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.
I don't see that the privatization of government services is necessarily a "dark side". If the services can be delivered more effectively and efficiently by private organizations then they should be. 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.
Nullius in verba
It has come to our attention some people out there have taken to learning things, which puts the stupid and the lazy at a severe disadvantage. We need to regulate this now, to make sure that everyone in this country is equally misinformed and ignorant!
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Dark Gravity, Dark Holes, Dark Data, where will it end?...
Table-ized A.I.
Lore
"You can’t control what idiots will weaponize."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/jon-stewart-rosewater-in-conversation.html
What the ever living fuck? Did the author think this through? Don't have the ability and skill to fix your broken toilet?! Just cry disadvantage!
The author of this article has obviously never worked with open data or knows anybody who has. There are an incredible number of benefits to having access to open data. For example, groups like Chicago's Open Gov Hack Night have done some pretty amazing things: http://opencityapps.org/
FUD.
The government can do a lot of things more efficiently because they can leverage economy of scale and there aren't CEOs and shareholders colluding to skim a lot of profit away from the venture. It's the same reason people have been banding together to do things ever since we came down out of the trees. The only thing that is required is sensible oversight, which admittedly is lacking these days. But that's not an unfixable problem. Try getting any kind of oversight of MegaCorp.
Yes, but think of the fun you can have asking him questions that exposes him for the fake that he is. It's not good for popularity, but there are few things that have more nerd pleasure than making pretenders squirm in their seats using knowledge and logic. Mass endorphins to the Asperger Lobe.
Table-ized A.I.
Seeing what exactly? Most of the health providers are private companies. O-care just ensures everybody pays into the system and that the providers correctly provide at least a minimum standard levels of service. If you wish to privatize parts of this mix, what parts would it be?
Table-ized A.I.
We're supposed to be "afraid" that government services might be made to cost less?
Now there MAY be a FEW services where privatizing them are an issue. But we can discuss those on a case-by-case basis. For the bulk of them, why should the government even be involved?
There's an easy way to draw this line - economists speak of "public goods" - which has a special meaning in economics that's not what a layman might guess it would be, and that is goods that markets can never provide because the economics of producing them is incompatible with markets.
The trick, usually, is that most arguments for most things as "public goods" are missing essential insights or intellectual rigor.
But at least there's a framework for working at the problem.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Are you kidding? The government is getting half my pay each year and they do not leverage anything. They are employing a lot of people which have almost zero incentive to improve anything. Whatever happen, they will get paid and they will get their retirement allowance and pension which is above what most people in private sector can dream to have when time of retirement will come. The inefficiencies of the governments are costing manifold the profit CEOs and shareholders are pumping from the private ventures. You are living on another planet.
Achille Talon
Hop!
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.
do you have public roads, schools, hospitals, utilties? Then you are getting a return. Airports? Mass transit? Either the country you are living in is horribly dysfunctional (e.g. Nigeria) or you are sadly mistaken.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
9) Still thinking he's an "engineer", he applies for the C++ programming positions I have open at my company, without actually even listing C++ on his resume.
10) I have to waste a few precious seconds of my time throwing his shitty resume into the trash
If your time was precious, your company would hire a low-cost HR drone who could filter out resume with no C++ experience for a C++ programming position.
But already since you use C++ there's a case to be made that time is worth nothing in your company.
lucm, indeed.
educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
then speak
i do not respect you. do you respect antivaxxers? creationists? climate change deniers? 9/11 truthers?
we are talking about low iq, delusional, and mentally deficient people who believe these things. attacking your mental capacity if you believe in things like this, and things like free market fundamentalism, is not an ad hominem attack. it is actually an objective description of your mental capacity, as derived from the demonstrated use of your mental faculties, to arrive at horribly ignorant beliefs
a moron is a person of limited mental faculties. objectively correct. a moron believes in ignorant things easily demonstrated false. objectively correct. therefore, you are indeed, a moron, objectively speaking, not a baseless insult, if you are a free market fundamentalist (or antivaxxer or climate change denier etc.)
that certain politicians and plutocrats "respect you" and give your ignorance air time and exposure is simply these people noting the utility of "useful fools" to advance an agenda which only benefits them, at the expense of the rest of us
free market fundamentalism *does not work*. it is plutocrat propaganda. and since reagan you ignorants lap it up and believe it. because it is a simpleton's idea and you have a simplistic mind. again, not a baseless insult, an objectively correct statement as you have demonstrated by your own statements
here's some proof from a few hours ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
many news organization will engage in false balance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Lets reduce his argument to it's core:
Non insiders might be allowed to use retorical tactics that had been exclusively reserved for insiders, and insiders will no longer be able to use the old "we have data you dont" line of reasoning to avoid debate.
Lets also remember that forbes editorial line is generally pro-privatization so it's kind of odd they would use the line that "open data" is good for outsourcing unless they are just trying to find a argument their political oppoents might buy, rather then a genuine concern.
Sure the date will be used by every group under the sun to give the appearance that their belief based statistics have data behind it, and some groups might use it to make an argument but it is an known cavear emptor of democracy that the public might be misled by charlatans and demagogues.
Looking at reality again data analysis is not the exclusive domain of the neo-mercantist and faux-liberatrain movements who tend to be incredible bad at it, but tend to be used just as effective among the proponents of government spending as among the opponents.
>. the potentially darker sides of open data â" from creating a new kind of digital divide to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services.
If you choose to get a service from the provider you select, that's choice. If the government, in cooperation with their intelligence services, forces you to get the service, and get it from them, that force.
Force is necessarily ALWAYS better than choice. That's canon to the American left.
I would get the government out of healthcare entirely. Their 50 year intervention has created an absolute disaster of exploding costs, lack of competition and stagnation of quality. Millions unable to afford even the most basic services, the working uninsured being billed at exorbitant levels to subsidize government programs, etc. etc.
If by "the system" you mean private insurance companies, then you're right. Forcing us to buy their products and entrenching a middle man that adds little value to the system.
Going through health insurance companies for a routine service such as an annual physical is like going through an auto insurance company for an oil change.
Competition and innovation are what drive down prices and increase quality. Governments never do.
I think the automobile model is appropriate. Most services should be purchased directly by the customer from the provider with complete price transparency in a competitive marketplace. Insurance should only come into play only for catastrophic problems. Having a middle man, be it government or insurance companies, involved in every single transaction is a ridiculous model.
No. Automobile performance is relatively easy to measure. Medical service is not because there are gajillion different types of treatment. If your brain surgery goes awry, you are too feeble to sue. And it's difficult to shop around when in pain. Plus, much about cars is regulated, such as safety.
If a product or service grows beyond a certain complexity, and/or the down-sides are long-term, then the consumer is often ill-equipped to make good decisions. Each individual is re-inventing trial-and-error lessons, which is poor factoring of knowledge, and therefore economically inefficient. There's no "reuse".
And quality evaluation companies have proven bribe-able or manipulate-able when their statements affect enough sales. For example, if bribed enough, they may be encouraged to skip evaluating a shady product altogether, and its legal.
The US has had poor service relative to other countries. They only thing the US did better on was cutting edge research, but the benefits of those often went to the well-to-do.
Table-ized A.I.
Your turn now. "Natural monopoly" is a myth.
So, you will be yelling names and bona-fide obscenities at me until I agree with you? What a charming and persuasive way to win friends and influence people.
I think, we are done here. Thank you.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
seriously, just dealing with a creationist
"natural monopoly is a myth!" DROOL SNORT
all i can think of is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
that's the same level of intellect i am dealing with with such an ignorant low iq comment
you can't deny basic fucking reality and still think you get respect. you're a DUMB PERSON, who believes DUMB THINGS
why aren't there hospitals on every street corner? why don't we all build our own gigawatt power plants in our backyards? why don't we all start our own private police forces?
i'm going to build my own bridge over the river!
because natural monopoly is a myth!
there is no such thing as *high cost barrier to entry with low chance of return on investment*!
it's a librul statist myth! just climate change!
free market fairy, peace be unto you. everything you touch works with magic, no fucking actual thought or intelligence or logic or reason required
seriously dealing with you knuckle dragging free market fundamentalist morons is just like dealing with a creationist or ufo cultist. ignorant unsupported faith and belief instead of actual intelligence and education on a topic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yep. You convinced me. One of us is a loud toxic moron...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I DON'T RESPECT YOU
you and you fucking ignorant douchebags are nothing but useful fools for plutocrats interests in this country
the sum total of your ignorant beliefs is to put money in the pockets of a few already super rich rent seeking parasites at the expense of the rest of us
you free market fundamentalists are dangerous ignorant toxic pieces of shit
you believe ignorant, uneducated, obviously wrong crap like a creationist or an antivaxxer
and like an antivaxxer spreads disease
and a creationist hurts children's education
the sum total of your stupid low iq shit stained LIES is the damaging of our economy and the middle class
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In many cases the money should never have been spent. Selling it to someone who knows how to run it is the only way to stop the bleeding. The ratio of spending to price should tell you just how bad at this government is.
We don't really care what you 'want'. We also don't care that some want to hide the data about how bad the government is at some things.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'