In Jakarta, Open Environmental Data Meets Freedom of Information Law

1
In Jakarta, Open Environmental Data Meets Freedom
of Information Law
2
http//www.slideshare.net/noreencian/westhill-cons
ulting-reviews-in-jakarta-open-environmental-data-
meets-freedom-of-information-law

• Recently something interesting happened in
  Jakarta. We got a glimpse of what the future of
  the open data movement could, and hopefully will,
  look like.
• So what happened?
• On the surface, nothing that would ordinarily
  send anyones hearts racing. There was a regional
  meeting of STRIPE, a group dedicated to
  Strengthening the Right to Information for People
  and the Environment. The attendees, who hailed
  from China, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, the
  Philippines, and Thailand included
  representatives from civil society organizations,
  academia, governments, and international
  organizations.
• So here is the first interesting piece. At the
  conclusion of the conference the group issued a
  document they referred to as the Jakarta
  Declaration in which they cited not just freedom
  of information laws, but also open data, as
  critical to tackling the region's environmental
  challenges.

3
Consider the first three clauses of the
declaration (italics mine)

• FOI laws assist in ensuring access to
  environmental information by people and
  communities. However, information on air and
  water quality and pollutants released into the
  environment needs to be released proactively, in
  formats that are easily understandable by the
  public, without a request.
• Government needs to adopt legal requirements for
  the collection and production of environmental
  information.
• Laws that guarantee a specific right of access to
  environmental information without a requestneed
  to be operationalized to ensure quick and timely
  access to environmental information.
• This for me is a window into a future where calls
  for open data no longer come strictly from
  traditional advocates. In many ways this will be
  a sign of success. The fact that
  environmentalists believe open data can help
  advance their cause is a validation of the ideas
  of open data advocates. At the same time, Im
  under no illusions that every new stakeholder
  will be as benign or operating in the public
  interest as, say, environmentalists, but this is
  nonetheless a sign of maturity. The open data
  movement was only ever going to get so far if it
  was about a narrow group of technologists or
  transparency advocates that frequent the same
  conferences. To succeed it needs to find
  supporters across many groups and bodies and the
  Jakarta Declaration is a perfect example of a
  bridge being built to the environmental movement.
  It will be interesting to what other bridges will
  emerge in the coming months.

4
The bigger story

• There is a bigger story however in the Jakarta
  Declaration, one Ive tried to talk about before.
  It is about the dueling natures of FOI and Open
  Data and a second way in which the open data
  movement will have to mature.
• Take a look at clause two again1. Government
  needs to adopt legal requirements for the
  collection and production of environmental
  information.
• This is essentially asking for a legal structure
  for open environmental data. This is a
  significant shift since, in many places, open
  data enjoys no legal protection. In almost every
  jurisdiction, at any time, a government can
  remove and stop sharing a data set at which point
  it would only become available via a FOI request.
  In other words, barring a few legislated
  examples, we enjoy easy access to open data at
  the pleasure of the government.
• This is one of the central differences between
  FOI and open data. FOI provides citizens with
  rights to access. Open data, for the most part,
  has simply afforded a privilege. Our colleagues
  in Jakarta have rightly pointed out their
  discomfort with this and are giving the open data
  community which, as a broad tent, has always
  included those interested in not just
  transparency, but non-profit, commercial uses,
  scientific uses a push to demand more.
• I suspect that such a guarantee to the right to
  access data will require a new approach to
  legislation we will not simply be able to
  extend FOI.

5

• This is because there is a central the difference
  between a FOI and open data. FOI is a document
  centric process. It requires one to audit
  documents (for privacy and secrecy) that have
  already been produced. It is, by definition,
  backwards looking and non-scalable. Open data, in
  contrast, is a system centric process. With a
  guarantee to data you are not asking for a
  specific document or data at a specific moment in
  time, you are asking for access to all products
  of a system including those in the present and
  future, and possibly even those from the past.
• This is a significant shift. There is a wonderful
  analogy in what happened to the accounting
  industry in the 1990s. Previously auditors would
  audit the books. In other words they would
  review and sign off on specific documents much
  like an FOI officer reviews a specific document
  for privacy or secrecy concerns. The arrival of
  computers and the explosion of the amount of data
  corporations created changed everything. Auditors
  could no longer review every document. Instead
  they started to audit systems assessing if all
  the documents it produced were valid. In other
  words they are determining if all past, current
  and future products of the system would be valid.
• This required the entire field to reskill itself.
  Some older partners chose to retire, younger
  accountants saw it as an opportunity to develop a
  new skill and grow their business. In either
  case, it required new skills and a new
  perspective.

6

• And this is the end game of what Jakarta
  Declaration means. The STRIPE delegates want
  entire systems not individual documents to be
  cleared as open and accessible accountability
  that all past, present and future data will be
  open (and accurate).
• To be clear, Im not applying a hierarchy here.
  Im not saying a systems approach is better than
  a document approach. There is little doubt that
  both will be required.
• But the entire accountability infrastructure
  within governments will need to think of
  transparency and accountability with a whole new
  paradigm, one of systems not just documents. And
  this reskilling and new
• perspective will affect not just the people who
  have to implement these new rules, but also the
  solicitors, civil society organizations and
  access to information commissioners who oversee
  the government.
• This will undoubtedly make some politicians and
  public servants still more uncomfortable than
  they already are, for others it will represent an
  opportunity to advance their careers. Regardless,
  it will be disruptive. But it will also help
  foster a better window for the public into
  government, and the data that informs its
  policies, regulators and other outputs. And that
  would be a good outcome.