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(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VI] The most recent attempt to create a common venue for cultural commentary and debate is Starafugl, a website started and edited by author Eiríkur Örn Norðdahl. It’s been around since last winter. As I have been involved in various ways, I am liable to be considered biased when I claim that Starafugl has had a convincing first few months. I claim it, all the same. Starafugl ran into trouble a few weeks back, when it received its first ever invoice. The invoice charged Starafugl for a photograph, that had been used to illustrate an article

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part V] Radio program Víðsjá, run by state broadcaster RÚV, is in fact a tower within Iceland’s cultural panopticon. Which might serve as a translation for the program’s name. It reports on events and publications, and leaves space for commentary, which at times has been among the best you’ll find: inspired and grounded, informed and enlightening, at times romantic, courageous when needed. Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, radio host Eiríkur Guðmundsson, often credited for having made the program what it is, was also a student of the aforementioned Matthías Viðar. Notwithstanding repeated downsizing of RÚV programming, the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Make Yourself at Home

by

Air-bnb has announced its future vision —and a new logo. Supposedly composed from a heart, a location marker and the letter A, the logo has already been the target of much ridicule, needless to repeat here. The logo is not the point. One of the its main virtues, according to the company’s announcement, is that it is easy to draw. This serves a function: people all over the world are offered to draw the logo on just about anything they are willing to share for a fee. As the company’s statement says, Air-bnb is not just about sharing spaces, but

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Democratic Principles —the Machiavellian B-sides

by

“The president will not discuss statements made in an election campaign, during his term in office.” So said the President’s spokesman in response to RÚV’s attempt to ask President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson about his statements in 2012, that, if elected, he might seek to leave office before the end of his term. His fifth term, to be exact. The spokesman’s response has the structure of a reasonable, if not self-evident, principle, something any member of a functioning democracy would surely understand. Meanwhile, the content of the sentence may be considered somewhat less than democratic. In other times, the same content,

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo IV] Granted, much of traditional paper-based publication is currently in crisis. Yet, most of Morgunblaðið, heavily decorated by ads from companies on friendly terms with the Independence Party, keeps going. (Buying ad-space in Morgunblaðið is not just a political act, but comes close to signing a manifesto.) Its sports pages persist. Without any empirical evidence, my hypothesis as to why they cancelled Lesbók, is that it was open to texts that Morgunblaðið‘s new masters simply would not understand. And what you don’t understand might be communism. Perhaps the old masters didn’t understand it all either, but that

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo III] Until the advent of Iceland’s economic crisis, anno 2008, the conservative-liberal daily newspaper Morgunblaðið published a weekly supplement focused on culture, called Lesbók, literally translatable as Readbook. The Lesbók‘s history dates back to 1925. Around the turn of the millennium its main editor was Þröstur Helgason. As a scholar of literature interested in contemporary critical approaches he would at times be derided by the right for being post-modernist as in non-traditional, and scorned by the left for being post-modernist as in apolitical. Both groups read Lesbók for the sake of irritation, to feel forced to respond,

Show Me More!