Since this is often the way tht fundraisers are advertised (For $1500, see the chair of the ____ Committee, who controls ____ issue!!!!), public scutiny of this money should be organized in the same way. Advertising committee positions for fundraising seems only a few steps from the wanton corruption of Duke Cunningham's bribery menu; tracking fundraising by committee is a small step toward dispelling monied interests' undue policy influence.
]]>Since this is often the way tht fundraisers are advertised (For $1500, see the chair of the ____ Committee, who controls ____ issue!!!!), public scutiny of this money should be organized in the same way. Advertising committee positions for fundraising seems only a few steps from the wanton corruption of Duke Cunningham's bribery menu; tracking fundraising by committee is a small step toward dispelling monied interests' undue policy influence.
]]>The article offers some criticism of the purportedly overworked, suggesting offhandly that the hyperconnected will pose new challenges for IT departments, and possibly have questionable effects on workers' personal lives.
While these concerns over productivity and relaxation are certainly valid, there's another side of merging personal and workplace that's ignored by the commentary: the same breakdown that leads to work email being written in bed also leads to the breakdown of the limitations on the role of the "professional". Just as communications technology leads to more work being done at home, the Internet allows for the intellectual entrepeneurship of the online volunteer researcher, the blog-based organizer, the midnight advocate. As Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody makes clear, individuals who can organize without centralized leadershp form a new, powerful, agile force, harnessing what has been dubbed the "cognigitive surplus" to redefine the way we organize our ideas and ultimately ourselves.
While this may have some effect on the modes of our relaxation, the effects on business, government, and society will more than make up for them.
(full disclosure: I often work in the middle of the night.)
]]>The article offers some criticism of the purportedly overworked, suggesting offhandly that the hyperconnected will pose new challenges for IT departments, and possibly have questionable effects on workers' personal lives.
While these concerns over productivity and relaxation are certainly valid, there's another side of merging personal and workplace that's ignored by the commentary: the same breakdown that leads to work email being written in bed also leads to the breakdown of the limitations on the role of the "professional". Just as communications technology leads to more work being done at home, the Internet allows for the intellectual entrepeneurship of the online volunteer researcher, the blog-based organizer, the midnight advocate. As Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody makes clear, individuals who can organize without centralized leadershp form a new, powerful, agile force, harnessing what has been dubbed the "cognigitive surplus" to redefine the way we organize our ideas and ultimately ourselves.
While this may have some effect on the modes of our relaxation, the effects on business, government, and society will more than make up for them.
(full disclosure: I often work in the middle of the night.)
]]>We have failed to tap the hidden talent of the uncredentialed.
I've tried to say this before in other ways--distributed expertise is disconnected from policy creation, etc--but his formulation captures the real potential for transparent and receptive institutions. Chopra sees analysis from bloggers as having huge potential for stimulating reform (and should check out the Open House Project), and, as I often do, bemoans the focus on the political and wonders about people's capacity to add to substantive policy debate and deliberation. His plan to integrate public policy ideas amounts to a small e-suggestions box for now, but Chopra is certainly deeply involved in the practical fight of how to make Virginia's government function more effectively though technology.
He's not just trying to get the government running smoothly, though. Chopra sees the development of the IT sector of our area's economy as the third major goal in his work, and has grand ideas to test about how young people given a real chance and a computer might find their way into the new tech economy.
Virginians are lucky to have such a proactive visionary leading their tecnological development.
]]>We have failed to tap the hidden talent of the uncredentialed.
I've tried to say this before in other ways--distributed expertise is disconnected from policy creation, etc--but his formulation captures the real potential for transparent and receptive institutions. Chopra sees analysis from bloggers as having huge potential for stimulating reform (and should check out the Open House Project), and, as I often do, bemoans the focus on the political and wonders about people's capacity to add to substantive policy debate and deliberation. His plan to integrate public policy ideas amounts to a small e-suggestions box for now, but Chopra is certainly deeply involved in the practical fight of how to make Virginia's government function more effectively though technology.
He's not just trying to get the government running smoothly, though. Chopra sees the development of the IT sector of our area's economy as the third major goal in his work, and has grand ideas to test about how young people given a real chance and a computer might find their way into the new tech economy.
Virginians are lucky to have such a proactive visionary leading their tecnological development.
]]>The main questions we've faced attempt to locate the bill within a traditional reform process: Who will sponsor it? When will it pass? What are its chances?
As I wrote when we started encountering these hesitations,
As it stands now, though, we're happy to not have all the answers about where the bill is going. Just like legislation itself, we're not pretending to know the best strategy for the bill, and we recognize that best ideas will be the ones that can benefit from a large community of experts and stakeholders.
Now that we've gotten some real feedback about the bill's provisions, we can make some decisions about how to advocate for the package's implementation. (more)
]]>The main questions we've faced attempt to locate the bill within a traditional reform process: Who will sponsor it? When will it pass? What are its chances?
As I wrote when we started encountering these hesitations,
As it stands now, though, we're happy to not have all the answers about where the bill is going. Just like legislation itself, we're not pretending to know the best strategy for the bill, and we recognize that best ideas will be the ones that can benefit from a large community of experts and stakeholders.
Now that we've gotten some real feedback about the bill's provisions, we can make some decisions about how to advocate for the package's implementation. (more)
We're delighted by the value of the comments. The comments repeatedly point out specific improvements or suggestions that we'll be glad to integrate into a new version of the bill. Participants have suggested everything from wording changes to improvements for the interface and Web site. We're also happy to see public proof that broad scrutiny can have a constructive influence on legislative work.
To integrate the community's suggestions, we've decided to let comments open for about another two weeks, and to then craft a new version of the legislation, taking suggestions into account. We want to be sure that public involvement is credited for the improvements, continue to allow at least general commentary on the new version after it's prepared.
Thanks again to everyone who has participated, and if you have more feedback to offer, you have until about May 19th to leave it!
]]> 1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement
for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms
of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has
instead modified or waived it.
2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine
whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.
3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.
While I’m not a legal scholar, the principles discovered here by Senator Whitehouse show an executive that is claiming expansive power, and, in turn, making the task of citizen oversight nearly impossible, in some circumstances. While the struggle and negotiations that go on around disclosure boundaries will probably not stop, they’re likely to shift a little when people realize that oversight and disclosure documents can offer real substance.
It’s easy to shirk a responsibility to share when no one cares. If people are empowered in their role as overseers, as watchdogs, then perhaps memos like these don’t get written.
]]>
Senator Feingold is talking about memos put out by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), a part of the Department of Justice. The executive branch needs guidance on how the law affects its actions, and the OLC exists to provide legal interpretations for rest of the executive branch. These opinions strongly determine the nature of executive branch activities, and therefore have an undeniable bearing on the public interest. (more)
The measure includes a requirement that the Inspectors General post their reports on their Web sites. This requirement places the responsibility of disclosure on the agencies themselves, rather than on citizens looking form information. The wording of the mandate takes the language of the Freedom of Information Act, which puts the onus on citizens to request information, and uses it to set a standard of full disclosure of IG reports.
That the government should take responsibility for openness, or make disclosure the rule rather than the exception, is one of Ellen's spotlight ideas; a completely open government would render FOIA unnecessary.
We're happy to see such a specific requirement pass the Senate in the spirit of full digital access.
The Inspector General of each agency shall...that is subject to release under...the Freedom of Information Act...post that report or audit (or portion of that report or audit) on the website of the Office of the Inspector General;
The measure includes a requirement that the Inspectors General post their reports on their Web sites. This requirement places the responsibility of disclosure on the agencies themselves, rather than on citizens looking form information. The wording of the mandate takes the language of the Freedom of Information Act, which puts the onus on citizens to request information, and uses it to set a standard of full disclosure of IG reports.
That the government should take responsibility for openness, or make disclosure the rule rather than the exception, is one of Ellen's spotlight ideas; a completely open government would render FOIA unnecessary.
We're happy to see such a specific requirement pass the Senate in the spirit of full digital access.
The Inspector General of each agency shall...that is subject to release under...the Freedom of Information Act...post that report or audit (or portion of that report or audit) on the website of the Office of the Inspector General;
So how big is that surplus? So if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project--every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in--that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought. I worked this out with Martin Wattenberg at IBM; it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it's the right order of magnitude, about 100 million hours of thought.
And television watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that's 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads. This is a pretty big surplus.
As we consider and build the tools that put political information online, we should remember that we're tapping into something unimaginably vast; we get to help shape the answer of the question "what would all of those people be doing if they weren't watching television?".
Even if only a small amount of that leisure time gets connected to politics and government online, and it is well connected to the substance of oversight and legislation, of politics and elections, then democracy is going to go through a fundamental change. TV can't compete, and the sheer amount of human attention moving online and getting involved in participatory media has enough weight to shift both politics and government. Even if one in 20,000 cares about a specific GAO report, that's enough to make a drastic change, assuming people's interests and abilities are led to those places where their attention matters. To those places where their attention is important, where they can have some effect, where they can add to their knowledge, or to where their knowledge can be helpful.
]]>So how big is that surplus? So if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project--every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in--that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought. I worked this out with Martin Wattenberg at IBM; it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it's the right order of magnitude, about 100 million hours of thought.
And television watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that's 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads. This is a pretty big surplus.
As we consider and build the tools that put political information online, we should remember that we're tapping into something unimaginably vast; we get to help shape the answer of the question "what would all of those people be doing if they weren't watching television?".
Even if only a small amount of that leisure time gets connected to politics and government online, and it is well connected to the substance of oversight and legislation, of politics and elections, then democracy is going to go through a fundamental change. TV can't compete, and the sheer amount of human attention moving online and getting involved in participatory media has enough weight to shift both politics and government. Even if one in 20,000 cares about a specific GAO report, that's enough to make a drastic change, assuming people's interests and abilities are led to those places where their attention matters. To those places where their attention is important, where they can have some effect, where they can add to their knowledge, or to where their knowledge can be helpful.
]]>
an amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) finally broke through the logjam that had blocked the bill's passage since last November.
For more background on IG reform, see especially POGO's February report, Inspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for Independence.
Senator Lieberman is among those praising the measure, which still needs to be reconciled with the House version before going to the President.
S. 2324 would amend Title 5 of the US Code, significantly strengthening the independence and effectiveness of oversight by IGs.
Of particular interest to Sunlight is the provision that Inspectors General post copies of IG reports to their Web sites, (as long as they're subject to FOIA, and therefore not classified or otherwise unfit for publication). The text:
an amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) finally broke through the logjam that had blocked the bill's passage since last November.
For more background on IG reform, see especially POGO's February report, Inspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for Independence.
Senator Lieberman is among those praising the measure, which still needs to be reconciled with the House version before going to the President.
S. 2324 would amend Title 5 of the US Code, significantly strengthening the independence and effectiveness of oversight by IGs.
Of particular interest to Sunlight is the provision that Inspectors General post copies of IG reports to their Web sites, (as long as they're subject to FOIA, and therefore not classified or otherwise unfit for publication). The text:
`(b) Requirements for Inspectors General Websites-
`(1) POSTING OF REPORTS AND AUDITS- The Inspector General of each agency shall--
`(A) in accordance with section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Privacy Act), not later than 3 working days after any report or audit (or portion of any report or audit), that is subject to release under section 552 of that title (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), is made publicly available, post that report or audit (or portion of that report or audit) on the website of the Office of the Inspector General; and
`(B) ensure that any posted report or audit (or portion of that report or audit) described under subparagraph (A)--
`(i) is easily accessible from a direct link on the homepage of the website of the Office of the Inspector General;
`(ii) includes a summary of the findings of the Inspector General; and
`(iii) is in a format that--
`(I) is searchable and downloadable; and
`(II) facilitates printing by individuals of the public accessing the website.
Public reporting requirements are the stuff of public accountability and trust, and we're happy to see such a requirement included in the passed version. In order to improve public access, the reports could be centralized (perhaps by the new IG oversight body, the "Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency", and then syndicated, which would let one subscribe to IG reports in the same way one can now subscribe to GAO reports.
From an information perspective, I'm impressed (again) by the New York Times development team, who has devised a way for a video news narrative to have original documentation pop up throughout the presentation. The viewer can proceed on a detour through each original document mentioned, perusing the document's content. The narration can then be restarted.
I often find myself trying to explain the connection between original verifiable sourcing and citizen journalists, whose work is often only validated by the sources it can point to. That's one reason I embed pdfs so often on this site (here, here); there are a ton of original documents that have a bearing on what we're working on, and I don't presume to have all of the answers about what they say.
Now the New York Times isn't making a move into full on citizen journalism (although that would be quite a story; if, say, they posted the entire results of their FOIA on governmentdocs.org). They are, however, showing a certain respect for the viewer's position as an information consumer who may want to verify or look for context. We'll take it, as a start. As James A Jacobs writes:
Together, the audio-visual presentation and the documents are a small model for how newspapers could be using the power of the web to enhance their coverage and utility. I would certainly like to see all 8000 pages online!
Agreed.
]]>From an information perspective, I'm impressed (again) by the New York Times development team, who has devised a way for a video news narrative to have original documentation pop up throughout the presentation. The viewer can proceed on a detour through each original document mentioned, perusing the document's content. The narration can then be restarted.
I often find myself trying to explain the connection between original verifiable sourcing and citizen journalists, whose work is often only validated by the sources it can point to. That's one reason I embed pdfs so often on this site (here, here); there are a ton of original documents that have a bearing on what we're working on, and I don't presume to have all of the answers about what they say.
Now the New York Times isn't making a move into full on citizen journalism (although that would be quite a story; if, say, they posted the entire results of their FOIA on governmentdocs.org). They are, however, showing a certain respect for the viewer's position as an information consumer who may want to verify or look for context. We'll take it, as a start. As James A Jacobs writes:
Together, the audio-visual presentation and the documents are a small model for how newspapers could be using the power of the web to enhance their coverage and utility. I would certainly like to see all 8000 pages online!
Agreed.
]]> A detailed survey and statistical and demographic explanations back up their conclusions on public perception of accountability and transparency: "Government at all levels is failing to meet the needs of its citizens with regard to financial management reporting. There is a large 'expectations gap.'"
While this survey applies specifically to financial reporting from the government, the conclusions are likely true across government. If traditional reporting mechanisms are failing, that leaves digital technology to help us develop mechanisms of real trust and accountability. See Section 3 of the report; What the Public Wants: "A significant portion of the population is searching online for information on how the government is generating and spending money."
(AGA Page, Survey Paper, Powerpoint Presentation )
(See also ACSI Reporting, Transparency in Healthcare reporting)
]]> A detailed survey and statistical and demographic explanations back up their conclusions on public perception of accountability and transparency: "Government at all levels is failing to meet the needs of its citizens with regard to financial management reporting. There is a large 'expectations gap.'"
While this survey applies specifically to financial reporting from the government, the conclusions are likely true across government. If traditional reporting mechanisms are failing, that leaves digital technology to help us develop mechanisms of real trust and accountability. See Section 3 of the report; What the Public Wants: "A significant portion of the population is searching online for information on how the government is generating and spending money."
(AGA Page, Survey Paper, Powerpoint Presentation )
(See also ACSI Reporting, Transparency in Healthcare reporting)
]]> The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently held a hearing on reforming the laws that govern the creation of Federal Advisory Committees. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) governs the creation and disclosure of advisory committees. This is no small legislative or logistical task, since there are about 65,000 people appointed to federal advisory committees. The issues surrounding this law are new to me, and I'm also excited to find that the General Services Administration (GSA) runs a database of Federal Advisory Committee information, available here, which includes advisory committee charters, members, transcripts, and other information.
While there doesn't appear to be any option to bulk download or API access, the database should be potentially combinable with other data sources, and should prove to be a rich collection of information, since people appointed to advisory committees are often business leaders or governmental employees, who have a stake in the subject matter they're advising on.
This situation presents a strong potential for conflicts of interest, which congress correctly responded to by instituting a disclosure regime, demanding transparency and accountability of the committees and their participants. The problem is that these disclosure requirements are far from perfect, and many loopholes exist that allow advisory committees to skirt the disclosure requirements. For FACA loopholes and reform ideas, see this GAO document, or this expert testimony from Sidney Shapiro, or this testimony from the GSA, who runs the FACA database.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently held a hearing on reforming the laws that govern the creation of Federal Advisory Committees. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) governs the creation and disclosure of advisory committees. This is no small legislative or logistical task, since there are about 65,000 people appointed to federal advisory committees. The issues surrounding this law are new to me, and I'm also excited to find that the General Services Administration (GSA) runs a database of Federal Advisory Committee information, available here, which includes advisory committee charters, members, transcripts, and other information.
While there doesn't appear to be any option to bulk download or API access, the database should be potentially combinable with other data sources, and should prove to be a rich collection of information, since people appointed to advisory committees are often business leaders or governmental employees, who have a stake in the subject matter they're advising on.
This situation presents a strong potential for conflicts of interest, which congress correctly responded to by instituting a disclosure regime, demanding transparency and accountability of the committees and their participants. The problem is that these disclosure requirements are far from perfect, and many loopholes exist that allow advisory committees to skirt the disclosure requirements. For FACA loopholes and reform ideas, see this GAO document, or this expert testimony from Sidney Shapiro, or this testimony from the GSA, who runs the FACA database.
While the measures intended to patch up and reform FACA to demand accountability from advisory committees, we should familiarize ourselves with the data the act liberates, and understand the power relationships it describes.
I'd also like to point out that I'm only aware of this issue because Waxman's committee has an RSS feed (which I watch), and because I called the committee to request copies of the testimony. I wonder how much more coverage the issue would get if there were a transcript and video of the hearing readily available, along with posted copies of the testimony? (One would think there are at least 65,000, since that's how many appointees are covered by the act's requirements.)
On first examination, he reports that the data format looks solid, and should prove useful. In fact, Josh has already integrated the new information to feed the OpenHearings schedule database.
Time for the House to catch up!
]]>On first examination, he reports that the data format looks solid, and should prove useful. In fact, Josh has already integrated the new information to feed the OpenHearings schedule database.
Time for the House to catch up!
]]>For the first time since the Internet began, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) will not record a snapshot of Executive Branch websites at the end of a Presidential administration.
In the article, Coby Logen notes that the valuable work of non-profits like archive.org shouldn't entirely supplant the work of the government. Federal agencies exist to protect the public interest, through a public mechanism. Our national government has a responsibility to protect and document its history. They are uniquely positioned to do so; no one else has both the reliable public mandate and the public accountability necessary for protecting historical documents.
Federal Web sites are historical documents, and NARA's Web Harvest program should be enthusiastically supported. Digital records management should enable easier and cheaper preservation, and brings the promise of more meaningful disclosure and access to both current and historical documents.
The fact that digital preservation is done by others outside NARA isn't an excuse for NARA to abdicate their responsibility, but an argument that they should be capable of fulfilling it.
As Members of Congress and Federal Agencies increasingly move their work online, robust digital archiving will only become more important, so we can understand how our government is performing its duties.
]]>For the first time since the Internet began, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) will not record a snapshot of Executive Branch websites at the end of a Presidential administration.
In the article, Coby Logen notes that the valuable work of non-profits like archive.org shouldn't entirely supplant the work of the government. Federal agencies exist to protect the public interest, through a public mechanism. Our national government has a responsibility to protect and document its history. They are uniquely positioned to do so; no one else has both the reliable public mandate and the public accountability necessary for protecting historical documents.
Federal Web sites are historical documents, and NARA's Web Harvest program should be enthusiastically supported. Digital records management should enable easier and cheaper preservation, and brings the promise of more meaningful disclosure and access to both current and historical documents.
The fact that digital preservation is done by others outside NARA isn't an excuse for NARA to abdicate their responsibility, but an argument that they should be capable of fulfilling it.
As Members of Congress and Federal Agencies increasingly move their work online, robust digital archiving will only become more important, so we can understand how our government is performing its duties.
]]>As I write this post, there are now 63 comments on our draft legislation, which you can now keep track of through an RSS feed. While many of the posts come from allies familiar to Sunlight, we're delighted to find excellent, new ideas throughout the comments. Interest in congressional information reaches well beyond the inside-the-beltway advocacy community, and we're happy to provide a forum for substantive reform ideas.
Talking with members of the press has been really enjoyable too, especially as they try to use traditional approaches to writing about legislation. The initial questions tend not to quite fit with a model of advocacy that is entirely open, so questions like "who is sponsoring it?" or "when might they vote on it?" tend to miss the mark. Questions like "What would constitute a success?", or "Why aren't other organizations doing this sort of thing?" might be better starting places. Conducting advocacy in the open is a rather new idea, though, so we'll have to develop some new ideas together about what constitutes consensus, success, and a productive drafting process.
As it stands now, though, we're happy to not have all the answers about where the bill is going. Just like legislation itself, we're not pretending to know the best strategy for the bill, and we recognize that best ideas will be the ones that can benefit from a large community of experts and stakeholders.
One thing is clear: if PublicMarkup.org's second week is anything like its first, our reform ideas -- and the open advocacy strategy we're using to develop them -- will both have very bright futures.
As I write this post, there are now 63 comments on our draft legislation, which you can now keep track of through an RSS feed. While many of the posts come from allies familiar to Sunlight, we're delighted to find excellent, new ideas throughout the comments. Interest in congressional information reaches well beyond the inside-the-beltway advocacy community, and we're happy to provide a forum for substantive reform ideas.
Talking with members of the press has been really enjoyable too, especially as they try to use traditional approaches to writing about legislation. The initial questions tend not to quite fit with a model of advocacy that is entirely open, so questions like "who is sponsoring it?" or "when might they vote on it?" tend to miss the mark. Questions like "What would constitute a success?", or "Why aren't other organizations doing this sort of thing?" might be better starting places. Conducting advocacy in the open is a rather new idea, though, so we'll have to develop some new ideas together about what constitutes consensus, success, and a productive drafting process.
As it stands now, though, we're happy to not have all the answers about where the bill is going. Just like legislation itself, we're not pretending to know the best strategy for the bill, and we recognize that best ideas will be the ones that can benefit from a large community of experts and stakeholders.
One thing is clear: if PublicMarkup.org's second week is anything like its first, our reform ideas -- and the open advocacy strategy we're using to develop them -- will both have very bright futures.
One idea from Sunlight that all journalists are sure to welcome: Limiting the time government agencies can delay fulfilling Freedom of Information Act requests. Sunlight suggests implementing a rule that would force government agencies to fulfill such requests within 60 days of the requests' original due dates.
All she did was hyperlink, which is regular fare on blogs. This is rather extraordinary, however, because the links takes you to the actual provision of a piece of legislation. As Congressional legislation is currently published, this is nearly impossible, as bills are published in html or in pdf formats, erecting a barrier to substantial analysis and discussion. Would legislation be different if all news stories and discussion of them were easily traced to the actual text of the bill, or if you could find your way from the bill other relevant analysis and context?
Small, useful, practical steps online lead to enormously different results, and make new kinds of engagement possible.
One idea from Sunlight that all journalists are sure to welcome: Limiting the time government agencies can delay fulfilling Freedom of Information Act requests. Sunlight suggests implementing a rule that would force government agencies to fulfill such requests within 60 days of the requests' original due dates.
All she did was hyperlink, which is regular fare on blogs. This is rather extraordinary, however, because the links takes you to the actual provision of a piece of legislation. As Congressional legislation is currently published, this is nearly impossible, as bills are published in html or in pdf formats, erecting a barrier to substantial analysis and discussion. Would legislation be different if all news stories and discussion of them were easily traced to the actual text of the bill, or if you could find your way from the bill other relevant analysis and context?
Small, useful, practical steps online lead to enormously different results, and make new kinds of engagement possible.
At the recent IPDI Politics Online panel on radical transparency, Peggy Garvin made a great point about one fundamental distinction that can be made within government information. She suggested that all government information is either collected from regulated entities, or pertains to the operations of government itself. (much more below)
]]>At the recent IPDI Politics Online panel on radical transparency, Peggy Garvin made a great point about one fundamental distinction that can be made within government information. She suggested that all government information is either collected from regulated entities, or pertains to the operations of government itself. (much more below)
Other fundamental distinctions could be made about government information generally; for example, all government information is either classified or not (attempt to equivocate notwithstanding.)
Reflecting on this point, I thought of the various Creative Commons designations to be asserted over works. These distinctions have been developed as technology made use and reuse of (especially) digital information easier by an order of magnitude, which, in turn, rendered previous regulatory systems inadequate both de jure and in spirit. The same could now be said of both privacy law and many privacy policies, whose phrasing is too vague to apply clearly to new digital circumstances. (Technology that changes rapidly can be a real headache for legislative drafting: for example, the line between terms of art and informal slang is fuzzy at best.)
Back to government information, the same thing that happened to music because of mixtapes, and that happened to video because of youtube, is also happening to government information. Regulatory schemes and records management practices need to be rethought.
What would a forward looking government information management system look like? FDSys, obviously, is the new federal documents delivery system, but I'm wondering about the new policy distinctions that are probably on their way.
For example, some documents have enough public import and enough consistent demand that they should be published online as quickly as possible, in as structured a way as possible. Votes in legislatures would fall under this distinction. Another set of documents would be those things that exist under the domain of the government, and maybe are FOIA-able, but are probably best not public. Personnel information and yearly reviews all online would make for a very complex work environment.
I suspect that people at the GSA or OMB spend their time making exactly this sort of documents management distinction for the federal government, and if anyone has public documents or OMB memos to this effect, I'd love to see them. These management practices, however, are probably based on old legislative mandates like the paperwork reduction act or the OMB A-130 circular.
I'm thinking about something more far-reaching, that could proactively assign distinctions to documents with public access in mind, in addition to other concerns like national security, or commercial or private or sensitive information. Another example, which information sets within the governmental (there are more than a few) are appropriate for APIs? Surely there's a better way to decide on this than on a case-by-case basis. Which documents should have permanent URLs associated for them? If NIST can dictate that congressional districts will be referred to as "AL - 01" (or whatever), then shouldn't someone make similar statements about government URL/database structures?
If the US gets a CTO, (or, if the structures in place to carry out these functions are expanded), that person or those people should come into the job realizing that they're not just coordinating technology, but they're practical epistemologists, determining in practice what can be known about our national government.
(Full Disclosure: Larry Lessig is on Sunlight's Advisory board, although I had no contact with him about this post.)
]]>