I think that there is another link as well... Much of the Open Data initiative/discussion is about data transparency... making government operations more transparent (and thus enhancing the presumed accountability of government operations/activities to citizens).
In some sense privacy is also about accountability, that is who has access to information about the citizen and what are the structures of accountability controlling that access and in turn what is the accountability of those structures to citizens and through this aggregate process, acountability to individuals as owners of their own information. This process of enforcing privacy, in democracies, is thus equally about making government operations ultimately accountable to citizens. In a democracy accountability is indivisible--it is not really possible to have accountabiity in one area and to not have it in another area since the drive (and temptation) to blur the boundaries, to hide the intrusions, to obscure the subversions is too great and thus lack of accountability in one area means lack of accountability in all areas. MG -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Yosem Companys Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:29 PM To: Liberation Technologies Cc: Ted Strauss Subject: [liberationtech] PRISM & Open Data From: Ted Strauss <ted.stra...@gmail.com> Glen, Here is the connection I see between Obama issuing an Open Data directive and the exposure of PRISM. Open data is commonly used by politicians as a way to sell themselves as promoters of transparency, accountability, and technical sophistication in government. If their policies end up failing to live up to their promises, then it does harm to pursuit of openness, because it turns into one more corruptible buzz word that can be used for political ends. Tracy's commentary to the CBC is an example of this line of critique. The Obama open data directive touts the US commitment to open principles, incuding respect for individual privacy. In the memorandum, the word privacy is used 22 times, as here (p.9): "Strengthen measures to ensure that privacy and confidentiality are fully protected and that data are properly secured" The revelations about PRISM seriously undermine the administration's credibility with respect to valuing individual privacy, since they are intercepting private communcations of people and using them in untold ways. This contradicts the aims set out in the open data directive, and in turn undermines those principles. If a tabacco company set up a hospital to treat lung cancer, would you go to that hospital? Would you trust the research they did? -- I have posted my original message to odx.io, in case this topic is not right for this list. -- Ted Strauss Co-founder of Trudat.co I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013 On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Glen Newton <glen.new...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >it is revealed that he believes the spirit of open data should be > >applied to the private communications of civilians > > I do not see any connection between Prism and the spirit of Open Data. > > -Glen Newton > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Ted Strauss <ted.stra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > When Obama said last week "no one is listening to your calls" he was > > parsing his message. He has emphasized that the NSA doesn't listen > > in on domestic US calls without a warrant from FISA. But no one has > > denied that the NSA is being allowed to indiscriminately spy on > > foreign electronic communictions. All the responses by US officials > > have treated targeting of foreigners as fair game. That includes > > every Canadian with a facebook, skype, or gmail account. (The latest > > leaks reported by the Guardian provide new troubling details and > > cast doubt on Obama's defence.) > > > > With an open admission of mass espionage targeting hundreds of > > millions of people worldwide, I think it's the duty of our elected > > officials to tell the US government at the very least that Canada > > does not consent. Indeed, the admission could violate treaties and > > agreements held between our governments. For example, the WTO treaty TRIPS on intellectual property. > > > > Shouldn't this case be made to our MPs and MLAs? > > Shouldn't we identify what are the legal implications of this > > admission for the various agreements between Canada and the US? > > > > Why is this on-topic for this list? > > One month after Obama issued an open data directive, it is revealed > > that he believes the spirit of open data should be applied to the > > private communications of civilians. Incidents like this give fodder > > to those who would argue against open government. In one month, the > > slippery slope became a precipice. That is why open data supporters > > should lead the way in drawing the lines of right and wrong on opening information. > > > > Ted -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
