Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Data.gov To Launch In May

Posted by Soulskill on Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:05 PM
from the when-did-brent-spiner-get-elected dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In late May, Data.gov will launch, in what US CIO Vivek Kundra calls an attempt to ensure that all government data 'that is not restricted for national security reasons can be made public' through data feeds. This appears to be a tremendous expansion on (and an official form of) third-party products like the Sunlight Labs API. Of course, it is still a far cry from 'open sourcing' the actual decision-making processes of government. Wired has launched a wiki for calling attention to datasets that should be shared as part of the Data.gov plan, and an article on O'Reilly discusses the importance of making this information easily accessible."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hardfought (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jthill (303417)

    The longer I live, the more Greg Bear's story "Hardfought" bothers me.

    Here, it's the "mandate" in the story: iirc, every warship (and they're all warships) is required to carry all of mankind's digital knowledge on board to ensure that everyone has access to facts and reason to back their arguments.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      When I hear of something this I personally think of Walter Jon Williams' Aristoi, in which the sum of human knowledge is stored in a vault known as the Hyperlogos. It's allegedly above tampering. I don't want to ruin the story, but they make such a big deal out of how incorruptible it is that you know it's going to figure into the story. Same here; this just seems like a single clearing-house for deception. Still, I suppose it's a step in the right and wrong direction at once...

      • While I agree with you to some extent, is there anything that could possibly be done to appease the slashdot crowd.

        Slashdot screams OPEN IT UP! GIVE US TRANSPARENCY.

        And they do.

        And slashdot responds: YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO TRICK US!!!!

        Some days, you really do just have to take your tin foil hat off if you expect to live a life of something other than fear.

  • by ZX-3 (745525) on Sunday April 05 2009, @12:13PM (#27466479)

    This will also be an extension of what Vivek Kundra implemented in DC:
    http://data.octo.dc.gov/ [dc.gov]

    • by garcia (6573) on Sunday April 05 2009, @01:00PM (#27466885) Homepage

      I am impressed with the data made available there in one location. I have done a lot of work with county criminal complaints mapping [lazylightning.org]; SHP to KML for state, county, and local parks [lazylightning.org]; and restaurant inspection reports [lazylightning.org] for the general area around my home [lazylightning.org] because it's difficult for the average person to get that information in a package that's useful to them.

      It's absolutely fucking awesome to see that other areas are taking the time, effort, and dollars to make data available to those who pay for its creation in the first place. If anything, the Federal Government should mandate that all states funnel that data to them for display to the citizens in one place. There is absolutely no reason why data shouldn't be in one consistent format and in one place for us to pull down to aggregate ourselves if we so choose.

      I for one welcome our data providing overlords.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I'm all for government transparency. But people wouldn't need this quite as much if the government wasn't spending as much to begin with.

        I'm especially in disagreement about Federal mandates. If people in their states are unhappy with how their states are handling things, it's much easier for them, in theory, to make changes on the state level. The more the federal government gets involved the more states have to tax and spend just to comply with federal mandates.

        Ideally, this kind of thing should be done o

  • by 2phar (137027)

    How about allowing the people to e-file their taxes directly to their government while they're at it, without having to use a third party.

    • by alen (225700)

      e-file has been free for years

      the value that intuit and other companies add is they let you type in your data or import it over the internet and they do all the calculations for you and make up all the forms automatically. they also guarantee accuracy

      • eFile is free, but you can't do it on the IRS's website. It redirects you to some spam filled third party sites where it's sometimes hard to figure out what's part of the regular tax form filling process and what's an advertisement or for pay service. There's really no reason for it not to be right on the IRS website.

  • Navigation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theArtificial (613980) on Sunday April 05 2009, @12:15PM (#27466503) Homepage
    Hopefully this will not be like navigating the maddening Library of Congress website.
    • It directly reflects how the government works, what else would you expect?

      A decade behind the population, complicated as hell, and you are worse off for interacting with it. If anyone asks you: "how does the government work?" simply point them to that site.

      Same with:
      http://www.usa.gov/ [usa.gov]
      http://canada.gc.ca/ [canada.gc.ca]

    • amen to that. I once spent an hour talking with a Library of Congress librarian about their catalog, and she showed me how to do some powerful things in it, but I still think it's awful. That power could have been achieved in much better ways.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Of course, it is still a far cry from 'open sourcing' the actual decision-making processes of government.

    We already know the decision-making process.

    Politician: I am strongly against X! It is a moral outrage and cannot be signed into law!

    Lobbyist: We understand your feelings on this matter. I represent interests that would find X to be very desirable. Those interests have lots and lots of money. Have some! This is just for your campaign, of course.

    Politician: Hmm, well... Clearly X is the
  • I really want to meet the Web developer(s) who developed Data.gov's temporary home page. Its source is simply horrible.

    1) XHTML standards compliant? Far from it.
    2) Why use <center> tags?
    3) There's a couple of unused and unclosed <p> tags.
    4) No CSS at all.
    5) Why use an image to display text?

    I hope that was a quick job by an intern. Otherwise, we're doomed :P

    WhiteHouse.gov doesn't pass standards compliance validation, but for the most part, it's alright. It could be better in so
    • by garcia (6573)

      As far as I'm concerned it can be a bunch of raw links to RSS feeds, CSV, and XML files. Who the hell cares what a data repository looks like? I want to take that data and use it myself elsewhere. I don't need it to be pretty where I get it from as long as it's in a format that's useful.

  • Republicans are going to be upset with that Sunlight Foundation. Cast light on how corporations, lobbyists, and individuals interact with Gov. That could cause some chaos. As a Libertarian, I look forward to that.
    • Re:OUCH; (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 (188840) on Sunday April 05 2009, @03:11PM (#27467855) Homepage

      Oh come on. I'm as liberal as they get, but to claim that democrats are somehow exempt from manipulation by "corporations, lobbyists, and individuals" is laughable at best. Both parties take full advantage of the fact that money somehow equates to free speech in the US.

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Sunday April 05 2009, @01:30PM (#27467131)

    Of course, it is still a far cry from 'open sourcing' the actual decision-making processes of government.

    If this results in the same performance expectations as OSS projects, I'll take the current government of ANY country on Earth over an OSS one any day.

    For every successful OSS project, I'd say there are at least 10,000 pitiful ones, thanks to their management. Compare that with the current way goverment works on the planet and I'd say that for all their problems, the current systems used to form goverments are all, with out any doubt in my mind, far better performers than the average OSS project.

    Why would we want to make things WORSE for pretty much everyone, in the off chance that we happen to get lucky enough to get the right people on it to make it successful. The successful OSS projects that you can think of are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. While they are great and all, I'm not personally willing to play those odds. Its not like playing the lottery where you have as a 1 in 14 million chance of winning a few million dollars, but you're only out 1 if you don't win. While it would be fabulous if we did it and it worked, the risk involved if we fail alone makes it not worth attempting in my mind, add in the odds of it working and its almost worth shooting you just so no one else gets this crazy idea in their head. Obviously a little late now, but I think you get my point.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RudeIota (1131331)
      I don't believe an entirely open source, wiki-style government sounds appealing at all. That would be anarchy.

      But that isn't what you're talking about... Just wanted to make that point first.

      This is a stretch, but in a way -- on paper -- we already have an 'open source' government. You contribute by suggesting/complaining to your congress critter and they are supposed to represent you. The idea is that your contribution will be taken into consideration, expanded upon and eventually legislated. You elect
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Toe, The (545098)
      The borrowing of the term "open source" refers (loosely) to the ideals [metagovernment.org] of the open source movement, not the management processes any project may use. In fact, "open source governance" is a governance methodology, and not the same as the governance mechanism of any existing OSS projects.
    • er, because those mismanaged open source projects mass murder people on the scale of hundreds of thousands and embezzle money on the scale of billions? they line their pockets and project their power with the blood of soldiers and the misery of the people? yeah, your governments are much better than any half-assed FOSS project.

  • still a far cry from 'open sourcing' the actual decision-making processes of government

    And thank Jebus for that... direct democracy would be the undoing of our republic based systems of governance.

  • remember e.gov? whatever happen to the millions (or billions) spent there?
    • About right on the cost. Can you imagine the infrastructure to support all this data? Unless of course they reference it in place which brings up all sorts of security questions. Knowing how fast the Government works, the data may be obsolete before posting and who says WHAT data gets posted. All data is not relevant data. And will it be posted in a usable format for "slicing and dicing" or will it be PDFs of the data?
      • And will it be posted in a usable format for "slicing and dicing" or will it be PDFs of the data?

        If you're still having trouble using PDFs you need to update to a Ca. Y2k version of Linux or something -- unless you're talking about scanned images? That would be a crying shame, but in a lot of cases there is no official digital record, either. (That's an even bigger shame.)

        • Scanned images of pages to PDFs rather than say a Word or Excel (or compatible) that one could lift the data (i.e numbers) from and run your own analysis. I don't know about your copy of Adobe Reader but mine doesn't do a good job of taking a data table and putting it into a spreadsheet with rows & columns. Perhaps the full-up Adobe does better.
        • by afabbro (33948)

          And will it be posted in a usable format for "slicing and dicing" or will it be PDFs of the data?

          If you're still having trouble using PDFs you need to update to a Ca. Y2k version of Linux or something

          Sounds like you're still having trouble differentiating structured versus unstructured data. Budget data in tables or CSV or SQL or whatever is useful. A .PDF of a document where you cannot extract the data into a spreadsheet or database is far less useful.

          • A .PDF of a document where you cannot extract the data into a spreadsheet or database is far less useful.

            No, you cannot. Given a PDF with a table of numbers in data and not image form, I can get the numbers into a spreadsheet or database. It's a bit cumbersome but doesn't require data entry.

      • Where? I've been filling my taxes online for a few years now and I've always been sent to a third party site.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by maxume (22995)

          This is why I send paper. The IRS already figures my taxes, there is no good reason that they can't send me their figures, at which point I either agree with them and sign off on them, or I file my own calculations. Using the third party services just panders to stupid idea that they are providing something worthwhile.

          Basically, anybody who took the standard deduction last year might as well get pre-filled forms, but the tax industry has better lobbyists than taxpayers do.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by amRadioHed (463061)

        People who don't want to believe Obama is legitmate won't, no matter what evidence is presented. The stuff you say about his birth certificate is irrelevant, because the document he presented to the press during the campaign is a real, 100% authentic US birth certificate. He did not present "a type of card" as you say. He didn't present anything different from my own birth certificate. All the evidence is there [factcheck.org] if you want to see it, but the truth is you and the OP aren't interested in facts because the fac

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ThePhilips (752041)

          To me foreigner (not US resident) the whole birth certificate show down looked quite silly from the start.

          I was surprised that same US citizens complaining on overreaching powers of their intelligence services, fail to understand that CIA starts background check on all involved people right after they declare their intent to run for the office. So that politicians who have something cloudy in their past can bail out from race long before they are actually nominated by parties. AFAIK this is standard for

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            This IS very interesting and certainly stands to reason, but AFAI Google I can't seem to find any confirmation of this, only speculation. If anyone has a link to factual information on the existence of these checks I would be very curious to see it.
            • I never read anything definitive on the matter either.

              Just once that was indirectly confirmed by news media when journalists dug up something on a politician. Government officials commented that intelligence, due to thickness of his biography, simply couldn't finish due background check on him in allotted time before appointment.

              The impression I got was that they do background check, but the check isn't something what can actually bar a person from an office.

              After election/appointment it is all up

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        None of the rest of us would be able to do that, which is completely backwards considering how important the "job" of the President is compared to most other jobs.

        None of the rest of us would do what? Substitute an alternate document when asked for our birth certificate? For many people in the world there are no such things. There are also numerous Americans born at home and who have never had a birth certificate, who got two forms of identification without ever providing one because of the various interpersonal relationships involved and who also would not be able to provide such a document.

        Unlike the president, most of us could just fabricate one, because nobody is

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's too bad this was modded as Troll.

        I disagree.

        Here's the mod's thought process: "I really like Obama and that guy seems to be saying something that doesn't promote Obama. Clearly he must be a troll!"

        No, I suspect the thought process is more like this:"Oh god, another person trying to get replies by posting things that are completely wrong and everyone knows is wrong, but which many people will feel they need to respond to anyway."

        I'll explain this birth certificate controversy.

        You can't. There is no controversy. There are a bunch of rumors and nonsense and a smear campaign and a bunch of hysterical idiots who either can't do any research or are unwilling to believe despite any evidence presented. He released his birth certificate [fightthesmears.com]. He did

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          I do find it highly likely that he is a US Citizen, but there is a difference between a certificate of live birth and a certification of live birth, he provided the later which has less legal qualifications to obtain, for example if the certificate of live birth is destroyed it's still possible to get a certification of live birth. So the claims that he never proved citizenship aren't all that absurd, but really i doubt that he would be president right now if the GOP could have proven he wasn't a citizen.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I do find it highly likely that he is a US Citizen, but there is a difference between a certificate of live birth and a certification of live birth, he provided the later which has less legal qualifications to obtain, for example if the certificate of live birth is destroyed it's still possible to get a certification of live birth.

            Except that didn't happen. They went to court in 2008 and Hawaii confirmed it matched the original records they had on file. At this point, any assertion that he is not a US citizen is officially a conspiracy theory, because it requires conspirators in and out of Hawaii to be lying to the public and it requires all the investigative reporters who looked into it to have been duped or in on it.

            So the claims that he never proved citizenship aren't all that absurd...

            Yeah, I'd say they are pretty absurd. They're not impossible, but they're no more likely than a lot of the "out there

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by smidget2k4 (847334)
        It is a troll because 1) it was posted to cause stupid fighting no one cares about and 2) is completely off topic.

        Seems like a troll to me. Also, it is false, as another poster has pointed out, but that is beside the point. Still a troll.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by BitZtream (692029)

        You missed something. He was asked to provide a document that every citizen born in america now days, and at the time of his birth is required to have by law.

        The law doesn't say you have to carry it or even have it in your possession at any time, but one HAS to exist if you were born in America during Obama's lifetime.

        If he was not born in America, does not have an American birth certificate, but was naturalized because his parent(s) was an American and gave birth abroad for some reason then he can, in fac

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by BitZtream (692029)

          I would like to point out that the US Embassy in any give country is considered US Soil.

        • If you actually have a legal birth certificate depends on the state you were born in. I ran into this when I need to get some federal government paperwork. I gave them a birth certificate I had used many times in the past, and still do, to prove US citizenship and after they did some checking I was told that it was not an official birth certificate it was a birth certificate given by the hospital and had no official standing. If I wanted to an official birth certificate I had write off to my birth state
          • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Sunday April 05 2009, @01:15PM (#27467029)

            ...as the GP said, if he were to provide it (which would probably take all of 15 minutes) it would shut up all those who are currently asking...

            You are provably wrong, since he did provide it and numerous people here are still asking for it. I already linked to a copy of it in a reply, and several other people linked to articles verifying it was released.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Aczlan (636310)

              As I said, Obama provided a Certification of Live Birth, NOT a Certificate of Live Birth, the difference is that the Certificate of Live Birth "is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL" ( Source [hawaii.gov]), if the state of HI requests an original Certificate of Live Birth, why shouldn't we

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                As I said, Obama provided a Certification of Live Birth, NOT a Certificate of Live Birth, the difference...

                Yes, but not one that matters. They sued, the courts, asked Hawaii to verify the certificate issued matched their original records and they confirmed that. Then they threw out the case. Several other cases were filed, the judges looked at the evidence and tossed those out too. No matter what is provided nutjobs (such as yourself) continue to field conspiracy theories. Assuming you had the originally issued one in your hands, you'd probably come up with some theory as to how it is an elaborate forgery and al

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by palindrome (34830)

            Except there isn't any doubt is there? Avoiding as much politics as I can here, there were quite a lot of people who didn't want Obama to be President, the Republican Party, for instance. If he were not born in America then there would be proof and I'm sure that there would be those in the Republican party who could get hold of such evidence.

            Manufactured controversy is pointless stirring. Are there not enough valid points to be argued over without squandering time on this non-issue? (yes I understand th

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by BitZtream (692029)

              As someone who traditionally votes Republican, I still totally agree with you. You say 'avoiding politics' but I think ignoring it would be bad in this situation. Politics actually prove it to be a non-issue.

              Politicians are some of the most back stabbing corrupt greedy assholes on the planet, regardless of party. If there was proof that he did something wrong, ONE of them would have found it, even someone in his own party, JUST to further themselves.

              It takes about 2 days for a politician to find proof of

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ThePhilips (752041)

        No.

        As Colbert (as in ISS module name) pointed out, the hawaiian birth certificate is very likely fake as it is not etched on a coconut.

        And knowing current state of US intelligence services, one never can be sure that somebody actually run a background check before he got elected.

      • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday April 05 2009, @05:53PM (#27469269) Homepage Journal

        where Obama was born. His mother was a citizen of the United States. Nothing is more natural than for an American woman to give birth to an American baby. There is no doubt that Obama's mother was a citizen. The residency requirements cited by the (mostly) republicans are bullshit, plain and simple. The law was poorly written, and wrong to boot.

            I still don't know how much, or how little, I like Obama. But, if I end up detesting the man as much as I detest both Clinton and Bush, IT WILL NOT BE because he is (black, foreign, noncitizen, related to moslems, just plain funny looking - take your pick out of these, or fill in your own version of bigotry).

        Everyone accepted McCain's citizenship, despite being born outside the country. To me, there is little if any difference between McCain's birth, and Obama's.

        This written by a veteran, who WANTED to believe in McCain, but ultimately voted for Obama. If the republican party manages to find, and get behind, a genuine conservative, I might vote republican next time. But, NO MORE NEOCONS!! Every neocon in the country could drop dead today, and I wouldn't miss a one of them.