Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information
whitehouse.gov
whitehouse.gov
[1] https://github.com/project-open-data/project-open-data.githu...
>4(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.<
(emphases mine)
Don't these provisions take the teeth out of the order?
Re: 4(b), every action of the executive is subject to the availability of appropriations.
I was impressed five years ago.
Edit: I do think there's a large risk of an unintended chilling effect, as well-intentioned as this initiative. The blog post that was linked to later in this discussion talks about how defaulting to machine data will "ensure privacy"...which can only mean that there will be some process to decide which data should be machine data and which shouldn't...and, I think this will inevitably cause some datasets to just not be released at all, if there are large technical concerns in making sure the data doesn't "violate privacy"
As an example, a couple years ago the Obama administration took down a public database after a doctor complained that a newspaper was able to use it to track evidence against him in a story:
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-complaints-from-a-doct...
The database contained anonymized data about doctor malpractice records...but of course, if you have a doctor with a particularly long history of malpractice in a s single zip code, it's not hard to connect those anonymous records to an identity. So I think there will be some cases where an agency will decide not to put up data because of the fear that computerized analysis of it will reveal things that they don't want revealed.
Or my favorite, the entities that send a PDF export of an Excel spreadsheet.
In terms of basic IT management Uncle Sam is way behind the times.
The oral arguments included outrageous statements from the usual suspects, and what sounded almost like intentionally obtuse statements about the value of open government. Alito chortled in his written opinion, that with respect to freedom of information laws in general: "There is no contention that the Nation’s unity foundered in their absence, or that it is suffering now because of the citizens-only FOIA provisions that several States have enacted".[3]
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/scotus-foils-foia-advo...
[2] http://www.opengovva.org/foi-blog-list/1680-my-public-record...
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-st...
The situation is that "Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non Virginians." [1] The plaintiffs claimed that this law violated their constitutional rights. The court disagreed (and cited precedent).
It is not the job of the court to decide weather or not a law is a good idea. It is only their job to decide weather or not it is constitutional.
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-17_d1o2.pdf
Require all blueprints to be digitally accessible, with stl or step open formats for 3D shapes and svg for 2D.
I continue seeing crappy drawings in new patents. What year is it? 1891? In 1891 they were patents better formatted than today.