doesn't appear in the media!)
I can see how the proposed US legislation if properly implemented might help (but might be completely unworkable). In the Irish case, those three websites are the tip of the iceberg as there are a plethora of official sites (even if for example citizensinformation collates and presents much of the pertinent information in one place). Most or all government departments for a start have their own sites. For a lot of government services, people have to act through their local county council - each of these has its own website (some are very proper and comprehensive, others are less so).
Examples of the 36 or so council websites (you might check these e.g. for waste/recycling facilities, contact details for water or local road problems):
Dublin City: http://www.dublincitycouncil.ie/
Cork City: http://www.corkcity.ie/
County Cork (rural south): http://www.corkcoco.ie/
County Mayo (rural west): http://www.mayococo.ie/
County Meath (Dublin commuter/eastern): http://www.meath.ie/
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
...anything we decide we don't want to let you know about.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
What exactly is going to be disclosed that isn't already being disclosed? Personally, I'm more interested in what Congress (and the lobbyists) are doing than I am in the President, since the Legislative is the branch that actually creates laws.
if this had been in effect.
Cough-cough, cough-cough, cough-cough...
Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government?
I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.
How about emails? Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.
I'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule. Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.
The judicial branch may have better arguments for secrecy, but even there the default rule ought to be openness. Let them argue case by case to exempt different classes of records.
All three branches would argue that public disclosure puts a chilling effect on honest deliberations. True, but all three branches need to deliberate to make decisions. Again, there's no reason to give different treatment to any of the branches.
You want basically the original format whenever reasonable because conversion requirements will reduce throughput.
A government document was usually designed for printing, making PDF the logical choice. If we're talking raw data, then xml, mysql, etc. are all more appropriate. HTML would be reasonable when we're talking documents presented on internal intranets or such.
Imagine a word discussion document circulates through email with various parties making modifications wiki-style, but then a final procedure alters the document considerably. If an outside group ask for access to the internal discussion document, they should receive an html document, not the word file. A PDF is inappropriate here because the discussion document was never seriously organized for printing.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
User friendly formats... pfft, they probably have a loophole to that and will put them in .pdf format :P.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
PDF seems to be the format of choice for this sort of thing. Indeed, in addition the Adobe's own reader, free ones like kpdf exist too and, for some reason, politicians care to preserve the exact formatting of the pages. (Yes, I know, lawyers need that, but they could — and do — just as easily refer to the sections and paragraphs...)
But the format could be perfectly evil by, for example, prohibiting printing of the viewed document... For example, the New Jersey Fire Prevention Code are deliberately non-printable — and even kpdf obeys that restriction (you can still print it by running it through pdf2ps first, but try to teach your mother that).
On top of that, it is also too easy to just scan a printed page into a PDF — as a monolithic (and thus not searchable) bitmap.
Is the law being discussed smart enough to address these two problems? I don't think so...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As someone who works in (local) government, those exceptions are a really good idea. We have a lot of information about the public... That is you.... Technically, most all of it is public record. But we've deliberately not put much of it online, as it would be gold mine for identity theft. You can still come in and ask for it, but letting some Chinese hacker download the whole thing is _not_ a good idea.
They should make a law that requires transcripts of all discussions with lobbyists to be published.
And define a lobbyist as "anyone who claims to represent the opinions of anyone else".
- The Sigless Wonder
That sounds like a nasty cough.
You should see a doctor.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
There is actually a lot of public information "on-line", but it is rendered almost useless because many .gov websites ban spiders from crawling through them and Google (and I assume others) obey this ban. I have actually found some information that was very valuable to me, but only because I found and followed the right links. These pages on a public website under the .gov tld were never indexed and could not be found easily as a result.
I would suggest that the law require that spiders not be banned from open public sites, otherwise it is a sham. I would also suggest that Google considers who really owns the information on .gov sites and considers programming its spiders to not obey such a bogus instruction.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Gates or Clinton?
Or (Heaven forfend) O'Reilly?
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
This mandate will likely result in little of value for the tax payers because it is a general mandate, not a specific one. Most of us here know what happens when you do that with a software project. Government is not only no different, but is often worse. What is truly needed is targeted transparency. For example, all Inspector General reports should be posted online unless their publication, **in the opinion of the IG, not agency** presents a clear and present threat to national security or danger to the lives of government employees, private citizens or property. All government contracts should be posted online where possible. All competing offers as well.
Yeah, there are still a few politicians left whose dislike of mandated increases in federal government spending arises from principle rather than some party line.
What fiasco? The Public Option was removed and a compromise was reached on the Abortion aspects. Sounds to me like the system worked as intended...
Yes sir, all relevant information to be published online.
With regards to "Yes Minister".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Anything that makes anyone look bad should be on top of the pile! After all, isn't it the point that Citizens should be looking to remove the "bad" from government as much as possible? Hiding something just because it may offend some and galvanize others is no way to keep the wheels of government clean.
Shh.
You're not interested in what Medicare is doing? NASA? The VA? FEMA?
The executive branch is the one that actually spends this country's money (for the most part). It would be nice to see how they're doing what Congress funded them to do.
Although I am almost rabid about the freedom of the public to know all things I wonder if anyone has estimated the costs involved in making all of the mentioned material available in digital form. It might eat up an awful lot of tax dollars.
How about the House of Representatives (and the Senate, for that matter) propose a constitutional amendment like the following:
Any member of the U.S. House or Senate, any standing President and any federal appointee, or civilian worker) that violates their oath of office (House and Senate "... support and defend the Constitution...", President "... protect and defend the Constitution...", etc.) be charged with treason and prosecuted the the U.S. Federal court system. Upon conviction, for House and Senate members, they are removed from office, jailed for a period of at least five years but not more than ten, fined 10 times the amount of tax payer money they have been paid since their offense, and prohibited from ever serving in the U.S. government in any capacity whatsoever (cannot be elected to any Federal office, cannot be appointed to any position, cannot be hired to work in any capacity in the Federal government).
And, any U.S. House or Senate member, Presidential staff member, or other federal appointee or civilian that *failed* to report the violation of the oath of office, shall be subject to the same exact penalties.
What fiasco? The Public Option was removed and a compromise was reached on the Abortion aspects. Sounds to me like the system worked as intended...
LOL!!!
in three months or so eh?
All this stuff was online and accurate information was all over the place. The problem was certain groups and companies spreading falsehoods about it (death panels?) and people being too stupid to recognize cynical lies.
Had the fiasco been about the bill, it wouldn't have been about "yous gonna kill my gramma!" and the demise of America into simultaneously Nazi Germany *and* Russia.
In other words, the problem is not the lack of information. It's the fact that people hear what they want to hear, or otherwise get sucked in by propaganda, and refuse to have their minds changed even though the facts are readily available.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
While I'm all in favor of transparency in government, I hope this doesn't lead situations similar to what is going on in my local. The county government here posts all tax information related to peoples homes online. This includes the current assessment, owners names, price paid, etc. And while it's all nice that this is available online, it has become the source of junkmail, and datamining by companies looking for folks fitting certain demographics. Fortunately, the county finally saw the light, and allowed us citizens to opt out of having our names posted, and replacing them with "Name Withheld by Request". So, now I get junk mail addressed like that.
Just another day in Paradise
Yes, the system worked as intended. It lined the pockets of major corporations, and allowed politicians to pander to their base.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Another fucking clown rushing to spew another idiotic comment to whore karma instead of actually making this site a place for grownups to discuss ideas.
So it will be there, just like a bunch of other stuff people whined was undocumented by Microsoft. You just won't be able to find what you want. Bureaucrats rejoice! You're still safe.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
When the decisions were made about what government-owned information should be publically available, even telephones didn't exist.
This meant that, if you wanted local information on who ownes what plot of land, what leinholder holds interest in it, and what the tax rate is, it wasn't all that easy to get. You had to travel to the town, pay a clerk a document fee, and wait while they go find the record and copy it for you. This was very time- and effort-intensive, as well as somewhat expensive if you want more than a few records.
Now that everything's online, shady mortgage brokers can find out the assessed value of your house, as well as the fact that you own it. People can (unless you're the president) look up your birth certificate and find out where and when you were born. All of this and more is available online, to automated bulk requests.
Privacy is suffering in a way never intended. The information is supposed to be available, but not simple to access.
I saw that eh on the end. Nice try Canuck!
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Tell me where I can send my child for $ 3,000.00 per year to a private school? You must be on crack!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Medicare does not process reimbursement through the IRS. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever heard of DMERC's? They are in fact, commercial entities that have the contract to process claims and provide reimbursement on behalf of Medicare Part B. Medicare Part A has a similar set-up (though I can't recall the term right now). I'm most familiar with Part B (having spent a number of years creating Medical Billing Software for the DME /HME industry which is Primarily Medicare Part B).
Medicare does not need an actuarial process? They don't deny you or make you pay more based upon your risk. They pay what the market will accept. Any physician or hospital who is not happy with the rates Medicare reimburses is free not to accept Medicare patients. It's funny, but, none that I know of do so.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Well, you know I'd like to, but over here in Italy the doctors aren't at the hospital because they are paying the security guards to punch their time cards for them while they do something else. Socialized medicine, it can happen to you too now.
You are correct. I misread. My apologies. I would say, though, that having billing/collections done by the IRS is not a big saving administratively. I highly doubt, that an Insurance company has anything like a significant billing and collections department. Who do they need to collect from? The customer pays for their insurance or their policy is cancelled, no collections involved. It is the providers that bill the payers that have to have significant collections departments in order to deal with all the delays and administrative denials from the payers. The payers biggest administrative overhead is payments, to providers, and sales. Now, as far as an actuarial process is concerned, I would disagree that such a process is needed under a single payer system. A process to determine efficacy of treatment and to determine the average costs based upon average health and average cost of treatment for average healtcare needs. Now, you may call this an actuarial process, and it may in fact technically be so, but, it is not the kind of actuarial process commercial insurances run. Also, at the end of the day, the actuarial process is not a significant cost either. It scales without requiring significant number of people (i.e. payroll) to maintain. The big cost is in the management of reimbursement, authorization/pre-authorization, and claims processing. All of these things are the exact things that Medi-Care must handle. So, though I agree I responded incorrectly to your original post, I thin the point still stands. Saying Medicare is so cheap because the IRS handles billing/collections is a non-starter.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
All email, phone conversations, meetings with lobbyists, and any other interaction by/with any government official in any capacity that is not classified as National Security, should be logged, recorded, and made public immediately. Government officials should have ZERO expectation of privacy, and indeed should have zero privacy at all while acting in an official capacity.
The People should be able to log into their congressperson's website on Monday and listen to every phone call that was made the day before, read every email sent or received, view all faxes, and watch every meeting. The technology exists, and it should be done... ... not that it ever will. The People have the Right to know everything their government does.
While the bill stops explicit charging in future data provided to the public, it allows any existing "pay walls" to keep the public from _freely_ accessing the information over the internet to remain in place. It will be interesting to see how many future cases will be _*claimed*_ to have been covered by prior "paywalls" (fees, cost recovery, licensing for maintenance...etc...) agreements _if_ this law passes...
IT certainly would never pass under a Republican administration or if the Republicans have their way, as they have, especially in the Bush era, shown a propensity toward "privatizing" all of these information sources in order to make the government "self-sustaining" -- i.e. affordable only to those who can afford to pay.
It's a very different mindset -- government, and its services, only for those who can pay for those services, vs. a government for all of the people. It's said those ideals weren't further established into explicit constitutional protections before "fiscal conservatives" decided that government should strive for being a "for-profit" business.
This is called the Right to Information Act , 2005, in India and is more powerful than the one being introduced in the US.
NASA already puts up tons of pretty pictures under the public domain. What more do you want? Itemized billing for all of the missions etc. dating back to Apollo 11?
$ make available
I don't know aboot that...
$ make available
It still has the individual mandate. Without the Public Option, the mandate is worse than nothing since the health insurance firms now have a captive audience.
$ make available