@SilvanavF*
Back in 2013, I posted an article
at the OGP Civil Society Hub blog on the need for a closer collaboration between the Freedom of Information
(FOI) and Open Government Data (OGD) communities. A couple of years later (and
many developments in these fields), the debate on the connections between FOI
and OGD has resurfaced. The third International Open Data Conference (held in
Canada in May 2015) provided the location and opportunity to reinvigorate the
debate about the linkages between these two communities. Following the
discussions at that event, a debate, which began as a discussion about the
relationship between privacy and openness, soon focused
on the lack of relationship between the FOI and OGD communities.
Despite the fact that these types of exchange have attracted
more attention in FOI circles, the topic has not been ignored by the OGD
organisations (in particular, the international groups). The concerns expressed
in FOI circles have had a clear correlation in the reaction of international
organisations such as the Web Foundation, MySociety and OKFN to the
proposed weakening of the UK FOI Act. Thus, the current Government backlash against FOI
in the UK, even though it is worrying news for the FOI community, has had
positive side effects. The international organisations working in open
data-related activities are publicly getting involved in the advocacy process,
to try and stop the British government’s latest efforts to weaken that
country’s FOI law.
In this context, this report predicated on the idea that
there is still plenty to learn in terms of Freedom of Information and Open
Government Data policies. Thus, it examines some of
the basic differences and similarities between
the two information-related initiatives of FOI and OGD. Despite
OGD and FOI common points, the differences between these two fields have to be
taken into account, especially in a context of paucity of joint activities.
This report also includes
information on existing rankings, indices and other measurements used for these
two initiatives, FOI and OGD. The assessments
were also classified according to the main object, approach and goals, together
with some geographical references.
Most of
the measurements included in this report relate to the possibilities of access
to information and data, and the possibility of reusing disclosed data
(depending on the specific field). In this context, even though assessing these
issues is not straightforward, we can see even greater efforts are needed if we
are to progress to assessing the impacts of FOI and OGD.
There is
much fruitful research, assessment and analysis to be done of both OGD and FOI.
In addition to research on the conceptual aspects of both, there is a need to
complement this with more action-based research into how these mechanisms of
access and reuse are being used. Despite some research has been conducted in
terms of the users of certain types of information and open data, further
research is needed to develop a framework to allow for a global systematic
assessment on the use of a government information and data.
There are
also other points that need some effort in order to build bridges between the
FOI and the OGD communities:
- On the FOI side, fairly close links have been developed with privacy/data protection specialists, as all FOI regimes need to navigate the boundary line between appropriate disclosure of government-held information and what would be inappropriate disclosure of personal information about third parties. On the OGD side, technologists working to derive valuable insights datasets face similar privacy issues. Thus, there are connections that can be fostered here.
- There is also scope to explore collaboration on improvements to copyright and intellectual property legislation. There seems little reason why the rights to re-use data should be greater than the right to re-use information obtained via FOI requests.
- Similarly, there is room for collaboration on the question of file formats. While the formats and mechanisms needed by OGD practitioners may differ from those needed by FOI requesters, the latter are still subject to risks of not being able to use disclosed information if it is provided in a close file format.
- While the OGD movement may not have exhausted other technical and legal issues around datasets that are proactively published, practitioners are already seeking access to datasets that their government are unwilling to publish. Thus, the most likely area of collaboration between FOI and OGD communities will come in the issue of gaining access to datasets that governments do not wish to proactively publish, for reasons of political sensitivity mostly. It is here that the decades of experience built up by the FOI community can assist the OGD community. This collaboration can be foster by creating a physical and intellectual space for these FOI and OGD actors to come together to talk to each other (an space with people talking across each other could provide a better chance of an agreed approach to the disclosure of information and data).
In addition to these areas
that are ripe for better collaboration at a practical level, conceptual and
practical research will assist in removing misunderstandings and enhance the
collaboration between these communities. Both successes and failures can help
provide examples of the possible collaboration between these groups, and in
different sectors (health, environment, education, etc.). Despite the efforts
made in the last decade, we have really only begun to take some firsts steps,
and there is much to do and a significant distance to be covered. Far more will be achieved,
and with far greater efficiency, if both FOI and OGD communities invest in
trying to develop a shared learning and research agenda. This will not only
deliver more coherent and effective research outputs, but also build crucial
bridges between the two communities.
*A variant of this post was published at the Web Foundation's blog.
