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.
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.
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.
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+
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.