Slashdot Mirror
Does Open Data Have a Dark Side?
itwbennett writes A Forbes article last month explored some of the potentially darker sides of open data — from creating a new kind of digital divide to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services. But how real are these downsides of open data? The World Wide Web Foundation's Open Data Program Manager Jose Alonso is unconcerned, telling ITworld's Phil Johnson via email that the WWWF "believes there is no substantial evidence yet that the availability of Open Data leads to the marketization of public services or public spending cuts." But Ben Wellington, a professor in the City & Regional Planning program at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, New York and author of the popular blog I Quant NY, takes a more cautious stance, acknowledging that there are some real concerns that may call for regulation. But, at least for now, "there's a lot more innovation and positive things coming out than these corner cases," says Wellington.
My only problem is with those that would campaign for privatization when there is good evidence to suggest things will be worse as a consequence just because they are anti-government.
And within that one tiny sentence is encapsulated decades of economically ignorant hot air. Thank you.
There exists a class of loud, toxic morons in the USA that actually believes everything should be privatized, and they are either 1. stupid, they honestly can't see how this makes some services worse (roads, police, broadband, healthcare, etc.), or 2. evil, they do know it will make things worse, but they want to profit unfairly off of our misery as entrenched rent seeking parasites (while talking in dishonesty about "capitalism" when there is no competition and there can be none due to natural barriers to entry).
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here is a summary of what should have been said. "Any system implemented poorly has the potential for abuse." That is all that needed to be stated.
What I read in TFA are three separate straw man arguments.
1. Critics of the government can use open data to make a case for cuts in government spending on public services, potentially leading to the privatization of such services and related assets.
No kidding? You mean if we see where our money is being wasted we may have a voice and speak out about it? Demand that a half dozen employees from GSA get terminated for having a million dollar Vegas party with a few buddies? We see that our military spending in foreign countries is an amazing amount of money and we demand that we either receive money from the countries we are protecting or pull out?
This is exactly the reason we should have open data. It's called accountability, and every citizen living in a country is expected to be accountable.. unless of course you are in a Government position right?
2. Private companies and individuals can leverage open data for their own benefit, to the detriment of others.
If the data released to the public is not scrubbed of personal data of course there is risk. We have the same exact risk today because for some idiotic reason people decided that things like Employee IDs should be the same as your SSN. Sloppy practices are a bad idea, open data just means that we better have some eyes making sure that what gets published is clean.
3. Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.
This one is completely baseless, and in fact I'd argue the complete opposite of reality (shocking, I know). Companies right now are making money hand over fist by paying for data. If it becomes public, even small entrants can play.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Privatization is just a code word for handing a monopoly over to the private sector, sometimes with deadly results such as the water riots. I see it as brining the Spoils System back in in a sneaky sort of way.
Not also that taxpayers who often invested in infrastructure for decades are never given any ROI like stockholders would. The companies often get a huge amount of goods or infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+