Open access to public sector information

When is the damning report on internet filtering, that was received in February going to be publicly released? This scheme is worthy of Stalinist Russia. Josef would be proud of you, minister Conroy.

Posted by sabredog / 23 Dec 2008 10:18am / Permalink

The Chinese have a lot of experience with Internet filtering and censorship. It may be worth checking with the Chinese government as to what is available before reinventing the wheel.

Posted by Michael / 23 Dec 2008 4:04am / Permalink

1. All - or as much as possible - unclassified government data should be public domain or some other copyright-free licence. There should be no sweetheart deals with data providers that allow them to lock up access to subscribers and the like (including court data). They can provide this data service sure, but then the raw data should be available from government sites. 2. All formats this information is published in should be free of patents and other encumbrances to reproduction such as "proprietary" formats, i.e. open formats. This means no 'Word Docs', etc.

Posted by Scot Mcphee / 22 Dec 2008 10:59pm / Permalink

When I voted Labor I wasn't aware that a censorship regime that would be a credit to a totalitarian state was on the agenda. Why do you insist on treating 20 million people as if they were all children? Why are you pressing ahead with trials of a censorship regime that is universally unwanted and loathed?

Posted by Caranda / 22 Dec 2008 6:18pm / Permalink

I stand up and wildly applaud to comrades Conroy and Rudd. Censorship is a great first step. Long live Peoples Republic of Australia.

Posted by Andrew / 21 Dec 2008 12:19pm / Permalink

Honestly, what's the point of asking for feedback if you're not going to listen? An overwhelming majority of people are against internet filtering and have expressed their issues here. Yet you are stubbornly pushing ahead with trials and seem to be hellbent on implementing this. Seriously, why are you even asking for feedback if your mind is already made up? All you're doing is confirming to people that you aren't listening.

Posted by Hazza / 19 Dec 2008 8:20pm / Permalink

Censorship has never worked and never will. It is a bastion of the totalitarian government and has no place in Australia.

If implemented it will just become another challenge for the hackers and net savvy users to find a way to circumvent it.

I already have my own idea how to get any material I want and I will, for being an educated adult I like to make my own choices on what I see and hear.

As usual the answer is education not penalization.

Wake up Conroy, this isn't North Korea or China.

Posted by Saxon / 19 Dec 2008 4:20pm / Permalink

As taxpayers we have already paid the government to gather or create information related to its activities, and I believe strongly as a matter of principle that we should be entitled to use that information both to hold the government accountable and to supplement government activities.

However it should not be a goverment prerogative or obligation to select, organise, manipulate or present the raw data. Provided the raw data is freely available to all comers (as on the ABS site), individuals and businesses will step in to turn raw data into valuable information. Some of them will be volunteers and some will do it for profit, and we shall all gain as a result. This is not a "free ride": this is community benefit from private sector activity in an open marketplace.

Yes, there will be costs but these should be tiny compared to the value inherent in the data, and the government should benefit as we all do from the improved use of information, with less duplication and the contribution of more minds.

So: my vote is for the widest possible availability of information in raw form at the minimum possible cost, free if possible, and licence terms that encourage volunteers and businesses to compete in how they analyse and present information for the benefit of us all.

Posted by David Bennett FACS / 19 Dec 2008 4:18pm / Permalink

I’m strongly supportive of providing free and open access to Public Sector Information. Technologically, it’s easier than ever use and re-use materials and data in innovative new ways, however this potential is often hampered by restrictive copyright. Providing open access to PSI, for example under a CC-BY license, would open this data up to all kinds of innovative use and reuse, and could do much to increase access to knowledge. I would go further and say that it's not just information and data that should be available on open access, but all government materials (reviews, reports, Hansard etc) should be available for use and re-use by the public. Government websites contain a wealth of information and materials on diverse subject areas, however it is often the case that this information is not readily accessible to the public. This can be so for a number of reasons. E.g: - The PSI is “hidden” in the website. Government websites hold large amounts of useful PSI, but this is sometimes only apparent to a more accomplished researcher. An average member of the public is probably quite unaware of the wealth of information available, for example, on sites like the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian Bureau of Statistics. – PSI may not be presented in a way that is useful for the public. The example provided by Carolyn Dalton (Google) of data on public toilets is illustrative. It may also be presented in a format that is more difficult to understand, such as statistics and raw data on the ABS site. As other comments have noted, providing free open access to PSI will lead to innovative uses that can’t be anticipated. There are many ways that data can be used and reused that will make it more understandable, informative, useful and even entertaining for members of the public. This might involve uses that draw together data from a number of different government websites, or that provide greater functionally. As others have mentioned, theyworkforyou.com is just one example of how PSI has been used to great effect. Laura Simes |Australian Digital Alliance

Posted by Laura Simes / 17 Dec 2008 2:09pm / Permalink

Besides all the off-subject talk about filtering, I think it's essential to our democratic processes that public information (i.e. generated by government, through its interactions on behalf of- and with- the public) is published in a readily accessible fashion. Though the vast majority of citizens will ever refer to the information, its presence will alert those who feel compelled to advocate on the public's behalf. All public information should be freely available in a usable format - including any commercial arrangements with government. It should be a condition of government contracts that the provisions of any agreement are available for public scrutiny. This is how the public can maximise accountability, and progressively get the most from its government.

Posted by Cumos / 16 Dec 2008 3:26pm / Permalink

@texinick:

Agree with you on the use of PDF over other formats. As for fundi's comments, I'm tempted to call a Poe on this comment. Then again, I'm one of those 'purveyors of this rubbish', since I want to be able to play F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin and Silent Hill: Homecoming, both of which have been Refused Classification (thanks, Atkinson).

@fundi:

No-one is saying you can't filter "this filth" if you want. There's plenty of net-nanny software which you can install on your computer to stop your children from accessing "this filth". All we are saying is that it should be an individual's choice to include this level of censorship, rather than have some idiotic, ham-fisted attempt forced upon everyone.

Posted by MattR / 16 Dec 2008 3:02pm / Permalink

This filter can't go ahead. Not everyone in Australia has children. Isn't it the responsibility of the parents to control what they are looking at on the internet? Anyway, kids stare at screens way too much these days for them to grow up to be healthy balanced adults. They should be outside, or utilising their brains in other ways. I am concerned that the sites the government deem 'inappropriate' will get way out of hand. They will be basically controlling what information we have access to, therefore taking away our freedom, and so we cannot get the whole truth of any matter. Internet speeds in Australia today, are already behind the times. The speed of the internet in the Japanese countryside in the snow covered island of Hokkaido are alot faster than the metropolises of Australia. I SAY NO TO INTERNET CENSORSHIP!

Posted by kat / 15 Dec 2008 8:12pm / Permalink

Naturally, as a librarian, I can only applaud greater access to information. But there IS a caveat (isn't there, always...*L*)...and that is that simply providing data is NOT sufficient to empower many individuals or businesses. What will be necessary also to maximise benefit to the whole economy, and minimise inequities, is the provision of tools, guidance and training, in order that the "freed-up" data actually be used effectively. Otherwise marginalised people and businesses will be left further behind in the digital race. Here I should declare my other qualification: Teacher. So no surprise then that I argue there should be explicit provisions in the proposed National Curriculum to address the areas we teacher-librarians call Information Skills. This focus should range from K-12, through to Tertiary Education. If the investment of putting Laptops in front of every student is to be realised fully, not only must there be training in how use them, but training for teachers in how to teach the effective use of the data that they give access TO. Similarly for business, training (via outreach programmes of the PSI data providers or TAFE sector) will be critical. Talk to the National Library people - they'll confirm it's one thing to make data available...it's another entirely to get people using it effectively.

Posted by gurujim / 14 Dec 2008 9:29pm / Permalink

The utility of information is not determined merely by volume, but how readily relevant, and ONLY relevant information can be collected. This requires information to be properly categorized using metadata. While this metadata (including fine-grained keywords and security/confidentiality labels) is necessarily known by the authors of documents, it is rarely defined well in those documents, and therefore not readily discoverable. If government-produced documents, whether datasets developed by the ABS, or documents that analyse or propose policies, were properly labelled with subjects, fine-grained keywords, and labelled with confidentiality, it should be simple to put everything under a google-type search engine, and provide it without question unless confidentiality labels prevented such display. "If it isn't expressly prohibited, it is published". This would make it easy not only for the public service to find the relevant information required for efficient administration of a nation, but dramatically decrease the costs for most FOIs... for there will also be documents that may be identified to searches as relevant, but with titles only displayed, because the contents are hidden in accordance with security labels. A simple scan by an auditor or ombudsman could then produce a ratio of "secret" versus "public" documents by agency. We'd expect ASIO's documents to be mainly secret, but if a road planning or gambling control agency had as high a percentage of "secret" documents as ASIO, we'd know something suspicious was going on. I agree with those who argue that if government sponsors or part-sponsors the development of knowledge assets, then those assets should become common wealth unless there is a powerful argument on a case-by-case basis for publication. Many forget, however, that the same thinking means that government sponsored or subsidized research (e.g. in CSIRO or universities) should likewise be considered a good shared by the commons, even though these assets are commonly gifted to commercial entities who redefine those assets as proprietary.

Posted by David T. Bath / 14 Dec 2008 9:05pm / Permalink

I am deffinately a fan of freedom of information. I am not a big fan of having to resort to getting said information from commercial sources. Google are a fantastic company. They have made magnitudes of information available to the masses, whether through the best search engine of our time, or more recently the google maps/earth products. Though as far as local information is concerned, I strongly feel the government should be providing this information for us, NOT a foreign entity. Geoscience Australia surely have the capacity to deliver a google maps alternative. ABC. OUR national broadcaster offers an excellent geotagged news service in cahoots with google earth. Why do they have to use a foreign private companies product? If you look at such projects as wikipedia/openstreetmaps etc, I am bewildered as to why our government doesnt set up an open, free to edit, free to use street map / wiki site. After all, why pay a team of mappers to keep things current when you merely need to employ a handful of moderators to check user added content for correctness? There is no need to develop software as 10 mins of 'googling' will show you there are several fantastic opensource mapping projects already in existence that could be tweaked to your needs. Then extra information can be added by various government agencies. for example, zoom in on your town and check out the latest feed from BOM, or perhaps the latest earthquake information. This is the tip of the iceberg. There is an absolute plethora of information that can be added as various overlays from many government departments, federal AND local.

Posted by elmato / 14 Dec 2008 8:02pm / Permalink

I am deffinately a fan of freedom of information. I am not a big fan of having to resort to getting said information from commercial sources. Google are a fantastic company. They have made magnitudes of information available to the masses, whether through the best search engine of our time, or more recently the google maps/earth products. Though as far as local information is concerned, I strongly feel the government should be providing this information for us, NOT a foreign entity. Geoscience Australia surely have the capacity to deliver a google maps alternative. ABC. OUR national broadcaster offers an excellent geotagged news service in cahoots with google earth. Why do they have to use a foreign private companies product? If you look at such projects as wikipedia/openstreetmaps etc, I am bewildered as to why our government doesnt set up an open, free to edit, free to use street map / wiki site. After all, why pay a team of mappers to keep things current when you merely need to employ a handful of moderators to check user added content for correctness? There is no need to develop software as 10 mins of 'googling' will show you there are several fantastic opensource mapping projects already in existence that could be tweaked to your needs. Then extra information can be added by various government agencies. for example, zoom in on your town and check out the latest feed from BOM, or perhaps the latest earthquake information. This is the tip of the iceberg. There is an absolute plethora of information that can be added as various overlays from many government departments, federal AND local.

Posted by elmato / 14 Dec 2008 7:51pm / Permalink

I voted for the ALP for the first time at the last election. I did not however vote for this filter. If this filter goes ahead, I will never vote ALP again.

Posted by Scott / 14 Dec 2008 2:04pm / Permalink

Dear Senator Conroy

I am 61 years old. Thanks to the Internet, I have learned more about the world in the last ten years than in all of my previous lifetime.

How on earth you could consider any form of censorship is beyond me. That is applying bronze-age thinking to 21st century communications.

Maybe you see yourself in a benign role, but this is leaving the keys in the ute for future politicians who wish to steal it.

It seems to me that far more pedophiles have been caught by the Web than would otherwise be the case. Therefore I doubt your motives.... sir.

Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464 / 14 Dec 2008 2:02pm / Permalink

Further to Barry Robinson's post, I think I'd prefer to see PDF used as the standard, rather than ANY word processing format. PDF documents can be read on just about any platform, from iPhone's to Linux and most in between. I think this would offer much more freedom to access the information.

As for fundi's comment. There is so much wrong with your post it's not funny. Maybe you should read what the experts are saying.

Posted by texinick / 14 Dec 2008 1:31pm / Permalink

I think the question of whether the private sector should pay for PSI or not is a no brainer. Publicly listed corporations and Privately owned companies pay taxes and as such, should have free access to PSI as should Citizens. There will always be people and organisations who misuse and abuse such information but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. (I wonder if this last sentence would get past an internet filter?)

Posted by Ned Kelly / 14 Dec 2008 12:01pm / Permalink

I want the filter. I want to stop child porn, adult porn, bestiality and extreme violence being freely accessed on the internet. Its effects are insidious and over time will turn the mind. Opponents believe filtering this filth on the internet threatens democracy and will slow the net to a crawl. This is rubbish. Government trials have shown ISP filters can work effectively with negligible slow-down and a low rate of blocking appropriate material. The United Kingdom and Sweden have voluntary ISP filtering which has been adopted by virtually the entire industry in those countries without the loss of freedom of speech or internet speed. The net will not be censored. Illegal material Refused Classification (child porn, bestiality, extreme violence) will be blocked, throwing a spanner in the works of the purveyors of this rubbish. I think the issue is all about money ... Fiona Patten (porn lobby) says: “If they go ahead with what they propose, we’ll wipe out the adult industry in the next five years.” Happy with that! Like clean reticulated water, I expect the Government to help provide a clean internet feed so my children cannot access this filth. Bring it on.

Posted by fundi / 14 Dec 2008 8:12am / Permalink

I think one of the major components to the issue of Open Access is utilising open storage methods for this data.

For example, most people utilise the .doc format to store text-based information. Not because it's an open and standard format, but because this is the default document format imposed on them by Microsoft... Which controls the market by saying, "Hey, if you don't use our software, you don't get to view YOUR information." How many people have had problems opening a .docx document in any application other than Microsoft Office 2007?

My suggestion would be to move to open document standards such as ODF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument), which is supported by all major Office packages and is an open standard, just like the standards we built the Internet off (HTML, DNS, TCP/IP).

It is my understanding the National Archives have put some thought into the issue of open standards, as there is a clear problem with storing information in a closed format that may not be available to us in another 100 years... not going to worry me much, but I am sure it will upset someone's Grandchildren.

I am not too familiar with databasing standards, other than to assume ODBC and XML might be a start down the right track?

Cheers,
Barry

Posted by Barry Robinson / 13 Dec 2008 10:57pm / Permalink

Val cites an example of bad behaviour by some people after viewing pornography. This is just another case of ad hoc ergo procter hoc. Because two events occured together it does not mean there was a causal relationship. He tells us for example that "young ringers cut loose on the Aboriginal girls" after watching pornography. He does not tell us if they were also drinking alcohol for instance. Was it alcohol or pornography or some other reason (they had been out for a long time working and had come into town planning to "have fun". He makes the false assumption that because they watched pornography just before that must be the only reason they "cut loose". the question that should have been tested is how many times had they watched pornography and NOT cut loose before you can establish any sort of link.

Then there is the simple argument of why punish the majority for the actions of the minority. No one suggests banning cars because some people drive badly.

Posted by Ironbark / 13 Dec 2008 4:38pm / Permalink

PSI should be free, no fees, no questions asked to all Australian Citizens.

The government is working for US, we have already paid for the information to be produced, and the people of Australia should own the rights to it.

If the cost to provide data seems onerous, then a web interface should be developed for online searches.

In all things government should be transparent and the information the people own should be available to the people who paid for it.

Posted by Murray / 13 Dec 2008 3:02pm / Permalink

In response to Val: You could say the same for horror movies, guns, and a myriad of other contentious subjects. But I don't see any of that being targeted?

Just because he was 'watching pornography on his computer' does not necessarily mean via the internet, but if it was.. it was almost certainly NOT via the channels that the government are proposing to filter.

The point is... this person would have found pornography whether the internet was filtered or not. The filter being proposed will NOT stop this type of person getting what he wants. It is NOT filtering the main transports used to share this kind of material, being the P2P networks. At the end of the day, it is costing us MILLIONS and MILLIONS of our tax dollars, to NOT STOP the people that we are being told it'll stop. FACT.

I am NOT standing up for paedophilia, child pornography is absolutely vile. However, I have no qualms about consenting adults viewing non-violent pornography. If they want to do it, they should not be told by the government whether they can or can't. This is democracy, the freedom to choose.

What about serial killers? Do they watch too many movies? Should movies like Hostel, Saw etc be banned also?

When one person picks up a gun and murders others in cold blood.. do the government ban guns? Every day we hear of people being stabbed or shot around Australia.. are they viewing something on the internet they shouldn't too?

You are correct in that many subjects will also become blacklisted, without explanation. Who is going to control that list? You can guarantee if it's maintained by a person/group with religious beliefs, it will reflect THEIR beliefs. And I'm sorry to bring this up.. I didn't want to... but look how sexual problems have been hidden in the church in the past. Abortion? I believe that was mentioned as another potential blacklisted item. What do under-age girls who find themselves pregnant do then? No longer able to research the topic and her choices on the internet because one person is anti-abortion. And then there's homosexuality too? Hey, let's just sweep that under the carpet too.

Fact is: The filter is not good for our internet or the digital economy here in Australia. It is not good to hide away topics that are contentious, it doesn't miraculously disappear, it drives it further underground. As long as one person or group has any control over the people, their own personal agenda and morals will lead the way.

Just imagine an atheist looking after the blacklist, and blacklisting ALL forms of religion. Wouldn't the religious folk all be up in arms then.

Hey that's given me an idea. I will stand up and support the filter if ALL forms of religion are blacklisted too. How many deaths in the world are a direct result of religion?

Posted by texinick / 13 Dec 2008 2:17pm / Permalink

My thoughts,

Proposing to allow the people of Australia access to Australian Government information FOR A FEE is almost criminal. We already own the information and we pay for it with our taxes. Asking for us to pay for it again (in access) is totally insane. The Government is the representative of the people, they work for the people. They are not separate from or above the people.

I have 2 questions
1. Please tell me where I can get an ODBC level connection into the Directory Assistance data store. This information is publically owned (at least until Sensis was privatised. I still don’t understand how the Government can sell something they DID NOT OWN, in the real world it called theft.). I should not have to BUY a CD of the White Pages to get this information.
2. Please tell me where I can go on the net to listen to police radio in NSW. From what I have been informed, Police radio has now been encrypted so we CAN’T listen to it even if we buy scanners, even though we pay for it in our TAXES.

If you don’t believe we can have access to OUR (not YOUR) information for free, then the government needs to increase funding to get to the MINIMAL level of funding to do the job the department should have been doing.

I’ll have a think about where we can get the funding, even though we elected SENATOR CONROY to do that for us I Know I Know!!!

CAN THE BLOODY NET FILTERING PROPOSAL AND USE THE MONEY TO DO YOUR JOBS!

Is that put plainly enough for you?

Posted by Infiltrator / 13 Dec 2008 11:56am / Permalink

Just today we have an article in the Courier Mail stating that a paedophile, sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for sexually abusing his step-daughter, used to get 'worked up' while watching pornography on his computer and then take it out on the little girl. I'm sorry, but watching pornography leads to action, much of which is rape and sexual molestation. I witnessed this for myself at Wave Hill Station in the NT many years ago where, after someone had shown a porn movie, the young ringers cut loose on the Aboriginal girls and there was mayhem, to put it mildly. I am in favour of having these sorts of sites banned and I never thought I'd see the day when I would approve censorship. However, there is the question as already posed that censorship might, if this goes ahead, become tighter and tighter and finally strangle discussions about God, Christianity, evolution or even the government etc. What sort of clauses will be added to prevent complete strangulation of freedom to discuss and debate, regardless of how unpalatable it might be to some? Perhaps a referendum should be called for regardless?

Posted by Val / 13 Dec 2008 11:19am / Permalink

Minister. there is no shame in backing away gracefully from a bad and unpopular idea. Why must Govts always be so stubborn in the face of overwhelming public opinion? it just wastes time energy and money and still leads to the inevitable, plus, you have egg on your face. No one needs to be humiliated over this. You will command more respect from your electorate, if you just say, "OK, bad idea, stops here".

Posted by Steve McCredie / 13 Dec 2008 8:55am / Permalink

Please I would like to see public information licensed more appropriately. For starters I think any publications made by the government that are made public should have at least have use and re-use rights granted by a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia License or alike. Anything more than that such as Public Domain would also be acceptable by my standards. The government needs to do more to make information that really should belong to the public (such as government based spatial data (aerial imagery, road data, etc), census data, policy documents, Board of Studies Subject Syllabuses, etc) available to the public to redistribute, re-use, remix, resell, almost whatever they want. There should be no concern for say a document being altered in a way so that it is not what it seams, people know better, if they want to know its reliable they will go to the direct source.

Posted by Andrew Harvey / 12 Dec 2008 8:18pm / Permalink

Are all these keystrokes going to make a scrap of difference? I doubt it based on the Labor government's penchant for listening, reviewing, reporting and then reniging. The internet in Australia is a crock and Conroy should stop wasting time and getting on with sorting it out. We've been waiting for bloody years for someone to do something.

Posted by oldefellah / 12 Dec 2008 7:48pm / Permalink

How long before 'Family First' demand the blocking of sites that discuss evolution? How long before government decides to 'broaden the scope' of the filter...all for our own good, of course. You should be trying to speed up our internet speed, not slow it down with futile and invasive nonsense like this. Surely, it is the task of PARENTS, not governments, to filter their childrens' internet access as they deem appropriate. One final question- Does the term "one term government" mean anything to you, Senator?

Posted by Chris J / 12 Dec 2008 6:20pm / Permalink

Many people seem to misunderstand what will be filtered at ISP level. Adult porn will still be available. Only illegal porn such as child and animal porn will be blocked. This really makes me wonder why sections of the community are so vehemently against the filter. Why would you stand against the filter if; a) it doesn't slow down the internet enough for a human being to detect, and; b) legal porn is still available Methinks the adult industry is making plenty of money through legal porn, filtering illegal porn can only be a good thing.

Posted by Oh Come On / 12 Dec 2008 5:15pm / Permalink

We read that internet censorship filtering is "in pieces", but wonder why Minister Conroy was not spending the time he wasted on this curmudgeonly activity, doing his real job of freeing public broadcasting from its Howard era shackles.

Rather than trying to reduce the internet to the same lobotomised level acheived by Howard with public broadsheet broadcasting, why was adequate funding, end of censorship and the end of commercialisation not instituted for public broadcasting?

Maybe Tanner would have produced a more nuanced approach as to this portfolio, but my fears concerning minister Conroy and his owners have only been confirmed over the last twelve months.

A last minute schmooze of this sort does not impress.
Only concrete action will suffice from now on.

Posted by paul walter / 12 Dec 2008 3:06pm / Permalink

Just 2 thoughts: 1. How is open access to information (which I strongly support) consistent with mandatory filtering of the Internet? 2. With respect to licensing, why should we be required to license (and presumably pay for) information we as taxpayers paid to have produced?

Posted by TK / 12 Dec 2008 2:22pm / Permalink

PSI should be avaliable to all Australians free of cost without license. It goes without saying that social and economic benefits exist for the release of such information. Obviously with any such undertaking of this magnitude and heavy burden will be placed on the government in terms of sheer cost. This should not however be a determination of whether to release certain information.

Posted by Martin / 12 Dec 2008 12:18pm / Permalink

[QUOTE] If information is power, then information use and re-use can be powerful and potentially drive innovation in the digital economy. [/QUOTE] If it is such a wonderful thing, why do they want to control & censor this information source?

Posted by GuiGuy / 12 Dec 2008 12:12pm / Permalink

On blogs we want to share our research links, have a conversation, an argument, debate the future and of course be open. Concerns you raise are valid, but soon won't be, the so called hurdles you list need to be jumped even more urgently. Governments will stagnate themselves into sidelined reactionary agencies and become even more irrelevant in 10 years if they dont also change exponentially. As Mark Pesce and others say, "Open everything, share everything, capture everything, save everything" is the future. Pity this web1.0 webpage old skool comment form does not allow me to do any of that. Your real blog2.0 is eagerly anticipated. Yippee Ki Ay.

Posted by Tony Searl / 12 Dec 2008 10:57am / Permalink

This government is treading down a dangerous path, similar to the U.K, the worlds leading "database state". In 2007, the British Home Office exposed 600,000 people's private records. The people do not want more databases and more records about themselves. Instead make government more accountable. Tell us how many public servants work for each department, what their budget is, what the average person's tax burden is, and especially the total number of pages of regulation that people have to obey. A good example is the tax code, or these so-called "carbon pollution" regulations, or the medical industry regulations, or education regulations.

Posted by Jono / 12 Dec 2008 10:54am / Permalink

"... If information is power, then information use and re-use can be powerful ..." Then make it mandatory for all public information generated by government to be: - accessible using technologies like RSS that let end users consume information using technology. - license government data favorably to 'Australian companies' and individuals to use. This does not mean charge $$$ for what is essentially public funded, national assets. The current system for releasing information is antiquated. It simply ignores how silicon based consumption and processing can be used to enhance existing data for private and commercial use.

Posted by Peter Renshaw / 12 Dec 2008 10:28am / Permalink

I do not support mandatory filtering of the internet. It leaves the door ajar for political censorship as the question arises who determines which site is on the black list? What processes will be put in place to appeal these decisions?

Posted by Rob / 12 Dec 2008 10:00am / Permalink

It's always made me scratch my head why Australians, either business or members of the public, aren't provided free access to information created by the Australian Government. It is paid for by taxpayer's money, so it belongs to the public, NOT the 'government'. Other than information that is deemed of a national security nature, any and all other info should be available at no or minimal cost, and electronically if possible. An example of where that is not happening is in the case of Standards Australia. I believe it is a not-for-profit that does work to improve the quality of goods produced in the country and for the safety of the public. However, the cost of access to those standards is prohibitive for the general public. Therefore, the public has no way to determine if a product they are buying is up to standard! That makes no sense! This is an example of privitization that has gone off track. In the US, DARPA has (or had when I lived there) a program to release Defense Department developed discoveries/inventions for use by groups like schools and universities. If the research ended up as valuable methodologies or new products, that was a good thing and benefited society in general. Australia might consider that if it doesn't already out of CSIRO. I must say that the Australian and State Governments are in the main doing a good job in using the new online info distribution tools. Keep going!

Posted by JanW / 12 Dec 2008 9:59am / Permalink

While I welcome the government using online tools, such as blogging, to canvass people's views and to connect with the public, I am totally opposed to mandatory internet censorship. Driving internet speeds down, raising the cost of internet connections, and opening the door for future governments to control the internet is abhorrent.

Senator Conroy, if you want any goodwill from internet users, then drop your proposals for creating China-style internet censorship in this country. We might then look more favourably on your other initiatives, such as this blog.

Posted by Anthony / 12 Dec 2008 9:38am / Permalink

Selective government editors? Some pretty lame comments from government toadies, a real reply on Conroy's clean feed filtering to retrard internet connection speeds in Australia.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Religion/Vilification.html#skipnav

Tim Anderson The Editor http://www.hereticpress.com

Posted by Tim / 12 Dec 2008 8:32am / Permalink

Will you accept comment critical of the clean feed filtering which will retard the digital economy? Will you allow critics like Mark Newton from Internode to speak freely on the negative effect filtering will have on internet connection feeds? This is not the only blog in town, does it allow free critical comment, we shall see? http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Religion/Vilification.html#skipnav Yours Faithfully Tim Anderson The Editor http://www.heretoicpress.com

Posted by Tim / 12 Dec 2008 8:06am / Permalink

Public information should be publicly available in a format and under licensing that supports reuse, reinterpretation and integration with other data.

For examples, look at the Amazon Public data sets (http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/)and the UK government's Mash-up competition (make better use of public data) - www.showusabetterway.co.uk OpenAustralia (www.openaustralia.org) is a local example of the energy and creativity of the public when allowed access to data.

And the licensing capability exists and is in practical use in over 40 countries today via Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/au/). This is not even new to Australian government - it is supported and used in Queensland (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_Information_Licensing_Framework). The ABS is launching Creative Commons for all of its data on 18-19 December (a major step forwards!)

Of course the ability to reuse this data involves placing data online in a useful format. There have been efforts in government to create a national standard for data. I recommend continuing these, but with a very strong deadline and tight terms of reference to avoid dithering or weak standards that do not enforce appropriate information release on agencies.

Posted by CraigT / 12 Dec 2008 6:59am / Permalink

I think that this is great development. I would like to see all the government departments having a blog in operation as that would enable the departments to obtain a greater understanding of the various issues that the general public feel are not being attended to correctly in a timely manner

Well done

Posted by andrew b / 12 Dec 2008 2:35am / Permalink

Instead of adopting web content filtering(which the industry has stated will not work),why not make available(free of charge/or very cheap)individual software per household for those that want protection for their children!? E.G Net Nanny with an easy guild on how to setup the software. This way only those that have children or want filtering will have it! I.E As a democracy should be!

Posted by Ken England / 12 Dec 2008 12:17am / Permalink

open information means you are prepared to accept any comment not just those your moderators deem acceptable. Can the government handle the truth according to its constituents?

Posted by yourdomesticbliss / 11 Dec 2008 11:51pm / Permalink

Taxpayer-funded data should be freely available to all comers without any license. The more minds that are brought to bear on the analysis of public data the better our decision-making is likely to be.

However, we must be aware of the fact that many govt agencies (including statutory authorities like CSIRO) do not have the resources to implement such a policy even though the staff are willing and would benefit professionally from such a policy.

Posted by brad / 11 Dec 2008 11:26pm / Permalink

I think filtering of inappropriate material is a good action. It should be encouraged and supported, as long as it is not turned into a political tool.

Posted by mountaindew / 11 Dec 2008 10:09pm / Permalink