[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?

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

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.

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)

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

Anytime someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn’t give you the key, they’re not doing it for your benefit.

Excerpted the DRM section of Cory Doctorow’s excellent submission to the Canadian copyright consultation.

Eventhough a Fall election will almost surely derail the Canadian copyright consultation process, it’s positive that the Canadian public is engaged and participating in this needed conversation.

Eventually, Canadian copyright law will be reformed. We need to make sure Canadians’ rights to use, modify and comment on copyrighted materials are not locked up when it happens.

@rhh awesome avatar.

said:

@andrewmcintyre i salute you ;)

*Glenn Beck on Media Matters

As noted in previous posts on this topic, I’ve been personally interested in copyright and internet law (and certainly copyright enforcement) since I downloaded my first MP3 thirteen years ago.  Recently, I’ve been fortunate to have the issue intersect with my professional life as well. At the PSE Partners conference last week, Dr. Meera Nair had a very interesting response to a question I asked her about how digital locks – software that blocks users’ ability to copy files including Technonological Protection Measures, TPMs, and Digital Rights Management, DRM – reconcile with the fair dealing provision afforded by Canadian legislation and case law.  Dr. Nair explains on her blog “Fair Duty”

Simply put, once a work is locked, it’s game over. Fair dealing is meaningless if you cannot access the material. Many individuals are anxious that IF Canadian law were to prohibit the circumvention of TPMs, such a prohibition should only apply to circumvention for infringing purposes. Meaning, if you circumvent a TPM for a noninfringing use, such as fair dealing, you will not run afoul of the law. Yet, there is a question of why permit the use of TPMs at all? TPMs take away existing rights available to Canadians. To limit access to published work is to deny fair dealing. Said another way, TPMs violate a structure of law that has been in place since the creation of copyright itself (nearly300 years) and present in Canadian law since its inception in 1924.

In other words, the very idea of companies or industry consortiums using digital locks to prevent people from making copies of works they’ve legally purchased runs counter to the notion of limitation in copyright law – which limits both creators and consumers -  as well as the existing provisions afforded by fair dealing under Canadian law.

Sadly, in reading and listening to many of the remarks of industry stakeholders at the formal roundtables and the townhall, this unwarranted trampling of Canadian’ rights through the imposition of digital locks is being touted as the only way these industries can save themselves from the unwashed masses of file sharers. At least in the realm of music, this position is convieniently ignoring UK music industry economists’ admission that the music industry is growing.

In today’s Toronto Star, Michael Geist addresses the issue of creating longevity in any forthcoming adjustments to Canadian copyright law, and in doing so, establishes four principles to employ in the evaluation of proposed changes. Dr. Geist’s second point implicitly addresses the issue of digital locks by acknowledging the short comings of proprietary technological constraints.

First, copyright law should strive for balance between creator rights and users’ rights. If the law tilts too far in one direction, the other side is virtually guaranteed to put the issue of reform back on the table and the changes do not last.

Second, the law must be technologically neutral. Copyright has proven remarkably resilient over the decades in large measure because it states broad principles about the scope and limits of protection. If copyright veers too far toward specific technologies by mandating new protection for specific business models or technological innovations, those rules risk being overtaken as the technologies and marketplace evolve.

Third, the law should strive for simplification and clarity. Copyright may once have been a niche issue understood by a small number of experts, yet today it affects the daily lives of millions. If Canadians are to respect the law, they must first understand it. When Bill C-61 proposed a 12-part test to determine whether recording a television program was legal, it rendered the law far too complex for the average person.

Fourth, the law should embrace flexibility, which has allowed many copyright provisions to adapt to continually changing economic and technology environments. Flexibility requires a general-purpose law and ensures that it works for stakeholders across the spectrum, whether documentary filmmakers, musicians, teachers, researchers, businesses or consumers.

I’m hopeful that something reasonable will come out of these consultations but I also worry that the government is going to miss the mark and embrace the imposition of a copyright clampdown that either restricts established legal protections or turns regular Canadians into criminals.  You can do your part to make sure that doesn’t happen by making your voice heard.

Make your written submission right here: http://copyright.econsultation.ca/topics-sujets/show-montrer/18