indexes

 

How Unique is the New U.S. Open Data Policy?

The White House’s new Executive Order may be significantly different than the open data policies that have come before it on the federal level, but where does it stand in a global -- and local -- context?

Many folks have already jumped at the chance to compare this new US executive order and the new policies that accompany it to a similar public letter issued by UK Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010, but little attention has been paid to one of the new policy’s most substantial provisions: the creation of a public listing of agency data based on an internal audits of information holdings. As administrative as this provision might sound, the creation of this listing (and the accompanying scoping of what information isn’t yet public, but could be released) is part of the next evolution of open data policies (and something Sunlight has long called for as a best practice).

So does this policy put the U.S. on the leading edge?

Read more

Open Data Executive Order Shows Path Forward

cords

Today, the White House is issuing a new Executive Order on Open Data -- one that is significantly different from the open data policies that have come before it -- reflecting Sunlight's persistent call for stronger public listings of agency data, and demonstrating a new path forward for governments committing to open data.

This Executive Order and the new policies that accompany it cover a lot of ground, building public reporting systems, adding new goals, creating new avenues for public participation, and laying out new principles for openness, much of which can be found in Sunlight's extensive Open Data Policy Guidelines, and the work of our friends and allies.

Most importantly, though, the new policies take on one of the most important, trickiest questions that these policies face -- how can we reset the default to openness when there is so much data? How can we take on managing and releasing all the government's data, or as much as possible, without negotiating over every dataset the government has?

Read more

Sunlight's Priorities for the Next Administration

Regardless of who wins the presidential election, the next administration will have enormous power to say how open our government will be. We have organized our priorities for the next administration below, to share where we think our work on executive branch issues will be focused, in advance of the election results. From money in politics to open data, spending, and freedom of information, we'll be working to open up the Executive Branch.

We'd love to hear any suggestions you might have for Sunlight's Executive Branch work, please leave additional ideas in the comments below.

(We'll also be sharing other recommendations soon, including a legislative agenda for the 113th Congress, and a suite of reform proposals for the House and Senate rules packages.)

Sunlight Reform Agenda for the Next Administration:

Read more

Shaky Foundations of Federal IT

The White House blog today featured a new post about the "Building Blocks of a 21st Century Digital Government." If these are the building blocks of reinvented government, however, we're on shaky ground.

Most agency CIOs don't know what their agency's major IT holdings are. Really. Decisions determining what data will be released, and how it gets released, are routinely made by individual departments, outside public view, and without review from the federal CIO or CTO, Congress, or the public.

This is a shame, because the $80 Billion+ federal IT budget contains a wealth of vital information, and should be considered a national asset, deserving thoughtful consideration. Instead, the identity of the major information holdings of the US government are still essentially opaque, even to the government officials supposedly in charge of managing them (with only a few exceptions).

Unfortunately, the major information policies of the Obama administration have all punted on this essential point. Transformative open data policy isn't just about APIs and data portals.

This is frustrating because the White House is clearly spending an enormous amount of time and attention on the Federal Strategy, and doing some fantastic, innovative work. The GSA's data stream of agency progress on the new requirements is an exciting new way for the White House to track compliance on explicit requirements (even if some of them are redundant with existing requirements). And the new Innovation Fellows program shows an administration clearly receptive to new ideas and personalities, who will inevitably make some progress facing important challenges.

But there's still a glaring, glaring omission. This strategy still doesn't address existing information that isn't open, and it doesn't empower federal managers or anyone else to get new access to existing information. When the White House says "open up" they mean "build apis," not release information for the first time.

Well formed federal transparency policy has to be built on a circumspect, comprehensive foundation, with knowledge of all major information holdings.

Government information policy can't be about opt-in, voluntary policies that encourage agencies to try some new things. Ultimately, that's what the Federal IT policy preserves: the status quo, where agencies pick comfortable data to release, often without even knowing what they have to choose from.

You can't manage what you can't see.

Open Data Creates Accountability

A series of recent blog posts raised questions on the value of open data and transparency.

While thoughtful skepticism is constructive, there appears to be some significant confusion about the meaning of “open data," and about transparency and accountability. When activist developers like Aaron Swartz are concluding that “the case for opening up data to hold government accountable simply isn’t there,” or former government leaders like Beth Noveck are suggesting that there are “serious doubts” whether “open data” make government “more transparent or accountable,” then it’s time to engage.

We should clarify something straight away -- this term “open data.” Open data wasn’t invented in 2009; open data isn’t born in a data portal. Construed most broadly, open data is people knowing things with technology. This information can be tabular, or not, structured, or not (though our preferences are clear.)

When people ask whether open data can create government accountability, they’re essentially asking whether it’s helpful to know things about the government, and, strangely, coming up with uncertain answers.

These answers are flawed, in part, because “open data” is being narrowly conceived of as the thing that fuels data contests and populates data portals, that is, the thing that sprang into vogue as Obama came into power.

While Sunlight has been deeply involved in the last 3 years of “open data,” we’re also deeply grounded in the last 50. Every bit of open data we have now to be mashed up, evangelized, or opened exists, in part, through the accountability laws and norms that decades of work have created, about where citizens stand before their governments, and vice versa.

If our first question is “does knowledge of government create accountability,” then the answer is clearly, definitively yes. Knowledge of the government creates accountability. As surely as ignorance and secrecy empower manipulation and abuse, information and knowledge empower self-determination.

This is baked into Sunlight’s mission -- the idea that understanding the government changes how it works. The Brandeis quote that is the source of Sunlight’s name encapsulates that idea, and our work is intended to embody it.

To suggest that open data can’t create accountability is to ignore the open data that helps create the accountability we already enjoy, and work to strengthen.

Read more