Not quite getting this "openness" thing (Part II)
On December 5th, the Office of Public Engagement released a wonderful collection of reports documenting some of the things they have learned through their internal and external consultations over the past number of months.
Records on the internal consultations, sounding out government's own employees on issues of openness and disclosure, are fascinating reading. It is quite clear that when it comes to transparency and access to information, there are many inside government who "get it".
And then there are the others. The ones who are still cowering like sand crabs in a shell of paranoia, second-guessing who wants what information and why. The ones who keep coming up with supposed technological and other obstacles to sharing information that exist only in their imaginations, and not in the real world. The ones who obsess over "misuse" of information — whatever that is.
Making Government more open
- Careful not to put too much data info out that is too much and becomes not useful or used.
- Will it be interesting to people, or will it be of minimal interest?
- The people who were interested might only be mildly interested
- We don’t have the people power and money to upload all of this in presentable forms
- The problem with making everything free, there is a potential misuse of information
- Why put up the information public if it has only 4 views?
- Do away with Fridays
- We have already proactively disclosed of a lot of information, like expenses and salaries and it doesn’t really make much of a difference
- Putting policies up online can be open to interpretation, so that can also cause a problem when uploading them
- Hard to talk about collaboration when approval to travel to this session was questioned.
- Try to limit the amount of information that has to go through a democratic process
- Tricky to decide what information needs to be released and what doesn’t
- Putting information up on the website has increased the sensitivity internally about what is shared.
- The release of some of the ATIPP requests online actually deter some from requesting information
- Then there is a problem of people paying for information currently, then everyone gets it anyway
- But without putting money on it, then people will make frivolous requests and ask for multiple things and all the information
- I think there is a culture of ownership of government works and that it can’t be shared
- Need to get over the fear of releasing the information.
- Sometimes the information that public is seeking is not going to help me do my job. I wouldn't take the time to collect.
- Government needs to “get over” the fear of providing information
- How do you decide what is meaningful to share; need to have dialogue with people to understand that (Combination of pillars!)
- Does the public really want such information and is it worth it compared to the costs to do this?
- Are people doing anything with it? Are we just liberating data for no reason, is there a net outcome?
- Unless there is a demand, should it be released?
- More is not always best
- Formats would have to be the same across government
- The volumes of data make it impractical to share everything
- Need to figure out what people need to know
- Is it really the public that wants this or is it politics?
- Maybe some people just want government to do their jobs
- Ensure that released data is indeed appropriate to be released (quality, privacy, etc.)
- Personal privacy is an issue—must be protected; what is the intent of people wanting such information
- Formats that aren’t accessible to broad public i.e GIS mapping
- Types of information can be left open for interpretation
- Ever changing data – when do you draw the line
- The public don’t want a table full of data
- You don’t want just the ticked off people
- We have to keep in mind political sensitivities
This corner, for one, would truly be fascinated to learn more about this idea of abolishing Fridays.