Slashdot Mirror


Congress Approves Act that Opens US Government Data To the Public; Requires Federal Agencies To Publish 'Non-Sensitive' Info in 'Machine-Readable' Format (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Congress has passed a bill that could make it easier for you to access public data released by the government. The House approved the OPEN Government Data Act on Saturday, while all eyes were on the shutdown, as part of a larger bill to support evidence-based policymaking. It requires that federal agencies must publish any "non-sensitive" info in a "machine-readable" format (essentially in a way that's legible on your smartphone or laptop). The act also insists that agencies appoint a chief data officer to oversee all open data efforts. Having passed the Senate last Wednesday, the bill is next headed to the President's desk.

89 comments

  1. Ok, obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why now? It seems on the face of it to be a common-sense transparency measure, but why is this going through NOW as the government is shut down, what the..? Someone needs to read it carefully, trust nothing, VERIFY.

    I bet there's something slippery in it. There's a reason they're ramming it through right now like this. Good ideas don't require these kind of passages.

    1. Re:Ok, obvious question... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Good point. Can you look it over and get back to us?

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

    2. Re:Ok, obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a token gesture to try to assuage the people. Anything that government agencies don't want to share will be labelled as "sensitive" information regardless of whether it truly qualifies.

  2. Re: Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It was you, wasnt it? You power bottom, you!

  3. 'Machine-Readable' Format by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder if it will also be 'search-able'

    I'd start with space aliens. (because too many results returned on just aliens.)

    1. Re:'Machine-Readable' Format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything will be pusblished as bar codes. :-D

    2. Re:'Machine-Readable' Format by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      [Will it be] 'search-able'...I'd start with space aliens.

      That's odd, it only turns up pics of the President's hair.

    3. Re:'Machine-Readable' Format by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      Its Ada and Lisp time.
      The full computing power of the US government.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. EPA Climate Data by DalM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet. The EPA had massive volumes of data accessible to anyone, and Republican thugs removed it all. Immediately.

    Does this new law require them to put it all back?

    1. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be lawsuits to determine that I bet. Trump's cabinet has been intercepting FOIA requests and stupid shit like that, none of this is legal.

    2. Re:EPA Climate Data by SWPadnos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet. The EPA had massive volumes of data accessible to anyone, and Republican thugs removed it all. Immediately.

      Does this new law require them to put it all back?

      That data is probably too sensitive.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    3. Re:EPA Climate Data by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet, Republicans are getting this passed. Now, if Trump doesn't sign it, then you'll have a gripe.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be lawsuits to determine that no doubt. Trump's cabinet has been intercepting FOIA requests and stupid shit like that, none of this is legal. None of it. Pruitt and Zinke will end up in prison along with the rest.

    5. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The data that was created to make fake models? The data that was used to push the other side agenda and line their pockets?

    6. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump will be in prison before this is effectively law, so yeah.

    7. Re:EPA Climate Data by Kohath · · Score: 0

      ...one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet.

      The ultimate in thuggish violence! The bits were manhandled by ruffians!!!!!

      Did you ever stop to think that this is the kind of false dramatic exaggeration that leads people to question anything related to "climate"? If you're pretending that moving data around is thuggery, then maybe everything you guys say about climate is the same sort of hate-driven hysteria. Maybe only part of it is, but then which part?

    8. Re:EPA Climate Data by DalM · · Score: 1

      I did stop to thing about that. But then I remembered that honesty and integrity is not something they value anyway. They only value their own authority.

      So I figured, whatever. It's not like the facts have been hard to come by. Republicans are going to believe whatever they want anyway.

    9. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll say that that data is no longer available (ie destroyed)

    10. Re:EPA Climate Data by Kohath · · Score: 2

      I did stop to thing about that. But then I remembered that honesty and integrity is not something they value anyway.

      Nor do you, apparently. Too bad for anyone who wants honesty or integrity. Too bad for anyone who wants to have a genuine conversation or anyone who wants to live in peace, without haters threatening them over made up or exaggerated nonsense.

      I don't think you'll be able to hate your way to a healthy climate. Exaggerations and lies don't seem to be effective in dealing with climate issues either.

      If you actually have an objective other than spreading hatred, you're not achieving it.

    11. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there has to be a 'catch' somewhere. there always is when one party appears to do something that is totally out-of-character.. like the multiple efforts (tacked on to a wildlife bill, to the hemp-legalizing farm bill, etc) to deny the full house from even considering legislation to bar u.s. involvement and support of the saudis in yemen.

    12. Re:EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So I figured, whatever. It's not like the facts have been hard to come by. SJW's are going to believe whatever they want anyway.

      Fixed that for you.

    13. Re: EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not out of character. It's to show how ridiculously corrupt our federal government is.

    14. Re:EPA Climate Data by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      And yet, Republicans are getting this passed. Now, if Trump doesn't sign it, then you'll have a gripe.

      I think you only read the first 5 words of the GP's post and then immediately went on a completely unrelated and irrelevant defensive.

      Try and read the post in its entirety, the post was well structured so as to make the post obvious by standing on its own in a separate sentence.

    15. Re: EPA Climate Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just read the law? The full text is appended to the link provided in the story summary. Then you could make an intelligent comment about it, and actually contribute knowledge to the conversation. Instead, you post a comment that says "my side = good, other side = thug, TL;DR, If I ask this question, I will get mod points from people that share my beliefs with minimum effort." Stop making us dumber with your comments, and actually contribute to intelligent public discourse. (Note, I didn't say anything for or against your argument about EPA data, just that you are seriously lazy and not helping.) So next time, instead of "flame on", read the back story, do some research, and actually contribute. Oh, and pass this on the the other thousands of /.ers that do the same thing as you.

  5. Passive-aggressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "OCR" equals "machine readable", right?

  6. Surely a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You expect your 'Fake news is in truth any inconvenient truth' President to pass this?

    I hope someone explains to him what "evidence-based policy" is. He deserves to know why all those Pinocchios keep happening.

    Next there's the senators with their great sky god and their way-out-of-date popular theology...

  7. Re:Tax returns.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll see his returns in a couple weeks, and it will show that he lied repeatedly and probably document his money laundering directly. He's a retarded traitor, you're Putin's dick cozy, faggot.

  8. I see it was near unanimous, very bi-partisan by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I note it was approved almost unanimously.

  9. Re:black people by dcw3 · · Score: 0

    Yellow People

    Chop sticks and tiny dicks

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  10. Machine readable is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Documents should be required to be created in open formats such as Open Document Format, instead of closed formats like the disgusting closed Microsoft XML (.xlsx, etc)

    1. Re: Machine readable is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even closed formats can be parsed, I can't see the difference besides idealism.

    2. Re: Machine readable is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More software choice when the formats are open, instead of being locked into Microcrap.

  11. Chief Data Officer = Mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

    1. Re:Chief Data Officer = Mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDO means he might be educated enough to actually find and operate the light switch on the office wall.

    2. Re:Chief Data Officer = Mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general?

      Or are you thinking of a specific case? :-)

  12. Are you not wondering why right now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans control all 3 branches of Government right now - AND HAVE SHUT IT DOWN OVER BULLSHIT. Yeah be sure to clap them on the back for ramming this through in the middle of the night though, that's good governance.

    1. Re:Are you not wondering why right now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should've just funded the wall. So many politicians previously claimed to want a southern wall, why are they now upset with someone threatening to do it?

    2. Re:Are you not wondering why right now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks a wall solves any real problem is a moron. Not only would it take like 10 years to build, who the fuck knows how much it would ACTUALLY cost... the initial 5 BILLION DOLLARS doesn't do shit, it just breaks ground...

      Only a retard would support the wall if they can't afford to patrol it. Go figure, we have a huge retard in office, he's literally shut down all government functions and cost taxpayers MORE MONEY as the stock market plunges. Morons.

      You will break first, Mueller is kneecapping shortly. Taxes in hand, indictments sealed, grand juries assembled. Trump is fucked, good riddance traitors.

    3. Re:Are you not wondering why right now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks a wall solves any real problem is a moron. Not only would it take like 10 years to build, who the fuck knows how much it would ACTUALLY cost...

      If they can't show on paper using realistic estimates based on the best available information that the wall is worth it, then I'd ditch it.

      When comparing if something is worth it, you have to 1) Justify the deficit spending. 2) Prove that it is a better way to spend money than other possible alternatives. Basically figure out how to give all the possible ways to spend money a return on investment score over time. (It's okay for a government to play 50 years out.)

      As near as I can tell the wall thing is more Trump B.S. A wall isn't going to seriously slow down illegal drugs, nor stop sufficiently determined people who probably arrived another way anyway.

      Requiring all employers to check if your a citizen would likely be a better method to deter illegal immigration. You could also require that goods important must be made with livable working conditions and certain environmental standards, thus putting pressure on improving conditions in origin countries. (I.E. Try to use the market to encourage problems to be fixed at the source.)

      The wall just seems an insane expense for the gain. Hell concrete is horribly expensive. I know, I just poured a basement, and I haven't even poured the floor yet.

      Its also worth noting that the only really purpose of a wall is to deter entry long enough for a drone or something to spot someone and get reinforcements there. Of course we could also just stop being assholes about granting asylum. With a few exceptions, we are all immigrants.

  13. Re:Tax returns.... by Freischutz · · Score: 2

    You'll never see his tax returns because you would see that a) he did nothing illegal, and b) it would point out all the loop holes in the tax code to make everything he did legal that congress refuses to patch because they use them too.

    The biggest problem with useful idiots such as yourself is to think "your guy" is in any way better than "the other guy".

    Firstly, I don't have a 'my guy' I'm a very fair minded person in that I despise all politicians equally regardless of where on the left-right scale they are. I only make a handful of exceptions for a few left and right who proved themselves to be relatively un-scumbaggy (as politicians go). Secondly, the tax loopholes are thoroughly documented and well known to most of the public, that is one of the major reasons that congress' approval rating stands at ~20%. Thirdly, if you think that your biblically prophesied dear leader, a veteran New York real estate developer who's dealt extensively in the countries of the former Soviet Union (which is basically a bag of the most corrupt countries on earth) has never done anything illegal you are dumber than a bag of hammers.

  14. Yours, mine, and his are private by raymorris · · Score: 1

    By law tax returns are confidential - yours, mine, and his.
    Many politicians voluntary choose to release some tax returns many don't. (Similar to how some politicians have a brain, many don't.)

    I agree we can anticipate the house will subpoena them and the OOPS illegally leak them.

    1. Re:Yours, mine, and his are private by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Tax returns can be interesting. Just reading about Santa's, seems the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) considers some of it unusual such as getting paid in cookies and carrots. He also claims the Northern Residents Deduction. Good news is that he's put all the email and phone scammers on the naughty list.
      https://www.ctvnews.ca/politic...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  15. Re:Tax returns.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing illegal about doing legitimate business with Russia or any other country as long as you do not violate any government imposed sanctions. Until Trump was elected he was a private US citizen and under no obligation to only participate in politically correct business ventures. His campaign was also free to communicate with any Russian or other foreign national. The whole "collusion" accusations have no legal foundation because because the government investigators have manipulated the term to turn innocuous communications into some kind of crime. And the collusion investigation has not charged anyone with any crime between the Trump campaign and Russia. And other than Trump being an idiot Russia has not gained one concession from the US. On the contrary Trump has ramped up the economic sanctions, seized Russian real estate across the US, and expelled over a hundred diplomatic staff members from the country. The US has not cooperated with Russia in any of the many international on-going conflicts. On the contrary the US has brushed aside Russia's concerns with ease. The US fired cruise missiles that flew directly over the Russian ships parked beside Syria. When Russia decided to use their state sponsored mercenary group combined with a few natives to launch an offensive towards the US forces in Syria the US killed over 300 of the attackers with air and ground based artillery assets. If Russia wanted Trump to win the election they royally fucked up. Russia is a bit player on the world stage who operate on past glories and skillful propaganda. They have nuclear weapons which cannot be used without destroying themselves. Their conventional forces are a mere shadow of what they were during the Cold War. They also lack the most important tool needed for spreading their influence on the global stage which is money. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. Compared to the US and China Russia is a 3rd world country run the Russian oligarchs who operate like the mafia.

  16. Re:black people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And violent too!

  17. Conspiracy Fodder by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Internal stuff that will make no clear sense without context will be re-construed by trolls, and all heck can brake loose. Workers will be afraid to put anything into concrete form for fear of something being publically spun for trollism or politics. They'll feel pressured to either do everything by voice, or type things very carefully. Either way, it will slow things down, making gov't even MORE inefficient.

    There's the old adage about the law making process being like sausage: it's best you don't see it being made. That applies to other things as well. It's a well-intentioned idea that can backfire.

  18. Headlines are often outright lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet.

    They remodeled the website and moved a few things around, apoplectic headlines aside. Then the newspapers claimed he'd reversed course when it became clear they were never doing what people claimed they were doing.

    That entire story was just Russian propaganda to make us hate each other over nothing.

  19. I can see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be machine-readable....by their machines. Ours, not so much.

  20. Re:Tax returns.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, but we have to overestimate them for propaganda purposes. And in their thousand year war with Europe, who really is the aggressor? I mean, what with Napoleon and Hitler, and who else before them, it would seem their borders are under bigger threat than ours. Americans don't know what it's like to have their worst enemies at their doorstep. Eh, but you never know about those starving Mexicans though, they can carry multiple warheads under their sarapes

  21. Need analytic tools to make sense of the data by DidgetMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of government sites currently publish data that can be easily downloaded, but the average user has trouble making sense of it. For example, the city of Chicago has a website where you can download crime data https://data.cityofchicago.org... for the last 18 years. You can pick from formats like CSV or XML (but they don't have Json yet) to download. Their website visualization tools are getting better, but I wish they were much more flexible.

    I am building an analytic tool that makes it really easy to create relational tables from CSV or Json files and do all kinds of analytics using it. See a quick 4 minute demo video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... to see a few things we can do with that Chicago data. It is just as easy to do similar things against any data you can download. In this instance, trying to load the 6.5 million row table into Excel is not very practical.

    1. Re:Need analytic tools to make sense of the data by kbrannen · · Score: 1

      A lot of government sites currently publish data that can be easily downloaded, but the average user has trouble making sense of it. ... I am building an analytic tool that makes it really easy to create relational tables from CSV or Json files and do all kinds of analytics using it. ... In this instance, trying to load the 6.5 million row table into Excel is not very practical.

      You're contradicting yourself if I take you literally, and considering your project I think I should.

      You state your goal is to create relational tables for data analysis/analytics. Taking data in the form of CSV to load into a *database tables* with relations is pretty normal, I do it all the time as do a lot of others. Then you complain about not being able to load a huge amount of data from a CSV file into Excel. How in the heck do you have relational tables in Excel?

      If you plan to do analysis with large data sets, you don't want Excel anyway, you need a database. The only reason I can see for Excel is because you have a small sample and want to see if your formulas do what you think they do. Even then, I wouldn't bother with Excel and I'd just write the real program and load a small data set that I can easily prove works as I intend.

      Suggestion: Drop Excel, it's the wrong tool for this job. Either that or move into management where they seem to think Excel is the answer for everything. :)

  22. More sensitive information by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    It's going to be amazing how much data is going to be classified as sensitive.

  23. (Un?)intended Consequences by Immerman · · Score: 2

    Nothing like a show of across-the-aisle holiday unity on a straightforward public interest bill right? And we've got a whole bunch of non-traditional new congressfolk incoming, maybe not as loyal to the existing power structures, and looking like they intend to try to shake things up.

    If I'm being cynical, the biggest poison pill that springs to mind, without even looking at the bill, is the straightforward (un?)intended consequences when this bill hits bureaucratic inertia.

    It seems to me like a great way to make the day-to-day bureaucracy encourage secrecy, with no ill-will by anyone making the choice. If you've got a report that needs to be either stamped sensitive and filed away, or published online through the appropriate bureaucratic channels, how much more tempting will it be to just reach for/recommend the stamp? What's the penalty for "accidentally" stamping something that shouldn't have been? For publishing something sensitive? What are the odds of getting caught in either case? It's probably better just to use the stamp, if there's the slightest hint of a doubt.

    And just like that, a vast swath of inconveniently useful data is kept out of the public's hands, firmly beyond the reach of a straightforward FOIA request. All in the name of government transparency.

    Worse, how do you fight that in the court of public opinion? You seriously want to try to get people united behind promoting open government, by repealing the open government act? Think of the soundbites just waiting to be harvested from any representative trying to arguing for that.

    I hope I'm just being too cynical.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  24. Visicalc format by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    All data will be available in Visicalc, dBase II or Wordstar format.

  25. Massachusetts tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Take a good look at how "Open Office XML" got created to duck the Massachusetts legislative mandate to have an actual standard for government electronic documents, and got turned into the biggest standards fraud of this century. The name was selected to confuse people who were consering OpenOffice and its OpenDocument format, It was well analyzed at the time on www.groklaw.net as an abuse of the standards committees and process, and it remains one of the most inconsistent and uneven standards on the planet. It is *nasty*, but lets Microsoft claim "open standards" and erratically violate them at whim to enforce incompatibility with all other versions of all other software, including newer or older versions of their own office suite.

    It doesn't quite rip screaming kittens out of their mother's womb and sacrifice them to PaperClip Bob, but lordie, it's close.

    1. Re:Massachusetts tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm with you, anon.

      For anyone who understands what happened here, it's obvious that this whole Microsoft MOOXML fiasco is one of the most devious, venal frauds ever perpetrated by Microsoft - and that's saying a lot.

      As long as the company continues with its proprietary MOOXML format and doesn't drop it for ODF, it's a complete lie for anyone to pretend that, "Microsoft has changed."

      No. They haven't.

  26. "machine-readable" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "machine-readable" format (essentially in a way that's legible on your smartphone or laptop)

    That isn't what "machine-readable" means.

  27. Financing? Otherwise, it might be an empty order. by Artagel · · Score: 1

    A problem government agencies have had with making data available is the IT cost of distributing it. For the longest time the Patent Office has made patents a pain-in-the-ass to download not because the patents are not public documents, but because they could not handle the demand. So they told the public to go buy them from private companies if they wanted good service.

    If that problem has just been passed on to the entire Federal Government, it is an ineffective command.

  28. Where's the patriotic elephant icon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republican congress is doing this. The Democrat congress back when Nancy Pelosi was running it before and constantly yammering about "openness" never did it. In fact, her "open" House routinely locked the doors to meeting rooms in the Capitol building to prevent the press and the Republicans from seeing what she and her party and the lobbyists were doing. The Republicans have still not been able to see a list of the names of the people who took part in those Obamacare negotiation meetings.

    Obama never did this either.

    Whenever there's a story about some Democrat in DC doing something positive, there's a nice patriotic jackass (and, no, I'm not being a jerk here, read some history - the Democrat mascot is a jackass not a "mule" or a "donkey") icon attached to the story.

  29. Data may become sensitive in aggregate by AntisocialNetworker · · Score: 1

    IMHO it's rather easy to consider some datum non-sensitive that turns out to be sensitive when viewed as part of a group. Certain large web-based service providers make a fortune out of data mining, and once someone spot connections between "non-sensitive" data and some humongous database of definitely-sensitive data, all bets are off.

    1. Re:Data may become sensitive in aggregate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic example, from a military text I read: Vaccination records, when considered singly, are not particularly sensitive (other than to the specific person being vaccinated, obviously). Aggregate and group them, and now you know where a unit is about to be deployed to.

  30. Re:Tax returns.... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    There is nothing illegal about doing legitimate business with Russia or any other country as long as you do not violate any government imposed sanctions. Until Trump was elected he was a private US citizen and under no obligation to only participate in politically correct business ventures. His campaign was also free to communicate with any Russian or other foreign national. The whole "collusion" accusations have no legal foundation because because the government investigators have manipulated the term to turn innocuous communications into some kind of crime. And the collusion investigation has not charged anyone with any crime between the Trump campaign and Russia. And other than Trump being an idiot Russia has not gained one concession from the US. On the contrary Trump has ramped up the economic sanctions, seized Russian real estate across the US, and expelled over a hundred diplomatic staff members from the country. The US has not cooperated with Russia in any of the many international on-going conflicts. On the contrary the US has brushed aside Russia's concerns with ease. The US fired cruise missiles that flew directly over the Russian ships parked beside Syria. When Russia decided to use their state sponsored mercenary group combined with a few natives to launch an offensive towards the US forces in Syria the US killed over 300 of the attackers with air and ground based artillery assets. If Russia wanted Trump to win the election they royally fucked up. Russia is a bit player on the world stage who operate on past glories and skillful propaganda. They have nuclear weapons which cannot be used without destroying themselves. Their conventional forces are a mere shadow of what they were during the Cold War. They also lack the most important tool needed for spreading their influence on the global stage which is money. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. Compared to the US and China Russia is a 3rd world country run the Russian oligarchs who operate like the mafia.

    You can do legitimate business in Russia? ... without paying off the Government/Mafia? ... I hear the two are pretty much the same these days.

  31. In NC, Voter files are available... by dizzy8578 · · Score: 1

    only in EBCDIC format in many counties. That is still machine readable. for an IBM mainframe.

    --
    *"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
    1. Re:In NC, Voter files are available... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, if you can't translate EBCDIC to ASCII, what are you doing here?

  32. Re:Transparency in Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Bla Bla Bla

    Whoopsie daisy! Triggered another snowflake democrat. Easy to do in this place nowadays. Y'all are a bunch of fruits!

  33. Does that include anyone's tax returns? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Yes, there will be abuse in the direction of classifying all sorts of things "sensitive"; OTOH how much of this is a grab by business to get hold of data (even more data) that is currently less available, and making taxpayers pay for destroying their own privacy (what little is left)? Just because something is revealed in interaction with the government, doesn't mean that it is completely "public" data. An old example - someone's alibi for not being at a crime scene is being at a hotel with a lover. Witnesses etc. (nowadays security video) confirm. But neither someone nor lover wants it to be "public" knowledge, and police have no reason to make it so if it's not germane to the crime; their only statement is "suspect has a solid alibi, no longer considered a suspect".