andrewmcintyre.ca

[Start the video at the 16th minute for the story]

There’s a marvelous story in this hour long FRONTLINE documentary called “The Warning” about the woman who warned of the coming financial collapse.

It was the the late 90’s and while media manipulators of internet stocks proclaimed that “Santa Claus arrives early on Wall Street,” the tech bubble continued to inflate.  Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the immensely powerful Federal Reserve, told Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure small federal regulatory agency – the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – that he didn’t think the government should regulate fraud.

As Born challenged Greenspan’s orthodoxy on financial derivatives – the complex toxic financial products now blamed for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the resulting  financial collapse of 2008 – the story quotes Greenspan as saying “We’re never going to agree on fraud … you probably think there should be rules against it.”

“He thought the market would figure it out.”

In hindsight it seems as though the faith the public held in their illustrious financial wizard and the wizard held himself in the efficacy of his own magic potions, isn’t much different than that of religious fundamentalists. But to what god were they praying?

I’ve had a few days to digest everything I took in at ChangeCamp Edmonton, an unconference that I attended last Saturday. I still feel inspired.

Choosing from a grid of open discussions about participation and collaboration between citizens and government pitched by attendees on the day, the sessions I attended at ChangeCamp Edmonton emphasized a new openness and transparency between people and the institutions that represent us.

I intend to blog about other sessions I attended, but to start with I need to get these lingering thoughts about Mack Male’s open data session off of my chest:

(for those unfamiliar with open data, check out the related links at the end of this post and the open data wikipedia page)

The problem of privacy

Unfortunately, the conversation seemed to get bogged down with privacy issues, which I agree are a legitimate concern anytime we’re dealing with data relating to individual citizens.

The problem is that even with personal identifiers stripped from the data, resourceful data mining detectives could potentially cross reference many seemingly unrelated databases to piece together enough circumstantial evidence to pin point someone’s identity. This is a legitimate concern and a place where I believe a moratorium on open data relating to individual citizens should exist until these privacy risks can be adequately considered and addressed.

But what about public data?

Nearing the end of our 45 minute session, I looked up from my laptop note taking to make this point:  is this focus on privacy the wrong conversation to be having? Can’t we a make a clear distinction between data about citizens and data about our public institutions and how they function?

In any democracy there is an expectation of transparency for elected officials and public institutions, so let’s get started on open data by opening up data about, and created by, these institutions and making it more accessible.

Creating transparent institutions

I posed a second – mostly rhetorical – question to the group of about 40 people, (which included Government of Alberta and City of Edmonton employees):  If we want to look through the details of specific expenditures in an expense line on a budget for a public office or institution, why shouldn’t that be possible if the technology is available  (which it is) and the cost isn’t prohibitive (which it isn’t)?

Public data is currently released in a heavily formatted, edited and “locked” format like a PDF. We’ve paid for our governments and institutions to collect that data, why shouldn’t they make it available in a format that facilitates editing an analysis by citizens?

Recent complaints from journalists trying to make their way through the federal government’s labyrinth of stimulus spending is another compelling reason why it’s time we demanded data be accessible in an open format from all levels of government.

Citizens as investigators of the “long tail”

Kevin Kuchinski made a great point nearing the end of the initial open data discussion: there are huge amounts of data collected stored on paper by all levels of government already.

The problem becomes obvious with this question: Do citizens file freedom of information requests for fun?

My sense is that the fees, delays and hassle prevent all but the most dutiful citizens from looking through our existing public data in their spare time.

The necessity of combing through reams of paper looking for the proverbial “needle in the haystack” is the why we’ve needed highly dedicated professional investigative journalists to discover important secrets and hold our institutions accountable.

I’m proposing that we implement policies that make it easy for anyone to be Woodward and/or Bernstein in their spare time.

We need to tap into the “long tail” of expertise outside government. But to do so we will need to elect leaders that legitimately value transparency enough to work with citizens to create a wikipedia style community interested in using their spare time to make our public institutions more efficient, transparent and accountable.

I love this goal.

Real transparency has the potential to be more a transformative, non-partisan game changer than, for example, a provincial fringe party electing a new seemingly capable leader ever will. *cough* #WAP *cough*

Some slight reservations

But there’s one dark cloud: Lawrence Lessig’s recent cautionary analysis, “Against Transparency”

Essentially Lessig is saying that open data about public institutions must take place in the context of a movement of people focused on fixing problems as they are discovered, lest open data lead to disillusionment and breed further cynicism and apathy. Luckily, we’re are meeting that bar by bringing citizens together to discuss these issues, one unconference at a time.

Lastly, let me reiterate my thanks to all the participants, organizers and sponsors that made ChangeCamp Edmonton such an enormous success.

Related links

Mastermaq’s open data blog post

DJ Kelly on open data in Calgary

David Eaves on the three laws of open government data

I was inspired to sign up and write a post on climate change for Blog Action Day 2009 after reading Alex Abboud’s excellent post entitled “Embracing Post-Modernism.”

My first consideration of the risks of resource depletion, overpopulation and the need for long term thinking and sustainable practices was over a decade ago in grade 10 high school science class. The problem seemed almost as intuitive, even obvious, as it is today.  But for a middle-class 16 year-old eager to begin driving a car, while living in a resource laden country, the problems never seemed as tangible as they are today.

Looking back, it was as clear then as it is now that exponential  population growth in conjunction with an increasing,  resource gobbling,  standard living were leading us down a dangerous road. Advances in technology, medicine and even in social system systems -  the ascendancy of globalized capitalism and its recent failure, for example – are leading us ever closer to a precipice where tough decisions are necessary.

Some are even likening the willful blindness towards living within our means, or more accurately the lack of action taken to rectify our recent collective awakening to accelerating climate degradation, to a massive global ponzi scheme.

I worry most about the cost of inaction, of maintaining the status quo, given the huge uncertainties and potentially destabilizing global security risks we’re all facing as a result of anthropogenic climate change, which is only one of the environmental threats to our continued security and prosperity.

Last night I heard the latest news in what seems to be a perpetual parade of disconcerting stories about the rapid changes in our climate. CBC is reporting that climate researchers now believe we will have ice free summers at the North Pole in only 10 years.  This will have enormous consequences.

So what can we do?

For starters, myopic sloganeering about “local food” as the panacea for addressing climate change is not the magic cure all some make it out to be – though I wish it were.

I recognize that the growing chasm being awareness and action is the real issue here. Most people now accept that climate change is happening and that it is a major problem but few people seem to have changed their behaviour and lifestyles to minimize their impact. As a human being, I am not without fault here either, but I am trying.

So I agree that lifestyle changes are important. When aggregated they can really make an enormous difference. However,  much of the massive change needed to address our climate bankruptcy can only come from new rules, laws and policies on a systemic level.  To put it another way: this is a problem that governments at all levels, from around the world, must immediately work together to address.

A new age of cooperation is required. Right now. Will the COP15 United Nations climate change conference this December be the turning point?

For the sake future generations, let’s all hope so.

Acting with the legal support of the BC Civil Liberties Association, this week two activists filed a lawsuit challenging a Vancouver bylaw that restricts the right to “distribute material critical of the Games during and around the events.”

BCCLA President Robert Holmes commented on the severity of the punishment for violating Olympics inspired bylaws in Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler that  give municiple workers the power to enter private property to remove “offensive” signs to protect the Olympic brand:

If you think through what people get thrown in jail for in this country, six months in jail is usually reserved for criminals who have a record of several convictions of breaking and entering, but now it’s the government that wants to break in and take down signs that should be part of people’s freedom of expression.

Collectively now: W. T. F. ?!?!

(link h/t cknw.com)

Max Blumenthal on NPR’s Fresh Air on what the crazy, racist wingnuts are doing to paint Obama as the boogeyman:

The goal is to paint Obama as a totalitarian, secret communist, fascist, terrorist, Muslim, whatever they can do, a basic pastiche of right-wing hobgoblins, a multicolored pinata of every evildoer they want to smash in order to de-legitimize him and mobilize as much opposition as possible.

Sadly and unsurprisingly, the epicentre for these schizophrenic anti-government, anti-fascist, pro-theocracy anger-fests are gun shows:

And the crowd you see at gun shows, I mean, some people are just basic, apolitical gun enthusiasts, but it’s a very political gathering. There are Confederate flags. There are even Nazi flags being displayed throughout the conference because it brings in elements that are even considered extreme within the right-wing grassroots, like neo-Nazis.

And it’s a gathering place. Gun shows have become a gathering place for people who are the most extreme opponents of Barack Obama’s agenda, and they’re energized again by the battle over health care. And we’re seeing it across the board; it’s not just with the extreme, militia-oriented elements. We’re seeing it within the Christian right.

A recent poll showed that seven out of 10 white evangelicals are extremely opposed to Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reforms. And the Christian right is raising a lot of money, organizing against health care. So it’s across the board. The right is growing again. And those who pronounced the death of conservatism, or the death of the Christian right, were premature.

In related stories, Barack Obama is now receiving 30 death threats a day according to the Secret Service – a 400% increase over last year with President Bush – and in Canada our national newspaper of record is openly opining about whether Obama can even survive.

*SIGH*

It doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.

University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former Harper strategist, advising on the Tory election strategy of tying the Liberals to the unpopular notion of a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition eventhough he recognizes it to be a boldfaced lie.

Now please excuse me while I go vomit.

Via theglobeandmail.com