Are you a 'Data Absolutist' ?

[GostHacked]

I can only discuss how it relates to me. My point is systems are meaningless if there is no 'culture of openness' with in the bureaucracy because bureaucrats will always manipulate and exceptions to avoid releasing stuff they don't want to release to people they don't want to have it.

These are good points to consider. Can the data be manipulated by those who are responsible for releasing the data? And the answer to that is a big yes. Will they? I bet they will try.

Wonder how this will work.

Illegal wiretapping is approached by the gov with the line 'if you are not doing anything wrong, then there is no issue'

Same can be said to the government, if they are not doing anything wrong, then there is no issue. However, we always have seen a double standard here.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a lot to say about it. And it is a discussion that needs to be had. Your articles seem to back that notion up. The one line of if they know what open data is, it is terrifying. That would be the logical response in my view.

I don't understand - "one line of if they know what open data is". Please elaborate.

Also, I don't know what else we can discuss. Maybe some technical considerations about security ? Is that what you're thinking ?

'Well whatya gonna do' or 'it is what it is'. Tired of the utter complacency in which this is approached. And besides, IT clouds are not safe places to store critical information.

Technical discussion. This could be interesting - please go on. I don't have enough expertise in this particular area to comment.

Forgive me if I have a hard time believing this. It is not clear cut, or we would not be having this conversation.

Well, I was under the belief that there wasn't a conversation to be had because you were saying that Data Absolutists don't exist. Yes, please add your two cents. I don't expect to disagree with you, though, so the discussion may close sooner than we think - at least here on MLW.

Who gets to decide if it is identifying information or not?

There are classic identifiers - such as name, gender, address, phone, and account numbers. I expect that those won't be published, but that it could be possible to extrapolate personal information in some cases through tricks.

There is a lot of interest.

I really disagree. If there was interest, we'd see movement on other facets of the OGP.

Problem is will they be able to aggregate the data in a way that makes sense and shows the information they need to make better decisions.

? How is this a problem ?

I don't care or need to know a Senator's personal life, aside from his public record, like criminal charges and who and where he worked for in the past (qualifying experience for the government role) However, everything they do while in public office for the public should be open to scrutiny and oversight.

What are you talking about ? This type of thing isn't part of OGP. How could such a thing get passed ?

[Michael Hardner]

These are good points to consider. Can the data be manipulated by those who are responsible for releasing the data? And the answer to that is a big yes. Will they? I bet they will try.

Wonder how this will work.

For sure, but you can only cook the books for so long before you're found out by auditors and whatnot.

[Michael Hardner]

To GH's point, an analysis is making its way around the web now:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0297
https://scirate.com/arxiv/1403.0297

Not sure if those links give you more than the abstract:

Revelations of large scale electronic surveillance and data mining by governments and corporations have fueled increased adoption of HTTPS. We present a traffic analysis attack against over 6000 webpages spanning the HTTPS deployments of 10 widely used, industry-leading websites in areas such as healthcare, finance, legal services and streaming video. Our attack identifies individual pages in the same website with 89% accuracy, exposing personal details including medical conditions, financial and legal affairs and sexual orientation. We examine evaluation methodology and reveal accuracy variations as large as 18% caused by assumptions affecting caching and cookies. We present a novel defense reducing attack accuracy to 27% with a 9% traffic increase, and demonstrate significantly increased effectiveness of prior defenses in our evaluation context, inclusive of enabled caching, user-specific cookies and pages within the same website.

So, this is one risk. How much of a risk is a guess, but it seems that somebody with the resources and knowledge could determine which sites you visit, exposing some personal secrets. I'm not sure if this vulnerability is higher in any one area - it seems not.

[Michael Hardner]

Edmonton adding budget to city's open data catalogue:

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/961477/edmonton-to-make-budget-part-of-open-data/

And the political fears...

Coun. Dave Loken said he supports the notion of open data, but he is also concerned that the data, without context, will open up the city to political attacks.

“Being open and transparent is one thing, but opening us up to the political fodder of others is another,” he said.

[eyeball]

The fears should pass as it becomes apparent the transparency knife cuts both ways. I guess it makes things a little trickier when the people you're probing for fodder can probe you right back.

[Michael Hardner]

The fears should pass as it becomes apparent the transparency knife cuts both ways. I guess it makes things a little trickier when the people you're probing for fodder can probe you right back.

Openness is a two way street. People think that it reveals 'gravy trains' and so on, but more often than not it reveals things that clients and managers are doing to incur costs.

[GostHacked]

Openness is a two way street.

Right so when the government is open with us, I will consider being open with them.

[Michael Hardner]

Right so when the government is open with us, I will consider being open with them.

They have force on their side, though. You don't have a choice of being open or not.

[GostHacked]

They have force on their side, though. You don't have a choice of being open or not.

If I don't have a choice, then they should not have a choice. If I don't have a choice, then I can no longer consider myself living in a democratic free society.

[Michael Hardner]

If I don't have a choice, then they should not have a choice. If I don't have a choice, then I can no longer consider myself living in a democratic free society.

I feel like I'm at the point of explaining individual rights vs the collective. You have the right to your opinions, of course, but force is at the heart of the state - the two poles of 'love' and 'hate' and all that.

You only get so much choice, there are limits and you don't get to decide the rules on your own.

[GostHacked]

I feel like I'm at the point of explaining individual rights vs the collective. You have the right to your opinions, of course, but force is at the heart of the state - the two poles of 'love' and 'hate' and all that.

You only get so much choice, there are limits and you don't get to decide the rules on your own.

So tell me again how free I really am.

[Michael Hardner]

So tell me again how free I really am.

This purposefully obtuse admission of elementary facts doesn't seem to have a purpose. Every time I answer, you go on to make another claim against elementary principles. I know you're not stupid, so I will stick to the point for now:

You're free.

[GostHacked]

This purposefully obtuse admission of elementary facts doesn't seem to have a purpose. Every time I answer, you go on to make another claim against elementary principles. I know you're not stupid, so I will stick to the point for now:

You're free.

How free?

[Michael Hardner]

How free?

Amongst the freest people in the world.

[eyeball]

You settle for way too little. Worse than that however you seem more than willing to decide what other people should settle for as well.

It'll probably be a ruler like you that finally breaks the camel's back.

[Michael Hardner]

... you seem more than willing to decide what other people should settle for as well.

Explain ?

[eyeball]

I don't know Michael, you just seem as blase about the chase to the bottom as government surveillance. Your posts on these issues in particular have a strong undercurrent of meh and sense of wonderment at why everyone else can't just get with the program(s).

Exactly which public's side are you on anyway?

Edited March 19, 2014 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know Michael, you just seem as blase about the chase to the bottom as government surveillance. Your posts on these issues in particular have a strong undercurrent of meh and sense of wonderment at why everyone else can't just get with the program(s).

I'm not blase, in fact I prescribe solutions here all the time. It's the response to my ideas that is blase. We have resources, we have intelligence, we just can't efficiently get our resources to where they're needed to solve problems.

What I can't abide by is people throwing out futile platitudes like "we're not free". We should be talking about solutions here, instead of just complaining aimlessly.

The world is changing, so we should be informing each other about ways to get ahead of the change. For example, the Obama administration looked at the complex political landscape in 2012 and strategized a way to use advance polling to pinpoint their resources towards exactly the right areas and exactly the right issues to win the election.

That's exactly the opposite of saying "oh well, the world is unfair". If there was ever a fair world, as we seem to be saying, that came from sharing ideas, thinking, and eventually making it happen. Not griping.

Exactly which public's side are you on anyway?

Now you're talking. Let's make some publics, first, then find out what they want.

[eyeball]

The world is changing, so we should be informing each other about ways to get ahead of the change. For example, the Obama administration looked at the complex political landscape in 2012 and strategized a way to use advance polling to pinpoint their resources towards exactly the right areas and exactly the right issues to win the election.

Change...right. Notice how Guantanamo Bay is still open for business and how Obama vastly expanded the dictators tool kit that Bush handed him. I'm reminded of how the Liberals steered our fishery on the path towards wealth concentration and how the Tories put that pedal to the metal when it was their turn to change the world.

That's exactly the opposite of saying "oh well, the world is unfair". If there was ever a fair world, as we seem to be saying, that came from sharing ideas, thinking, and eventually making it happen. Not griping.

Been there done that and patience my ass.

Now you're talking. Let's make some publics, first, then find out what they want.

Public's...special interests you mean. Nothing's changing at all.

[Michael Hardner]

Change...right. Notice how Guantanamo Bay is still open for business and how Obama vastly expanded the dictators tool kit that Bush handed him. I'm reminded of how the Liberals steered our fishery on the path towards wealth concentration and how the Tories put that pedal to the metal when it was their turn to change the world.

So... is the world changing or not ?

Been there done that and patience my ass.

? Who's talking about patience ? Certainly, nothing seems more patient than complaining and waiting for the NDP to et elected to fix it all.

Public's...special interests you mean. Nothing's changing at all.

Wealth is concentrating - you said it yourself. That's change right there.

I don't mean special interests. Special interests are a form of public created from money. That's fine, but they can't compete with the force of opinion from an entrenched public. But if we refuse to organize and unite, and opt to complain, then of course a few million thrown at a lobbyist will beat "the" public.

[eyeball]

So... is the world changing or not ?

You know the old saying, the more things change the more they stay the same - take the very symbol of change you cited, Guantanamo Bay is still in operation as are the authoritarian devices his predecessor set in motion.

Who's talking about patience ? Certainly, nothing seems more patient than complaining and waiting for the NDP to et elected to fix it all.

Me wait for a Canadian election to change anything? That'll be the day.

Wealth is concentrating - you said it yourself. That's change right there.

There's nothing new about the rise of unmitigated wealth and it's co-joined twin power. It's happened all to often in history as have the revolutions they inspire. I guess I'm just getting impatient but I doubt I'll have to wait long given the rise of discontent and disaffection around the globe these days.

I don't mean special interests. Special interests are a form of public created from money. That's fine, but they can't compete with the force of opinion from an entrenched public. But if we refuse to organize and unite, and opt to complain, then of course a few million thrown at a lobbyist will beat "the" public.

Organize and unite into what exactly?

[Michael Hardner]

the very symbol of change you cited, Guantanamo Bay is still in operation as are the authoritarian devices his predecessor set in motion.

You cited Guantanamo bay.

Me wait for a Canadian election to change anything? That'll be the day.

Ok, maybe it's not patience then. It's less than patient if you just want to complain to the wall, it helps the corruption.

There's nothing new about the rise of unmitigated wealth and it's co-joined twin power. It's happened all to often in history as have the revolutions they inspire.

Yes, look at the graphs, it's a trend that's only a few generations old, ie. new. And revolutions are also a kind of change.

Organize and unite into what exactly?

Into publics - how about a group that will look at the claims made about the benefits of corporate welfare, then follow up on whether a bailout, or government subsidy has the benefits intended ? These aren't even things that the left or right would have monopoly on - Hudak in Ontario is coming out against them, as have been members of the left.

Relying on the mainstream media to highlight issues for us is a dead end.

[eyeball]

You cited Guantanamo bay.

You cited Obama.

Into publics - how about a group that will look at the claims made about the benefits of corporate welfare, then follow up on whether a bailout, or government subsidy has the benefits intended ? These aren't even things that the left or right would have monopoly on - Hudak in Ontario is coming out against them, as have been members of the left.

We figured that out decades ago on the coast. We brought it to Canada's attention and Canada went, meh.

Relying on the mainstream media to highlight issues for us is a dead end.

So is relying on my fellow Canadians.

[Michael Hardner]

You cited Obama.

Ok - yes, his response to the complexities of congressional politics was to get ahead of the curve and use 'big data' against the Republicans. That was my point. I'm not trying to say Obama is "good", I'm just trying to show examples of using change in different ways.

We figured that out decades ago on the coast. We brought it to Canada's attention and Canada went, meh.

Canada goes 'meh' about pretty much anything that isn't a top priority national concern. Why ? Because Canada is not a public, it's masses. If you expect the institutions of the past to reverse their decline and rise up and help you then you're really part of the problem.

So is relying on my fellow Canadians.

We're in the same boat - the system favours the masses, the majority, even to the point where the majority favours policies that hurt the majority of people.