Comments on 'Open Access to Public Sector Information'

Geoff

11 Dec 2008 5:25pm

The Australian taxpayer has already paid to collect/produce much of this data. Where it doesn't have private data, it should be made available on an "as-is" basis (reducing post processing costs) under an appropriate Open Source license (perhaps LGPL?). This would enable innovators and IT business in Australia to make rapid and timely use of the data and provide improved services to the Australian people. The base data is still available to competitors should they believe they can provide better services with it. Contrast this with the farce of map data in Australia where data collected with Australian taxpayers money was simply handed over to a private company to control. That company has essentially profited from our taxes and simply resold that data onto Google to provide a decent map service to end-users. It has added very little value, but has priced that data high enough to stop most small business in Australia making use it of directly. That data should be available to all Australia individuals and companies to value add instead of it simply providing value to a massive US company which could afford the high entry costs.

shirro

11 Dec 2008 3:14pm

Data produced with taxpayer funds should be in the public domain, in open formats, for the public good. There is too much legalese and IP protection going on. I prefer the US approach where works by the US government can not be copyrighted. If there was all encompassing whole of government legislation that removed copyright from all future government works there would be a public benefit and legal and administrative cost savings to the government.

anna

11 Dec 2008 3:15pm

I think a service that mixes government publicly available data with freely available private sector data is great (ie ABS/ census data and Google maps). There would be no privacy issues with that. Provided noone financially profits from it and it benefits society it can only be good to be freely/at cost available. As a side issue, I have a very little trust in the handling and privacy of personal information that public servants have access to ie tax files, immigration details etc. I'd be very wary of some types of info, even if aggregated 'de-identified', being used. Primarily because the less opportunity for persons to handle that sort of information the better.

Rossko

11 Dec 2008 3:16pm

This blog states "what we are referring to here is open access to Public Sector Information" and quotes examples of PSI being public-domain information by government agencies (statistics, weather, transport, etc.). But what about open access to the underlying information that will result in the Australian Government awarding of a new and enduring monopoly to the provider of the National Broadband Network, said to underpin the future digital economy? For starters, will the public gain access to the decision of the Panel of Experts? Will we gain access to the full terms and conditions of the contract between the Government and the selected bidder?

Jonathan Scanlan

11 Dec 2008 3:18pm

PSI should be released in combination with public wiki spaces for comment, cross-referencing and review. This would be of great benefit in terms of garnering feedback, and even help public servents to develop far more comprehensive reviews. To that end, I also recommend that you try asking the public to compile an official "Wikipaper" on a major issue or project. If enabled by the releasing a storehouse of public service data and reports, plus any other research that the public finds, you could get a more comprehensive and holisitc and representative approach to policy.

mibus

11 Dec 2008 3:19pm

There is boundless documentation that would be of value if released publicly - road maps, for instance, meteorological data, buried conduit details. Some of this is already available ("Dial Before You Dig", bom.gov.au, etc). But make it "out there", and easy to get access to the raw data (in almost any freely usable format), and people will find ways of using it that nobody ever thought of. Some stuff that's currently available (eg. RF tower information from ACMA) is "available" but nearly useless, as it's too hard to find what you want to know. Putting raw data out there makes it possible for other people to do the interfaces for you. As for licensing, make it Public Domain. We pay taxes, and those taxes pay workers that made those plans/datasets/etc. So, make it freely available back to the public that made it possible in the first place.

Ben Steven

11 Dec 2008 3:20pm

"the potential of open access to good, reliable and often hard-to-get information is being realised." Why not use this premise as a basis to open up Freedom of Information access to Government decision making and processes, to realise the Government's commentary in regards to making a more transparent and accountable system?

Brianna Laugher

11 Dec 2008 3:21pm

Broad open access to PSI is a wonderful idea that it seems the government is now starting to explore. This is commendable! The thing about it is that people cannot imagine what is possible. When you make such data available it will have knock-on effects that you can't anticipate ahead of time. Some things are predictable -- for example, open licensing would allow the Wikimedia projects to make far greater use of Australian data. One example of this is photography. In the US all works created by the federal government are ineligible for copyright (ie public domain) by default. This means the Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia have a very large number of excellent photographs from US departments such as the military and NASA. People complain that this is "US bias" but in fact we would use the photographs that any government made available. But to be compatible that must allow modification and commercial use (eg. public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). So don't forget about the great impact PSI can have on the "third sector", non-government organisations. I think public sector information should be licensed CC-BY or placed in the public domain. Government is by the people, for the people -- so should government data be!

Tanya

11 Dec 2008 3:22pm

While on the subject of open access to public sector information, it does not exactly inspire confidence that "unwanted material" is to be filtered from the internet via a secret black list, the contents of which will not be revealed. That would make it impossible to appeal if one's website/blog/whatever is deemed by some future, less enlightened government to be "unwanted". This would be like arresting someone and passing sentence without bothering with the irksome details of charging them or having a trial. Those of us with some knowledge of history are understandably cautious about such things.

Jacques Chester

11 Dec 2008 3:24pm

"At this point, you may pause and wonder-why would the Government want to give private companies a 'free ride'?" 1. The process of opening the data sets for public consumption improves government's ability to mine its own data. 2. Once the data has been integrated, the cost of making it available for public use is very low. Most of the cost is sunk already. 3. A cost-recovery approach to providing data will create disincentives to produce any data without identifying a 'market' first. Yet we can see from the example of 'mashup' services that the best ideas come about after, not before, the data is available. 4. Data transparency for government is akin to transparency and accountability generally. It is not an optional extra; it is an essential component for the healthy functioning of our democratic system. For these reasons any and all possible data should be released, all new data should be indexed in a way that conforms with DIRKS and similar, and all data should be presumed classified as being for-release, rather than needing a lengthy and expensive FoI process to tease out.

Toby

11 Dec 2008 3:25pm

Restriction of internet content on such a wide level is a farce, waste of resources and the sign of a slide into a police state. Further comments see other blog.

Calvin

11 Dec 2008 3:26pm

Open access to Public Sector information already really occurs. It is scattered over a vast number of different sites and isn't able to be easily cross-referenced, but IT IS THERE ! Examples would include Bureau of Meteorology, the ATO and ABR, ABS, Centrelink and Medicare (HIC) My main concerns with any form of "data repository" is adequate security safeguards be put in place and that privacy issues be strictly enforced. Some PSI sites like BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) are already starting to have issues with heavy loads leading to slow site access (or no access at all) Example: Try having a look at a major capital city radar image loop when a storm is approaching and see what happens ! I think it is important that if the government wishes to pursue this course of action that not only are the issues of security i mentioned before be addressed, but it must be adequately resourced so it is a USEFUL and timely service - not one that breaks every time it is put under a bit of stress.

Alex Lum

11 Dec 2008 3:26pm

I would wholeheartedly applaud such a move by the Australian government to release public sector information under an open licence. This would be more in line with the United States where works of the U.S. federal government are public domain, and are free to be used by companies, organizations or individuals. Examples are photographs of politicians or scientific material which can be used by open-source projects like Wikipedia, or the TIGER geographic database which was imported into OpenStreetMap. At the moment, government information in Australia seems to be only slightly less restricted than in the United Kingdom, where government data is subject to Crown Copyright, and publicly-funded agencies such as the Ordnance Survey aggressively enforce their copyrights over their data and derivations thereof.

Keong

11 Dec 2008 3:27pm

All Public Sector Information should be licensed using the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license (link is here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/ )

newt

11 Dec 2008 3:29pm

Intellectual property produced by the Government should be license-free. The citizenry has already paid for it. It has been produced using facilities owned and operated by us. Slapping a copyright statement on it and restricting its distribution amounts to intellectual property theft, which, funnily enough, is precisely the kind of thing that DBCDE gets upset about whenever the movie studios and music labels have a word in their ear. Faux-commercialization of Government entities has been one of the worst bits of rot that has set in over the last 30 years. The public service is supposed to be for public service. If there's a public need for information, it should be produced with tax dollars and made available to tax dollars. If there's a private need for the same information, either let private industry justify it as a public good that's performed on the same basis as everything else the public service does, or let the private sector sort it out for themselves. Take careful note: The "additional legal and administrative work and costs ... involved in identifying relevant datasets," could be completely eliminated by setting a Government-wide policy of providing read-only access to ALL non-classified Government-produced datasets. The Internet makes this easy, and where it's difficult for historical reasons systems should be redesigned to make it easy. Other nations seem to understand this: In the USA, Government documents are uncopyrightable. The same should apply here.

Sam Douglas

11 Dec 2008 3:30pm

I think the difficulty is in determining what certain PSI is used for at the point of availability on the web. This ties in with licensing in so much as I believe that PSI should be freely available for non-commercial use, but that profit-oriented entities should pay for the data if they are going to make money off it. The problem is that if a member of the public can access this data for free, so can the companies that you would like to pay for the same privilege. Businesses can absorb modest fees for usage of PSI, and should continue to do so. In general, I think as much PSI as possible should be available for non-commercial and educational purposes as possible. This will drive research and innovation which can provide definite advantages to the community.

shirro

11 Dec 2008 6:23pm

As others have posted, the government of the USA has gifted the world with a bounty of non copyright material. It is not possible to provide the same level of wikipedia detail, mashups, maps etc for Australia because of Crown Copyright.

The government should look at removing most of Part VII of the Copyright Act 1968 and having something similar to Section 105 of the US Copyright act:

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

Verity Pravda

11 Dec 2008 6:30pm

So we suddenly lurch from defining the digital economy to the issue of public sector information. An interesting lurch and not necessarily the first DE issue that might spring to mind (unlike, say, the efect of the digital economy on economic and social structures).

The answer on what PSI would be useful is difficult to answer as most of us have no idea what public sector information is available. As already noted from the comments about filtering it might not just be information in the sense of data but information in the sense of opening up the policy process.

In my field of interests the PSI I have most interest in is words not numbers. It is frustrating when my Government commissions reports or studies that it doesn't publish. Minister Conroy got into strife for joking about one such report from KPMG earlier in the year.

Brownbear

11 Dec 2008 6:36pm

Making available all public sector information that is not a security risk, would breach privacy/confidentiality rights of an individual or enterprise and providing it will not interfere with a legal case would be of enormous benefit for Australia. This informtion should be provided free of any charge.

Having this information available will:-

Provide for better and more accurate education at all levels.
Encourage more accurate informed debate
Allow for better planning of Non Government Organisation services.
Allow better business planning.
Encourage the development of new and innovative business enterprises
Increase the revenue to Government through greater tax revenues and reduced costs for social service and welfare delivery.

I believe that it is an important part of the Information Technology Revolution that needs to be embraced by the Government bureaucracy wholeheartedly.

Jessica

11 Dec 2008 9:07pm

I completely agree with Brianna's comment about not being able to anticipate the wonderful things open access to PSI will allow. An excellent example of a valuable but unexpected use of PSI information by a private site for the public good is the UK's 'They Work For You' site (www.theyworkforyou.com) which aggregates statistics and provides commentaries on politicians, political debates etc. It's an amazing resource, which no one could have seen coming. I'd love to see something similar in Australia.

James Purser

11 Dec 2008 9:09pm

Any move to open up the flow of information between government and the people is to be encouraged. To this end I believe that Government should work with industry and the community to develop a set of publically available API's that will both ensure the people can get access to the information they require, while at the same time preventing access to information that is identifying in nature. As well as developing the relationship between the government and the people, it would also help in the development of the Australian ICT sector. By releasing the API's under liberal licenses (including the waiving of royalties) you would see a growth in the development of businesses (mostly small to medium) that would build on government information and present new services that the Government might not be in a position to provide.

ian

11 Dec 2008 9:09pm

Most advanced democracies today have a public consultation phase in passing legislation. Such consultation is often one sided with Govt holding all the information and tools, leaving the general public to argue in emotional terms. Not an good model for constructive consultation. Making publicly funded information available for such consultations is essential for the good working of Government. I would also advocate for the release of base data (with personal information removed) and encourage the use of re purposing tools for civil society to develop their own models and interpretations to mount effective consultations.

paul reynolds

11 Dec 2008 9:14pm

Greetings from NZ and congratulations on making both this blog and your thoughts available online. PSI should be available as a public/economic good. However, of equal interest is not just the terms of use as prescribed in a copyright statement, or indeed the format of the information, but how readily the data sets are " ready to hand", to use that old Heidegger term. In short equal consideration needs to given to making new kinds of re-use tools and frameworks available as an additional public good. And yes, for sure, open API's are also a key part of the mix - but it's also important that when making the latter available to those with the technical skills to benefit from them, we don't loose sight of the risk of disenfranchising those without such skills or resources to use the data thats been liberated. In short - its great to see the prospect of the doors to the PSI grain stores opening - but we need buckets, shovels, carts - a transport system and a whole bunch of other tools to ensure that that this creates a social and democratic benefit as well as an economic one. www.peoplepoints.co.nz

Rex

12 Dec 2008 5:31am

Prior to the last Federal Election, I was able to quote many facts obtained via the internet, for inclusion in letters to editors of local newspaper. Those facts were used for vilification of the coalition government. I am concerned that possible future restrictions for obtaining similar info could be banned by current or future governments. The internet should remain an open door to all and any information regardless of subject matter.

Pauli

12 Dec 2008 5:35am

The government should make a reasonable effort to provide all information at its disposal free to everyone. If someone wants to make money using this information then good for them. Holding back the information is to nobody's advantage. As to the formats to use, it would be lovely to have websites with multiple CSS files to ensure portability between browser types (eg full size screen and mobile). It would also be good to have a government web service available in a similar way to Amazon Web Services (http://aws.amazon.com/) which would allow programers easy access to all info.

Carolyn Dalton

12 Dec 2008 5:36am

This is an interesting topic. Google strongly supports the open availability and flow of PSI. With our work with Australian developers who use various Google APIs, we've seen, first hand, Australian developers use and mashup data in great ways - the availability of data spurs great innovation. Australian developers are making very useful applications, using Google and other APIs and publicly available data, for PCs and mobiles. There's all sorts of public sector information that could be made openly available with huge benefits. Here are a couple of examples of the types of data that would be particularly useful, and some ways that we at Google have started to use public sector information to provide online and mobile services to Australians. * Public transit data. Google Transit� combines transit data with Google Maps to allow you to easily find a way to get from A to B via public transport. Currently, Perth and Adelaide data is available. With more and more GPS-enabled devices on the market, being able to ask your phone 'How do I get to 'x' business from where I am, using public transport?' is very compelling. Rather than being a simple timetabling application, public transport directions to any business or location on online maps could be displayed. Currently, however, this data is not made openly available. * Mapping data for cycle paths, walking trails, playgrounds and playing fields. Making cycle path data available would allow cyclists to plan their rides, with the knowledge of where the cycle paths are and whether they are adjoined to or separated from roads. The availability of walking trail data would allow walkers to plan walks with an understanding of where the trails are and what level of difficulty they present. Lots of great websites and mashups have been built around user-contributed cycling and walking tracks, so there's clearly demand for it. * Topographic data including coastal data, ski field data and waterways. As an example of what is possible, Google Maps allows users to explore the Great Barrier Reef - the largest reef system in the world. Through close collaboration with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, we provide map data and updated satellite imagery of the islands, reefs, cays, and rocks in Google Maps. This helps people plan trips, see dive spots and familiarise themselves with the reef. But more broadly, this data is generally inaccessible. * Public toilet information, yes - public toilets! Providing the location of public toilets would be an extremely useful feature to include on online mapping services. Kid needs to go to the bathroom? Get on your mobile, the phone GPS knows where you are, touch the screen once, and there's the nearest toilet. (You can imagine this being mashed up with public walking path data to find the quickest route). Currently the Government runs a single national public toilet map, but Australian developers could do so much more if the underlying data was publicly available. As a signature example of how making public sector information available can contribute to society, look at all the electoral maps and gadgets that were created in 2007 on the back of the Australian Electoral Commission making its polling booth and electoral boundary data openly available. Hopefully the above suggestions are useful. Carolyn Dalton Head of Public Policy and Government Affairs Google Australia and New Zealand

MattM

11 May 2009 6:37pm

First of all, congrats on the blog. This debate around PSI is long overdue. I don't actually have a problem with the repackaging & reselling of government data by private entities - i. providing they are adding value to it, ii. there is an open market and the privacy of individuals is not being abused. The move by the ABC to put out their data under a creative commons license is great news. In the interests of transparency, who wrote this blog article? Come out, come out...

Steve

12 Dec 2008 5:44am

I have worked for a state government emergency services provider and our budget did not permit us to purchase (from another state government service provider) the mapping data needed to provide the best information to the call handlers. It seemed stupid at the time and still seems stupid. Data produced by an australian government should be freely available *at least* to citizens and companies represented by that government. If that is too hard, then to all Australians. If that is to hard, then for all.

Matt

12 Dec 2008 7:42am

Creative Commons Attribution for the licensing. Free web-based API access for all publicly available data, using a clean, pragmatic and horizontal design to allow for maximum flexibility. Clear documentation and some kind of directory service, all based around modern design practices like REST, JSON and XML.

David Cake

12 Dec 2008 1:09am

Rather than removing crown copyright, I'd like to see public sector information licenced under explicit but broad and open terms, similar to the Creative Commons idea (though a for purpose licence rather than simple CC is probably appropriate). In particular, putting public sector information into the public domain allows for unscrupulous organisations to surreptitiously put it back into copyright -- for example, legal citation monopolies in the USA that are maintained not by copyright on the public domain legal documents themselves, but by copyright on the page numbering. More broadly, I would want to see them licenced so any sort of database copyright has very hard to create or enforce. Cost recovery programs in general do poor job, whether by commercial organisations or the public sector. I'm all in favour of reasonable cost recovery for government agencies actual provision of the data, but not for recovery of the cost of creating the data, which is best left as a public good.

Quarterdeck

12 Dec 2008 1:17am

I agree with Ben Steven's comment - public sector information isn't just datasets (although they are extremely useful) - government departments and agencies also have sophisticated computerised records management that could be easily integrated with the web. Even the Chinese have opened up millions of routine government documents on official websites. While there's probably a need for some small circle of government information being protected, most routine documents on government IT systems should be open for their owners - the public - to view.

Joe

12 Dec 2008 2:51am

Reverse telephone number lookup would be nice to have. ie resolve address and owner from number

ACitizen

12 Dec 2008 2:57am

Let us be clear. Microsoft and google provide very little to no open access information Their business model is to allow one to extract data from their servers as they see fit. They become the gatekeepers of information, or if one wishes to use an Orweillian analog, they become the Minitruth -- a location at which the information can be changed and altered, then redistributed as required.

If one was allowed to directly duplicate their datasets -- that is open access to information. Open access must not only include the right to view data, butt also the right to create copies of as much as you need or want, and to redistribute that data as you require. This allows for verification of when data has changed, as the original custodian of the data cannot simply withdraw or alter the information without rapid detection by comparison to other sources.

Examples of such altering of information are quite rife on news websites covering controversial high profile topics, where refreshing the website can alter the tone of the article at an editors will.

Cynic

12 Dec 2008 5:23pm

how can a secular govt be pushed into christian stupidity?? how can a senator attempt to close down discussion on a subject of national interest?? How can Mr rudd sit by and watch an ALP senator attempt to silence free speech in a free country??

mountaindew

12 Dec 2008 3:11am

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.

brad

12 Dec 2008 3:35am

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.

yourdomesticbliss

12 Dec 2008 3:45am

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?

Ken England

12 Dec 2008 5:40pm

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!

andrew b

12 Dec 2008 3:58am

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

CraigT

12 Dec 2008 12:42pm

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.

Tim

12 Dec 2008 1:17pm

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

Tim

12 Dec 2008 1:25pm

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

Anthony

12 Dec 2008 1:56pm

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.

JanW

12 Dec 2008 2:03pm

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!

Rob

12 Dec 2008 2:04pm

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?

Peter Renshaw

12 Dec 2008 2:14pm

"... 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.

Jono

12 Dec 2008 2:26pm

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.

Tony Searl

12 Dec 2008 2:27pm

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.

GuiGuy

12 Dec 2008 3:02pm

[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?

Martin

12 Dec 2008 3:05pm

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.

TK

12 Dec 2008 3:46pm

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?

paul walter

12 Dec 2008 4:08pm

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.

Oh Come On

12 Dec 2008 6:32pm

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.

Chris J

12 Dec 2008 7:53pm

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?

oldefellah

12 Dec 2008 8:07pm

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.

Andrew Harvey

12 Dec 2008 8:25pm

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.

Steve McCredie

13 Dec 2008 10:49am

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".

Val

13 Dec 2008 11:29am

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?

Infiltrator

13 Dec 2008 7:02pm

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?

texinick

13 Dec 2008 7:38pm

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?

Murray

13 Dec 2008 7:41pm

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.

Ironbark

13 Dec 2008 8:06pm

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.

Barry Robinson

14 Dec 2008 11:15am

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

fundi

14 Dec 2008 11:31am

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.

Ned Kelly

14 Dec 2008 6:04pm

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?)

texinick

14 Dec 2008 6:15pm

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.

Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464

14 Dec 2008 6:16pm

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.

Scott

14 Dec 2008 6:17pm

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.

elmato

14 Dec 2008 8:09pm

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.

elmato

15 Dec 2008 10:18am

David T. Bath

15 Dec 2008 11:08am

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.

gurujim

15 Dec 2008 11:08am

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.

kat

16 Dec 2008 11:13am

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!

MattR

16 Dec 2008 3:29pm

@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.

Cumos

16 Dec 2008 3:39pm

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.

Laura Simes

17 Dec 2008 5:06pm

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

David Bennett FACS

19 Dec 2008 4:21pm

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.

Saxon

19 Dec 2008 4:24pm

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.

Hazza

22 Dec 2008 8:55am

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.

Andrew

22 Dec 2008 9:42am

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

Caranda

23 Dec 2008 9:18am

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?

Scot Mcphee

23 Dec 2008 10:14am

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.

Michael

11 May 2009 4:59pm

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.

sabredog

23 Dec 2008 2:50pm

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.