Advocates of open data, right to information and privacy agreed on a need for more cooperation during a recent exchange of messages by leading figures in all three communities.
The mutual interest in more “cohesion” developed in the course of a wide-ranging online conversation that followed the publication June 10, 2015, of an article in TechCrunch by Martin Tisné, a director of policy at Omidyar Network, which is a major backer of open data efforts and the Open Government Partnership.
More than three-dozen messages from 16 people touched on a wide variety of topics. The agreement on cooperation was notable, however, because despite many overlapping common values and goals relations among the three communities have been limited by differing cultures, goals and tactics.
For a compilation by FreedomInfo.org of the exchange see here.
Tisné Stresses Complementarity
Tisné wrote that privacy and openness are “different sides of the same coin – and equally important.” Privacy is a necessary counterweight to openness, he said, continuing, “Openness and privacy both share the same impulse: I want to be in control of my life….”
Tisné also delved into whether privacy protections should be less for the powerful and how different countries have varied expectations and laws about privacy.
“If we shift our thinking on open data and privacy from one of competing interests to one of a single inextricably linked, albeit complex, issue then we can find a path that enables us to cut a way through the jungle,” Tisné wrote, continuing, “We need to include privacy groups in those open data conversations.”
He said the privacy community should be involved in a recently announced effort to create an International Open Data Charter. The initiative was unveiled at the recent International Open Data Conference. The consultation draft of the Charter extolls the benefits of open data and describes five “principles,” beginning with “open data by default.” (Also see blog post by Savita Bailur of the Worldwide Web Foundation about a right to information and open data session at the conference.)
Tisné concluded:
We need to agree whether and how open data can include personal information. And we need to stop making a binary distinction between freedom of information laws and data protection; between open data policies and privacy policies. We need one single policy framework that controls as well as encourages the use ‘open’ data.
This approach will not remove the tensions between the competing camps, but it might allow us to work toward common objectives that further each perspective’s work rather than leave us in a stalemate.
The discussions we now have are the lifeblood of both the openness and privacy movements –what, when and how should information be shared. A new frame of reference for the debate may shine a light on a constructive path forward.
Calls for Cooperation Emerge
The reactions touched on many topics but converged in support of more cooperation among transparency communities.
Phil Booth, Coordinator of medConfidential in the United Kingdom, called it “vitally important for privacy people and open data people to be in the same conversations.”
“In fact,” Booth emphasized, “I think it is actively dangerous, given some of the vested interests involved and the quite evident gap in understanding in the open data community, for open data groups to go talking / representing to others without privacy people (and experienced transparency people – don’t forget, privacy and transparency folks have been negotiating these ‘tensions’ a lot longer than open data, or open government, have been around) by their side.”
Carole Excell, Project Director of The Access Initiative at World Resources Institute and a member of the Steering Committee of the FOI Advocates Network, wrote:
Just to note that the FOINet Steering Committee, has indicated a keen interest in facilitating dialogue with the open data community. We have indicated that there is a need to build and connect with the open data movement to re-establish the important interconnection between the two movements.
Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info Europe, commented, “RTI activists have long recognised that there is no need to frame this as a conflict.” She said “the challenge we have now” with privacy and open data “is to be much more precise.” She wrote: “What we don’t have, however, and urgently need, are better-developed criteria on how to make these privacy judgements. The current legal framework is inadequate and often vague.”
Javier Ruiz, who leads on policy at the UK based Open Rights Group, commented, “I completely agree with the main point of involving privacy people and making the debate more nuanced and breaking down the elements of privacy control and openness to find the best compromise.”
Marc Rotenberg, President and Executive Director of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), suggested a common agenda item, writing: “Establishing transparency and accountability in automated decision making should be considered a best practice in the open data community. Algorithmic Transparency could also provide a common framework for those in the privacy, RTI, and open data communities.”
Toby Mendel, Executive Director, Centre for Law and Democracy, saw differences among the three communities “as being more social/cultural than policy or issue based, where I see the two groups as essentially promoting very similar goals.”
Victoria L. Lemieux, Senior Public Sector Specialist, The World Bank, expressed concern about “a reinvention of the wheel,” pointing to the existence of established RTI and privacy laws. She suggested that the open data community should work with the RTI, privacy and records and archives communities. “These disparate and only somewhat overlapping communities of interest need to work together on what are complex and inter-twining information policy issues,” Lemieux wrote.
Summing up near the end of the three-day conversation, Tisné replied, “My main aim has been to get different yet related communities to connect and break silos so delighted that the conversation is happening.” He added, “I agree that it’s a 3-way debate between FOI/Privacy/Open data and should have mentioned that in the piece.”
Information Asymmetry Discussed
Thoughts about privacy rights and power played a significant part in the dialogue.
“The problem is that the current data protection regime has led to increasing the asymmetries of privacy and power rather than decreasing them, and in the process are undermining the who concept of democracy,” wrote Chris Taggart, Co-founder and CEO of OpenCorporates.
Rotenberg observed, “One of the critical insights about privacy and open government is the distinction between personal privacy and government secrecy. Privacy advocates do not typically favor government secrecy, and the effort to conflate such claims with the rights of citizens often needs to be disentangled to understand the interests at stake. That is where I think much of the confusion arises.”
Historical Tensions
The low simmer tensions between the FOI and open data communities have existed for some years. Rare public discussions have been collegial, but not notably productive.
In late 2013, suggestions for improving cooperation emerged during a temperate forum during the Open Government Partnership summit in London, FreedomInfo.org wrote. One suggestion, for example, was to compile examples of access laws being used to get data from governments and of data not being provided.
FreedomInfo.org in 2012 wrote about the topic: “Open Data, FOI Communities Show Signs of Convergence.”
Some discord was on display during several sessions in October 2011 at the 7th International Conference of Information Commissioners in Ottawa, Canada, FreedomInfo.org reported.
For a compilation by FreedomInfo.org of the recent exchange see here.
Filed under: What's New