Whose Data is it Anyway?

Published September 3, 2008

Government institutions and other public organisations gather a lot of data. Some of them – like the Statistics Office – have it as their main purpose, others as a part of their function, and yet others almost as a by-product of their day-to-day operations.
    In this case I’m mainly talking about structured data, i.e. statistics, databases, indexed registries and the like – in short, anything that could logically be represented in table format. This includes a variety of data, ranging from the federal budget and population statistics to dictionary words, weather observations and geographical coordinates of street addresses – to name just a few examples.
    Within these public data collections lies tremendous value. The data that has been collected for taxpayers’ money for decades, or in a few cases even centuries (like population statistics), is a treasure trove of economical and social value. Yet, the state of public data is such that only a fraction of this value is being realised.
    The reason is that accessing this data is often very hard. First of all it’s often hard to even find out what exists, as the sources are scattered and there is no central registry for existing data sets. Many agencies don’t even publish information on the data that they have.
    More worrying is that access to these data sets is made difficult by a number of restrictions, some accidental, others due to lack of funding to make them more accessible and some of these restrictions are even deliberate. These restrictions include license fees, proprietary or inadequate formats and unjustified legal complications.
    I’d like to argue that any data gathered by a government organisation should be made openly accessible online. Open access means absence of all legal, technical and discriminating restrictions on the use or redistribution of data. A formal definition of Open Access can be found at www.opendefinition.org
    The only exception to this rule should be when other interests – most importantly privacy issues – warrant access limitations.
    There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, we (the taxpayers) have already paid for it, so it’s only logical that we can use the product we bought in any way we please. If gathering the relevant data and selling it can be a profitable business on its own, it should be done in the private sector, not by the government. Secondly, it gives the public insight into the work done by our organisations in a similar way as Freedom of Information laws have done – mainly through media access to public sector documents and other information.
    The most important argument, however, is that open access really pays off. Opening access and thereby getting the data in the hands of businesses, scientists, students and creative individuals will spur innovation and release value far beyond anything that a government organisation can ever think of or would ever spend their limited resources on.
    Some of these might be silly online games with little monetary value but yet highly entertaining. Others might be new scientific discoveries made when data from apparently unrelated data sources is mixed. And yet others might be rich visualizations that give new insights on some of the fundamental workings of society, showing where there’s need for attention and room for improvement.
    A recent study on the state of matters with Public Sector data in the UK concluded that the lack of Open Access is costing the nation about 1 billion pounds annually in lost opportunities and lack of competition in various areas.  Per capita, a billion pounds in the UK equals about 750 million ISK for Iceland and that’s without adjusting for Iceland’s higher GDP and arguably some fixed gains per nation.
    Surely a huge opportunity for something that requires only a thoughtful policy change and a little budget adjustment to enable the institutions to make the needed changes and continue their great job of gathering valuable data. 



Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Down To The Dog Den

by

Anyone familiar with the vertical structure of just about all workplaces—from old school industries and services to the arts, to the innovation and public sectors—understands the universal logic of The Boss. No matter how pleasant it might feel to fulfil one’s working tasks and hours; irrelevant of how invisible the allegedly inherent antagonism between the social hierarchy’s different layers might seem; no matter how much one might actually doubt the current relevance of an analysis based on the concept of hierarchy—or even the very existence of the phenomenon itself; at the end of the day there’s no question about the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

What If Sunday is on the Phone to Monday?

by

Nothing like a country that every day walks further down the path of its own inexorable decline. Nothing better than an ever more provincial country run by a rotating crew of the same incompetents, dishonest, corrupted by their support of a permanently and totally corrupt regime. What is better than living in a land where justice is a bazaar? What artist wouldn’t dream of such a nation? —Said filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard in the 1980′s, regarding France. Mutatis mutandis … we are not there yet. Iceland seems corrupt yes, at times fundamentally so. And yet the work may not be completed.

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

The Best Place In The World To Be A Woman?

by

Women are reportedly more equal to men in Iceland than any other place in the world. But does this mean that we have reached the goal of gender equality? In international media and discourse, Iceland is often portrayed as the best place to be a woman. We certainly use it to market ourselves to tourists and boast of it in our own media. This is in large part due to the recognition we have received from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index. For four years in a row now, Iceland has been ranked as number one on the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

So What’s This I Hear About Iceland Being The 17th Best Country In The World?

by

Something called The Good Country Index was published recently. It is a list of 125 countries ranked according how much good they do in the world, from Ireland at the top to Libya at 125th. As a marketing stunt, it was brilliant, generating a few hundred thousand news articles around the globe. It was, predictably enough, conceived by a marketing guy who, even more predictably enough, paid someone else to do all the hard work. You can take a wild guess at which one got most of the media attention. The guy who did all the work? No. But let

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ask Not on Whom the Sun Shines

by

If the State Prosecutor decides to take the Interior Ministry to court, for breach of confidentiality, slander, and abuse of public office against two asylum seekers, the Capital Area Police will in all likelihood handle the criminal investigation, as it has until now. Since the police is subordinate to the Interior Ministry, the police thereby investigates its own superiors. There seems to exist little, if any, protocol for that, which calls for some improvisation. Which is the best way forward? Which way towards a convincing, ethical code of conduct? Should the Minister resign? —No, you are confusing Iceland with some

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part IX] Earlier this year, a free-trade agreement between Iceland and China took effect. Iceland is the first, and so far the only, European country to make such an arrangement with the People’s Republic of. No one knows what that means. Literally no one. Perhaps some politicians, administrative staff or business managers think they do: they probably have some rough estimates about the agreement’s effects on our GDP, and at some point may have read an article or two about whether or not China has any imperial ambitions in the arctic. By and large, they would seem

Show Me More!