“Power of Information” review from Cabinet Office: government could do more with our data
Tom Steinberg of MySociety (behind theyworkforyou) has co-authored an important new report, “The Power of Information Review” which suggests that online advice sites could improve citizen empowerment.
But it does much more: it looks at government use of public data and suggests more could be done, including beefing up the Office of Public Sector Information.
We’ll have more when we’ve read it in detail..
Tom Steinberg’s blogged his brief comments; here’s the official PDF; and here’s a site where you can comment on the report, rather as you can with Hansard discussion on theyworkforyou.
Meanwhile today’s Guardian looks at the collapse of the National Spatial Address Infrastructure effort in “Address plan finally abandoned“. RIP NSAI – you tried but didn’t have the right backing, ultimately.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Catching up: government responds to OFT and Power of Information reports (5 July 2007; score: 46.83%)
- Trading Funds review: terms of reference (25 June 2008; score: 30.33%)
- In today's Guardian: more examination of 'The Power Of Information' (14 June 2007; score: 28.61%)
- Power of Information authors rebuff Ordnance Survey over "free maps" article (9 October 2007; score: 27.54%)
- Who's who after the reshuffle (12 July 2007; score: 26.86%)
June 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“Ordnance Survey is understood to be fiercely resisting proposals for it to give more access to unrefined data, on the grounds that this would undermine its commercial position.”
Excuse me, but Ordnance Survey is part of central government. Just because it chooses to act like a commercial business, it most certainly isn’t. It behaves as if it is above the law of the land. And the obvious conflict of interest of the OS Director General being Chairperson of the GI Panel *and* Adviser to Government on Geographic Information continues to be an incredible indictment of our government and our democracy. Commercial position indeed!!
When is this insanity going to end? Does government respond to those who can most forcefully “resist proposals” (and, I might add, bend arms) or to the people who fund it?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hmm. A little strong – OS is not the only public agency to fight its corner in pursuit of what it no doubt genuinely believes is the greater good. I agree with your sentiments, though.
One of the most significant and welcome recommendations in the Power of Information report is for an independent review of the costs and benefits of the trading fund model.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Perhaps it is a little strong. However, I do think it is a little naive to equate OS’s commercial position with the greater good. That seems to be what you are saying, Michael. I agree that this review of the trading fund model is long overdue and I welcome that as an outcome of the cited report.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Almost every week for the past 15 months we’ve run an article questioning whether commercially healthy trading funds are good for the wider economy. Let’s hope the government agrees to the review, and that it really is independent.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:47 am
I look forward to your detailed review.
I perused the document quickly and upon quick observation I did not see any strong language associating access and cost recovery policies. It is quite difficult I would think to increase access while maintaining the sale of data at current prices. The monopoly on data by the government seems rather at odds with innovation in the non government sector. Regarding access, i did not see mention of a data access portal which most spatial data infrastructures have, and which are great mechanism to discover and access data. Regarding user generated data, it would be really interesting to have a comparative analysis of the quality in terms of accuracy, reliability, validity, metadata, precision, completeness, authenticity, up to dateness, accountability, quality of the methodology, etc. and whether these data would be as trusted and of equal quality as those generated by the state. How does one attest to the quality of user generated content? Wikipedia is one thing but what of a database? The report also does not discuss scientific data resulting from research, is that also public data? It is exciting to see such a report, and I hope that some of the recommendations get moved forward. And look forward to your analysis.