Re: Freedom of information and metadata

On May 14, 7:35 am, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> "Dr Quite Evil" <e..._at_evil.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns9A9E6E4506418evil_at_85.214.90.236...
>
>
>
> > It would be interesting to hear your comments and opinions on the
> > following.
>
> > Essentially, I'm struggling with the problem that when we want to get
> > information out of the government, it can be difficult because we don't
> > know if the information exists or if it's in the right format.
>
> > My tentative solution is to turn the idea of having a database full of
> > information on its head. Instead, we would have a database describing
> > information we don't have but would like to have.
>
> > The problem is that there seems to be a distinct obstacle to holding
> > governments accountable using Freedom of Information requests.
>
[]
> > But thinking of information in terms of "documents" seems old-fashioned.
> > For example this newsgroup message could be regarded as a document, but
> > it would be better to treat it as content (the words I'm writing), and
> > metadata (extra information such as the date I wrote it, the message ID,
> > the newsgroups line, and so on).

The term meta data already has a meaning. You are using it somewhat incorrectly here. The meta data are the field descriptions, so the date you wrote the message is still data, the posting data field would describe the meta data.
>
> > Nowadays, I think all information can be treated as having these two
> > parts - content and metadata. The content is what us humans are
> > interested in and the metadata allows it to be organised and found.
>
[]
>
> Unfortunately, freedom isn't free, but the result of blood, sweat and tears.

yes and must be defended regularly. Hence my post.

> Liberal elitists seem quite willing to spend it, provided it isn't their
> own.

Conservative elitists seem quite willing to spend it as well. (The current US administration at least claims to be conservative.)

> I shouldn't have to pay more tax so that a journalist aligned with one
> political entity will have an easier time digging up juicy dirt on another.

Interesting argument. You say freedom is bought with blood, sweat and tears, but you are unwilling to spend money on it.

A free Press has been described as the fourth branch of US government. Somebody has got to "police the police".

[]
> materials and manpower required to meet the request. In the same way, if a
> government entity has to hire a batallion of clerks in order to satisfy
> freedom of information requests, then the cost of those clerks should be
> passed on to the requesters--not to the taxpayers. Again: I shouldn't have
> to pay more tax to make it easier for one political entity to dig up dirt on
> another. They should like everyone else have to pay their own way. I'm not
> arguing against transparency: reporting that is required for oversight is
> necessary and should already be in place. Certainly that information could
> and probably should be made available to the public--subject to national
> security and privacy concerns, of course.

Another interesting argument. It could be summarized as: government bureaucracy is bloated due to excessive Freedom of Information requests. Governments are naturally inefficient. I would hazard a guess that FOI requests over the last 10years have cost the US government less than 1 day of expenses in Iraq (just merely making a comparison, not trying to start an Iraq flame fest).

To bring the discussion back to Dr Evil's question: I think you are seeking a technological solution to a political problem. Information will always be hard to extract from governments (and from some harder than from others).

Have a good day both of you.

   Ed Received on Wed May 14 2008 - 14:23:18 CEST