

Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information - BruceM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-

======
adelevie
Worth noting: The White House released the memo on GitHub[1] and used GitHub
Pages to publish[2].

[1] [https://github.com/project-open-data/project-open-
data.githu...](https://github.com/project-open-data/project-open-
data.github.io/blob/master/policy-memo.md)

[2] <http://project-open-data.github.io/policy-memo/>

------
BruceM
Comments from the Sunlight Foundation:
[http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/09/open-data-
exec...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/09/open-data-executive-
order-shows-path-forward/)

------
charonn0
>4(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
_subject to the availability of appropriations._ <

>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?

~~~
rayiner
Re: 4(c) Executive orders creating causes of action is a very hairy topic. In
theory, executive orders are instructions by the President to the bureaucracy
to guide the executive's exercise of discretion delegated by Congress. They
are not laws and generally are not construed to affect the rights of third
parties by creating causes of action.

Re: 4(b), every action of the executive is subject to the availability of
appropriations.

------
BruceM
The White House also posted a blog entry about this with many additional
links: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/09/landmark-steps-
lib...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/09/landmark-steps-liberate-
open-data)

------
danso
This is an unsexy directive that could be a profound game-changer for civic
society. If you've ever tried to get data from a public entity and had to
argue about the particulars of PDF over Excel, this kind of statement is at
least a good precedent to work from...some information will still be
unparsable, just as much information, period, is still withheld despite
transparency laws...but this is a pretty strong statement nonetheless.

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...](http://www.propublica.org/article/how-complaints-from-a-doctor-
caused-the-govt-to-take-down-a-public-database)

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.

~~~
edavis
> If you've ever tried to get data from a public entity and had to argue about
> the particulars of PDF over Excel ...

Or my favorite, the entities that send a PDF export of an Excel spreadsheet.

~~~
dmd
Lucky. PennDOT sent me screenshots of a spreadsheet, pasted into a doc.

~~~
ErikAugust
Oh man. That is a winner.

~~~
tlrobinson
<http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Web_0_0x2e_1.aspx>

------
mindcrime
Now we need to work on getting all 50 States, and the various county/municipal
governments to do likewise...

~~~
rz2k
Sadly, the Supreme Court just (unanimously) endorsed steps in the opposite
direction.[1][2]

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...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/scotus-foils-foia-advocates-
challenge-citizens-only-records-laws)

[2] [http://www.opengovva.org/foi-blog-list/1680-my-public-
record...](http://www.opengovva.org/foi-blog-list/1680-my-public-record-im-
mad-as-heck-at-mcburney-opinion)

[3] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-
st...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-states-may-
bar-information-requests-from-
nonresidents/2013/04/29/37d41134-b105-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html)

~~~
gizmo686
I read the Court opinion [1] (which is a fairly easy read).

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>

------
forgottenpaswrd
Specially patents.

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.

~~~
riffic
Patents will be treated in a special manner?

------
dmoo
Its also useful to have the business of government open and machine readable.
In Ireland we have recently had a change in how debate information from our
Parliament was published forcing a complete overhaul of the website most
people use to keep track of their public representatives.
[http://www.thejournal.ie/kildarestreet-com-back-from-the-
dea...](http://www.thejournal.ie/kildarestreet-com-back-from-the-
dead-880278-Apr2013/)

------
duncan_bayne
I wonder when the White House will be offering an RSS feed of citizens they've
executed extra-judicially? Or perhaps a social network graph linking lobbyists
and politicians & their staff?

