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."

Comments

Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...

[jeffb (2.718)]

While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.

Re:Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...

[zappepcs]

And it's a shame that transparency and accountability have to be mandated by law. This is the one step forward.... wait for the two steps back.

Re:Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...

[c 0xFF]

You'd think that transparency and accountability would naturally fall out of a democracy: voters should want to know as much as possible about the candidates so as to cast the right vote.

Unfortunately, the opposite happens: voters don't care enough to demand openness, so the politicians try to keep anything damaging (and more) a secret. That's why this has to be mandated.

Re:Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"...

[david_thornley]

Also, remember that private schools can accept whomever they want, while public schools have to take anybody. This makes private schools more economical in several respects. For example, they can keep enrollment steady, while the public school system has to be able to accomodate growing and shrinking enrollment. Private schools don't have to take students with expensive problems.

Moreover, I don't know where you live, but $3K/student/year doesn't sound like the private schools around here. If there are such in your area, I'd suspect they have other sources of funding. Many private schools are associated with churches, and get some sort of assistance from them.

Re:One place where they could mess up...

[mcgrew]

HTML would be logical, so it'll probably be PDF; governments seem to love PDF, not realizing that it's meant for printing, not reading.

Hard not to like this

[Improv]

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.

Re:Hard not to like this

[QuantumRiff]

Did you not hear about the amendment that Al Franken proposed a few months ago? After the big public relations nightmare that happened, he introduced a bill to not allow contracts with companies that force employees into arbitration, giving up their rights to the courts in case of Rape. A whole bunch of the Minority party was against it.

Re:"Compel" with exceptions and "limited" rights?

[Improv]

All rights are limited and nuanced. Society is not (and should not be) math-y -- the real world is too complex and demands too much comprimise for logicians to be satisfied :)

Executive Branch Only?

[TheNinjaroach]

It's a great idea but I find it a bit funny that the legislative branch is not included in this bill.

Executive Branch Only? Who cares?

[stoicfaux]

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.

Healthcare debate fiasco COULD have been avoided:

[Cornwallis]

if this had been in effect.

Cough-cough, cough-cough, cough-cough...

Why Just Executive?

[anorlunda]

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.

Re:Why Just Executive?

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Congress does often exempt itself; part of the argument, no doubt is "we're the elected representatives of the people and so must be free to conduct their business without hindrance. I guess there is some Constitutional validity to that; but I'd guess the real reason is they are afraid of what would happen if people really knew what went on and there was a paper trail to hold them to there actions. That's why they do votes that don't require recording actual votes (no one can prove how you voted); allow remarks to be amended and extended in the record; etc.

I don't think they all are bad or evil; and I'd bet many would like more transparency, but the realities of the political process makes them afraid of anything that may show up in an attack ad. Of course, if voters had some spine as well and voted for politicians that would take a stand, even if it is unpopular, because they believed it was the right thing for the country; then we'd get a better government.

As much as people like to lambaste the late Ted Kennedy; at least he was willing to work for things he believed in and work across the aisle to accomplish goals. When Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy can not only work together, but maintain a civil and apparently friendly relationship, you get a government that works. That was the model of Nunn, Goldwater, Jackson, et. al. Goldwater's autobiography is an interesting insight into Washington politics written by someone who clearly understood there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. Of course, in the end the right disowned him because he dared to disagree with some of their cherished truths. When we're reduced to name calling and insults we might as well be back in elementary school.

In the end, we get the government we deserve.

Re:One place where they could mess up...

[jank1887]

Aren't most printed documents meant for reading?

Generating a (generally) fixed representation document in electronic format that matches almost exactly what will be printed, still preserves searchable text, and uses an Open Standard is now a problem?

The Federal government is almost exclusively Microsoft office product dominated. Should publishing the .doc file be preferable? or MS's 'save as HTML' format? I believe Google has adequately demonstrated that PDF is easily searchable/indexable. Conversion software is free. (Ghostscript/viewer is installed by default on many government PC's). I'd say, stick with it.

Re:One place where they could mess up...

[BergZ]

Yes, some PDFs are unsearchable, but the PDF (which Limbaugh was specifically talking about) wasn't one of them. Limbaugh was in error. I posted the direct quote of Limbaugh from Media Matters, because: (1) I know some people don't like MM, so that you wouldn't have to click the link. (2) It was the first result from google. I'm lazy. You're free to google the quote for another source if you care that much. I think I've done everything I possibly can to reasonably accommodate your sensitivities.

ALL information to be published online.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Yes sir, all relevant information to be published online.

With regards to "Yes Minister".

Re:Executive Branch Only? Who cares?

[Late Adopter]

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.

Re:How about congress?

[SWPadnos]

Well yes, that's the point.

It would be better to ban lobbying outright.

A distant second place, and actually better in some ways, is to make public EVERY WORD that lobbyists and elected officials exchange.

I realize that this would affect both supposedly "bad" and supposedly "good" lobbyists equally, and that's just fine with me. Neither should have the opportunity to influence our policymakers the way they do now.