Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Cloud IT Your Rights Online

Does Open Data Have a Dark Side? 65

Posted by samzenpus from the the-good-and-the-bad dept.
itwbennett writes A Forbes article last month explored some of the potentially darker sides of open data — from creating a new kind of digital divide to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services. But how real are these downsides of open data? The World Wide Web Foundation's Open Data Program Manager Jose Alonso is unconcerned, telling ITworld's Phil Johnson via email that the WWWF "believes there is no substantial evidence yet that the availability of Open Data leads to the marketization of public services or public spending cuts." But Ben Wellington, a professor in the City & Regional Planning program at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, New York and author of the popular blog I Quant NY, takes a more cautious stance, acknowledging that there are some real concerns that may call for regulation. But, at least for now, "there's a lot more innovation and positive things coming out than these corner cases," says Wellington.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does Open Data Have a Dark Side? More

Does Open Data Have a Dark Side?

Comments Filter:

  • Dark side (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Thursday February 19, 2015 @07:36PM (#49091945)
    I don't see that the privatization of government services is necessarily a "dark side". If the services can be delivered more effectively and efficiently by private organizations then they should be. My only problem is with those that would campaign for privatization when there is good evidence to suggest things will be worse as a consequence just because they are anti-government.
    • The problem with privatization is not that the service is being provided by a private organization, it's that it's trading one monopoly (public) for another (private). The issue is that certain services have been monopolized by the government via the law. Services aren't magically better when performed by private companies. They are better in the free market because there is competition and no one can force you do to one thing or the other. Government and the services it has privatized are still just monopo

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        I agree it's easier said than done. I would note that much of the Federal government already contracts out routine and easy-to-define services. It's one of the reason why the average salary of a Federal employee is higher than average: many repetitious and simpler tasks are already contacted out. The remaining Federal employees are largely overseers and inspectors, which generally require more credentials and experience, resulting in a high average salary. (Rush L. fails to mention this in his salary rants.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cenan ( 1892902 )

          I would note that much of the Federal government already contracts out routine and easy-to-define services

          And to former federal employees in many more cases than it should be. You are kidding yourself if you think that is not a closed ecosystem. It is a monopoly, and one that is much harder to see through.

    • Re:Dark side (Score:4, Informative)

      by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday February 19, 2015 @09:07PM (#49092323) Homepage Journal

      My only problem is with those that would campaign for privatization when there is good evidence to suggest things will be worse as a consequence just because they are anti-government.

      And within that one tiny sentence is encapsulated decades of economically ignorant hot air. Thank you.

      There exists a class of loud, toxic morons in the USA that actually believes everything should be privatized, and they are either 1. stupid, they honestly can't see how this makes some services worse (roads, police, broadband, healthcare, etc.), or 2. evil, they do know it will make things worse, but they want to profit unfairly off of our misery as entrenched rent seeking parasites (while talking in dishonesty about "capitalism" when there is no competition and there can be none due to natural barriers to entry).

      • There exists a class of loud, toxic morons in the USA that actually believes everything should be privatized

        Exquisite! Pre-emptive ad hominem much?

        (roads, police, broadband, healthcare, etc.) ... there can be none [competition -mi] due to natural barriers to entry

        There are no "natural barriers to entry" to medicine. Nor to Internet Service provision. Many (most?) places can have competing roads — city of Tokyo has competing subway lines. Am I a "loud toxic moron" now?

        As for police, yeah, no one would

        • educate yourself:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

          then speak

          i do not respect you. do you respect antivaxxers? creationists? climate change deniers? 9/11 truthers?

          we are talking about low iq, delusional, and mentally deficient people who believe these things. attacking your mental capacity if you believe in things like this, and things like free market fundamentalism, is not an ad hominem attack. it is actually an objective description of your mental capacity, as derived from the demonstrated use of your men

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            educate yourself:

            Your turn now. "Natural monopoly" is a myth [mises.org].

            i do not respect you. [...] then fucking open your ignorant mouth. until then, SHUT UP. you are, objectively speaking, a moron [...] you simply do not deserve respect

            So, you will be yelling names and bona-fide obscenities at me until I agree with you? What a charming and persuasive way to win friends and influence people.

            I think, we are done here. Thank you.

            • seriously, just dealing with a creationist

              "natural monopoly is a myth!" DROOL SNORT

              all i can think of is this:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

              that's the same level of intellect i am dealing with with such an ignorant low iq comment

              you can't deny basic fucking reality and still think you get respect. you're a DUMB PERSON, who believes DUMB THINGS

              why aren't there hospitals on every street corner? why don't we all build our own gigawatt power plants in our backyards? why don't we all start our own private pol

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mi ( 197448 )

                DROOL SNORT [...] Crocoduck [...] basic fucking reality [...] you're a DUMB PERSON, who believes DUMB THINGS [...] knuckle dragging free market fundamentalist

                Yep. You convinced me. One of us is a loud toxic moron...

                • I DON'T RESPECT YOU

                  you and you fucking ignorant douchebags are nothing but useful fools for plutocrats interests in this country

                  the sum total of your ignorant beliefs is to put money in the pockets of a few already super rich rent seeking parasites at the expense of the rest of us

                  you free market fundamentalists are dangerous ignorant toxic pieces of shit

                  you believe ignorant, uneducated, obviously wrong crap like a creationist or an antivaxxer

                  and like an antivaxxer spreads disease

                  and a creationist hurts chil

      • The long time kuro5hin.org troll strikes again. People who talk about reducing government oppression and allowing people actually to make ultimate decisions in their lives without being oppressed are either stupid or evil. Those are the choices the troll is giving you and you are eating it right up, /..

        • because oppression always comes from government and never from anything else

          would you mind educating your ignorant shitstained mouth and then speak next time?

          here's some intellectual charity you dumb fuck:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

          this is where you go "HURR DURR MONOPOLIES DON'T EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT *DROOL SNORT*"

          with weak government, their powers increase you mindless twat

          study you're fucking history

          you are stupid and uneducated p

          • You think your pseudo-intellectual midgetry matters to me one bit, you gnome? Robber barons were captains of industry that created the wealth that the likes of pukes like you always want a piece of to steal for yourself. Monopolies are created by governments and as to private police force protecting private property - that's the only police force that has any moral grounds to exist in the first place.

            Go pound a piece of crocodile dung, there is nothing I need from you at any moment in time, nothing useful

            • as to private police force protecting private property - that's the only police force that has any moral grounds to exist in the first place.

              so if you're poor, the only rights you have is to be abused anyway a plutocrats wants you to be?

              this is what freedom means to you?

              nevermind that question, not that it seems you want freedom or human rights. the only thing you understand is "i have money, fuck you"

              which is the status quo in plenty of poor countries with no functional government, with a few ultrarich who

    • Re:Dark side (Score:5, Informative)

      by plopez ( 54068 ) on Thursday February 19, 2015 @10:12PM (#49092555) Journal

      Privatization is just a code word for handing a monopoly over to the private sector, sometimes with deadly results such as the water riots. I see it as brining the Spoils System back in in a sneaky sort of way.

      Not also that taxpayers who often invested in infrastructure for decades are never given any ROI like stockholders would. The companies often get a huge amount of goods or infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Privatization is just a code word for handing a monopoly over to the private sector

        That would, indeed, be bad — worse than government monopoly — if EZ-Pass is anything to go by.

        But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?

        The companies often get a huge amount of goods or infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.

        A "fair pric

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rmstar ( 114746 )

          But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents?

          I agree with you. Most adherents of privatization are just useful fools believing some fantasy free market stuff. The spoils go to the cunning investors that have the networks and skills to rig things in their favor.

          A "fair price" of anything is what other people are willing to pay. Taxpayers may have spent a billion dollars on it, but if $10 million is the most anybody would pay (after an honest an

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            For example, regular public transport to far away places so that the countryside doesn't die. That costs a lot, is valuable

            Why is it valuable? Could you substantiate this claim — without calling me names?

            Money isn't the measure of everything.

            Indeed, money is not the measure of everything. But we are talking about prices ("fair" and otherwise) and costs — the boring things measured in money and nothing else.

            that thing called critical thinking.

            It would help, if you stopped talking about things yo

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rmstar ( 114746 )

              Why is it valuable? Could you substantiate this claim â" without calling me names?

              Because the countryside doesn't die, asshole?

              Oh, I think failed this one.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mi ( 197448 )

                Because the countryside doesn't die

                Countryside not dying is valuable because the countryside doesn't die. I see...

                Oh, I think failed this one.

                In more ways than one.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by rmstar ( 114746 )

                  Countryside not dying is valuable because the countryside doesn't die. I see...

                  So, why is it valuable to let the countryside die?

                  Go ahead, be the asshole you are.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DUdsen ( 545226 )

          But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?

          It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition, sure they dont use those words but newspeak like market differentiation or leveraging intellectual property but the goal of any publicly traded company is always to overcharge customers, and avoid markets with real competition and low profit margins.

          There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulati

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition

            Sure, each corporation wants to be the monopoly in its respective market(s).

            But that's not, what I'm challenging here. Plopez above alleges, the very term "privatization" is a "code word". That adherents of it are conspiring to help such corporations. It is this allegation that remains unsubstantiated.

            There might be naive idiots in congress w

  • Forbes article last month explored some of the potentially darker sides of open data â" from ... to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services.

    What's "darker" about privatizing government services?

    Government is FORCE. When it "provides a service" it uses that force to make everybody using that sort of service use THEIR service, which they do THEIR way, and prevent anyone from providing the equivalent service in a possibly better and/or less expensive way.

    We're seeig this no

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The government can do a lot of things more efficiently because they can leverage economy of scale and there aren't CEOs and shareholders colluding to skim a lot of profit away from the venture. It's the same reason people have been banding together to do things ever since we came down out of the trees. The only thing that is required is sensible oversight, which admittedly is lacking these days. But that's not an unfixable problem. Try getting any kind of oversight of MegaCorp.
      • Are you kidding? The government is getting half my pay each year and they do not leverage anything. They are employing a lot of people which have almost zero incentive to improve anything. Whatever happen, they will get paid and they will get their retirement allowance and pension which is above what most people in private sector can dream to have when time of retirement will come. The inefficiencies of the governments are costing manifold the profit CEOs and shareholders are pumping from the private ventur

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by plopez ( 54068 )

          do you have public roads, schools, hospitals, utilties? Then you are getting a return. Airports? Mass transit? Either the country you are living in is horribly dysfunctional (e.g. Nigeria) or you are sadly mistaken.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      We're seeing this now with Obamacare

      Seeing what exactly? Most of the health providers are private companies. O-care just ensures everybody pays into the system and that the providers correctly provide at least a minimum standard levels of service. If you wish to privatize parts of this mix, what parts would it be?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by moeinvt ( 851793 )

        I would get the government out of healthcare entirely. Their 50 year intervention has created an absolute disaster of exploding costs, lack of competition and stagnation of quality. Millions unable to afford even the most basic services, the working uninsured being billed at exorbitant levels to subsidize government programs, etc. etc.
        If by "the system" you mean private insurance companies, then you're right. Forcing us to buy their products and entrenching a middle man that adds little value to the syst

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          I think the automobile model is appropriate.

          No. Automobile performance is relatively easy to measure. Medical service is not because there are gajillion different types of treatment. If your brain surgery goes awry, you are too feeble to sue. And it's difficult to shop around when in pain. Plus, much about cars is regulated, such as safety.

          If a product or service grows beyond a certain complexity, and/or the down-sides are long-term, then the consumer is often ill-equipped to make good decisions. Each indi

    • Now there MAY be a FEW services where privatizing them are an issue. But we can discuss those on a case-by-case basis. For the bulk of them, why should the government even be involved?

      There's an easy way to draw this line - economists speak of "public goods" - which has a special meaning in economics that's not what a layman might guess it would be, and that is goods that markets can never provide because the economics of producing them is incompatible with markets.

      The trick, usually, is that most arguments

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by plopez ( 54068 )

      Corporations are force too. But under a junta (the CEO and BOD) as opposed to voter sanctioned.

    • >. the potentially darker sides of open data â" from creating a new kind of digital divide to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services.

      If you choose to get a service from the provider you select, that's choice. If the government, in cooperation with their intelligence services, forces you to get the service, and get it from them, that force.

      Force is necessarily ALWAYS better than choice. That's canon to the American left.

  • Dark Side (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Thursday February 19, 2015 @07:44PM (#49091987)

    Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.

    It has come to our attention some people out there have taken to learning things, which puts the stupid and the lazy at a severe disadvantage. We need to regulate this now, to make sure that everyone in this country is equally misinformed and ignorant!

  • Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Dark Gravity, Dark Holes, Dark Data, where will it end?...

  • *Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.

    What the ever living fuck? Did the author think this through? Don't have the ability and skill to fix your broken toilet?! Just cry disadvantage!

    The author of this article has obviously never worked with open data or knows anybody who has. There are an incredible number of benefits to having access to open data. For example, gro

  • We're supposed to be "afraid" that government services might be made to cost less?

  • Dark Data is a Straw man (Score:5, Informative)

    by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday February 19, 2015 @09:40PM (#49092425)

    Here is a summary of what should have been said. "Any system implemented poorly has the potential for abuse." That is all that needed to be stated.

    What I read in TFA are three separate straw man arguments.

    1. Critics of the government can use open data to make a case for cuts in government spending on public services, potentially leading to the privatization of such services and related assets.
    No kidding? You mean if we see where our money is being wasted we may have a voice and speak out about it? Demand that a half dozen employees from GSA get terminated for having a million dollar Vegas party with a few buddies? We see that our military spending in foreign countries is an amazing amount of money and we demand that we either receive money from the countries we are protecting or pull out?
    This is exactly the reason we should have open data. It's called accountability, and every citizen living in a country is expected to be accountable.. unless of course you are in a Government position right?

    2. Private companies and individuals can leverage open data for their own benefit, to the detriment of others.
    If the data released to the public is not scrubbed of personal data of course there is risk. We have the same exact risk today because for some idiotic reason people decided that things like Employee IDs should be the same as your SSN. Sloppy practices are a bad idea, open data just means that we better have some eyes making sure that what gets published is clean.

    3. Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.
    This one is completely baseless, and in fact I'd argue the complete opposite of reality (shocking, I know). Companies right now are making money hand over fist by paying for data. If it becomes public, even small entrants can play.

  • false flag (Score:3)

    by DUdsen ( 545226 ) on Friday February 20, 2015 @04:41AM (#49093339)
    Lets reduce his argument to it's core:

    Non insiders might be allowed to use retorical tactics that had been exclusively reserved for insiders, and insiders will no longer be able to use the old "we have data you dont" line of reasoning to avoid debate.

    Lets also remember that forbes editorial line is generally pro-privatization so it's kind of odd they would use the line that "open data" is good for outsourcing unless they are just trying to find a argument their political oppoents might buy, rather then a genuine concern.

    Sure the date will be used by every group under the sun to give the appearance that their belief based statistics have data behind it, and some groups might use it to make an argument but it is an known cavear emptor of democracy that the public might be misled by charlatans and demagogues.

    Looking at reality again data analysis is not the exclusive domain of the neo-mercantist and faux-liberatrain movements who tend to be incredible bad at it, but tend to be used just as effective among the proponents of government spending as among the opponents.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close