4 ms·
Another point (raised in the comments to the original article) is that open data, like "full disclosure" security practices, levels the playing field. In other
by quanticle 14y ago
Another point (raised in the comments to the original article) is that open data, like "full disclosure" security practices, levels the playing field. In other words, investment banks, city governments, and who have you already are doing these sorts of things. Open data allows us, the general public, to see them doing it. Yes, in your dystopia of Hobbesian all-against-all competition, we end up in an Snow Crash-esque agglomeration of specialized communities for increasingly narrow demographic segments.
But there is an alternate future. With open data (and increasingly cheap computing and communication devices), community organizers and the poor themselves can see exactly how they're being screwed over by the government. It will no longer be a nameless, faceless they that's inflicting pain and misery on them, but instead, specific actions, undertaken by specific individuals in specific offices. Corporations and governments won't be able to hide behind their usual practice of security by obscurity, since, with open data, it'll be possible for any citizen with a modicum of spare time and spare computing resources to run data analysis and come up with possibilites for why things are as screwed up as they are. We're already seeing this, with tech related laws and regulations. Open data makes it easy for any individual with an internet connection to track the progress of legislation. This was a major factor in galvanizing opposition to SOPA and PIPA. Making more data sets open and freely available will, in my estimation, benefit individuals far more than corporations or governments. Open data will do to closed-door decision making what full disclosure did to 0-day vulnerabilities.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>It will no longer be a nameless, faceless they that's inflicting pain and misery on them, but instead, specific actions, undertaken by specific individuals in specific offices. You're assuming that there are actually specific fat cats smoking cigars in back rooms planning all of this out. That pretty much never happens. What actually happens is that different tax jurisdictions have different laws and people self-select into the jurisdiction that provides them personally with the best value in government services for their tax money. That means the affluent taxpayers go to the jurisdictions that take only a modest tax bite and use it to provide only services that the affluent consume. The jurisdictions that don't do that are then forced to cut services after their tax base is eroded by so many of the high income taxpayers leaving. The local officials in those places are not sitting in their offices trying to think up ways to screw over poor people, they're just trying to figure out how to keep the lights on. They have to do something to attract and retain more of the taxpayers who pay as much or more in taxes as they consume in government services or they fall into the death spiral of service cuts and tax increases that induce more emigration and capital flight which erodes the tax base and requires more spending cuts and tax hikes.