You are browsing the archive for Open Government Partnership.

Danmarks kommende Open Government handlingsplan

Niels Erik Kaaber Rasmussen - September 20, 2017 in Government, offentlige data, OGP, open gov, Open Government Partnership

Open Knowledge Danmark til møde i DigitaliseringsstyrelsneOpen Knowledge Danmark var i august i år inviteret til møde om udarbejdelsen af Danmarks næste Open Government-handlingsplan hos Digitaliseringsstyrelsen. Styrelsen er ved at udarbejde den danske handlingsplan for 2017-2019. Handlingsplanen skal udgøre det danske bidrag til Open Government Partnership-samarbejdet. Open Government Partnership er en international platform, der skal sikre at de deltagende lande forpligter sig til konkrete indsatser, der skal gøre regeringer og den offentlige sektor mere åben, ansvarlig og inkluderende. Den kommende handlingsplan vil tage afsæt i fire temaer: 1. Flere og bedre åbne data, 2. Skræddersyede data skal skabe grundlag for inddragelse, 3. Sammen om en bedre offentlig sektor og 4. En global indsats for åbenhed.
Open Knowledge Danmark argumenterede på mødet for en ambitiøs, prioriteret og sammenhængende indsats (og målsætning) for åbenhed i politiske processer og den offentlige forvaltning i øvrigt.
Læs også: Fra arkivet:

Valtion hankintatiedot avoimena datana – hieno edistysaskel tulossa?!

Open Knowledge Finland - August 9, 2017 in avoin data, avoin hallinto, Featured, godi, godi 2016, hansel, julkiset hankinnat, Open Government Data, Open Government Partnership, Open Spending

Tiedon avoimuutta on tarpeen lisätä, Helsingin Sanomien pääkirjoituksessa 7.8.2017 todetaan. Olemme samaa mieltä! Viime vuosina useat Suomen kunnat ovat julkaisseet tietoja omista hankinnoistaan, jopa kuittitasolla. Tämä käytäntö on laajenemassa uuden ns. Hansel-lain myötä, jonka myötä eri ministeriöiden, laitosten, virastojen ja mahdollisesti maakuntien hankinnat julkaistaisiin keskitetysti valtion hankintayhtiön Hansel Oy:n toimesta. Hallitus valmistelee uutta ns. Hansel-lakia (Hallituksen esitys HE 63/2017 vp Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi Hansel Oy -nimisestä osakeyhtiöstä annetun lain muuttamisesta). Laki on käsittelyssä talousvaliokunnassa, jossa sen yksityiskohtia viimeistellään. Avoimuuden ja avoimen datan kannalta erityisen kiinnostavia ovat lakiehdotuksen kohdat, jossa ehdotetaan säädettäväksi uusi säännös hankintatiedon käsittelyyn liittyvästä tietojensaanti- ja käsittelyoikeudesta (2§ ja 5§). Nähdäksemme toteutuessaan Hansel-laki lisää hallinnon avoimuutta erinomaisella tavalla. Samalla kun Suomi täyttää kansainvälisiä sitoumuksiaan, saamme verovarat tehokkaammin käyttöön, kilpailu julkisista hankinnoista on reilumpaa ja julkinen rahankäyttö on ylipäätään avoimempaa.

Hansel-laki ja hankintoja koskeva avoin data

Hansel Oy on siis toiminut valtion yhteishankintayksikkönä ja kilpailuttanut asiakkailleen sellaisia tavara- ja palveluhankintoja, joita valtionhallinnossa käytetään laajasti. Hanselin tehtäviin on kuulunut myös asiakkaiden omien hankintojen kilpailuttaminen sekä erilaiset hankintatoimeen liittyvät asiantuntijatehtävät. Viime vuosina yhtiön tehtävät ovat kehittyneet muun muassa valtion hankintatoimen digitalisointiohjelman myötä, minkä vuoksi lakiin ehdotetaan tehtäväksi joitakin yhtiön tehtäviin liittyviä täsmennyksiä.  Laissa yhtiön tehtäviä siis ajantasaistetaan. Talousvaliokunnassa lakitekstiä on tiettävästi muotoiltu eteenpäin, mutta viimeisin julkinen versio (HE 63/2017) kuvaa Hanselin muuttuneita tehtäviä mm. seuraavasti (boldaus kirjoittajan): 2§ Yhtiön tehtävät 2 mom: Yhtiön tehtävänä on tuottaa asiakkailleen yhteishankintatoimintoja ja hankintojen tukitoimintoja. Yhtiö ylläpitää hankintasopimuksia ja tuottaa asiakkailleen hankintasopimuksiin liittyvää asiantuntijapalvelua. Lisäksi yhtiön tehtävänä on tuottaa asiakkailleen hankintatoimeen liittyviä asiantuntija- ja kehittämispalveluja sekä hankintatiedon käsittely- ja analysointipalveluja ja näihin liittyviä teknisiä ratkaisuja. 5 §  Tiedonsaantioikeus ja tietojen tuottaminen 4 mom: Yhtiö voi tuottaa, luovuttaa ja julkaista hankintatietoa käsittävää tietoaineistoa, jos tietoaineiston luovuttaminen ei sen muodostamisessa käytettyjen hakuperusteiden, tietojen määrän, laadun tai sisällön taikka tietoaineiston käyttötarkoituksen vuoksi ole vastoin sitä, mitä tietojen salassapidosta ja henkilötietojen suojasta säädetään. Alla muutama Open Knowledge Finland ry:n näkemys lakiin liittyen.

Hansel-laki lisää julkisten hankintojen tervettä kilpailua ja tehokkuutta

Hankintatietojen avoimuus edistää reilua kilpailua eri toimittajien kesken. Hankintojen vertailutietojen kautta saadaan kustannustehokkuutta hankintoihin ja sitä kautta verovarojen käyttöön. Kun hankinnat kuvataan vertailukelpoisesti, voidaan helposti seurata esimerkiksi, maksaako joku yksikkö huomattavan erilaista hintaa toiseen verrattuna tai onko hankinnoissa jotain muuta poikkeavaa tai erikoista ja kenties parannettavaa (kuten hankintojen kasautuminen vuoden loppuun). Pidemmällä tähtäimellä vertailukelpoiseen dataan voisi lisätä tai yhdistää vaikkapa alkuperätietoa, sertifiointeja, eettistä tietoa tai muuta vertailutietoa. Yksityiskohtainen hankintatieto voi auttaa ehkäisemään korruptiota ja harmaata taloutta.

Julkisuuslaki, läpinäkyvyys ja oikeus tietoon koskee myös hankintatietoja

Joka tapauksessa julkisuuslain mukaan kansalaisilla, järjestöillä ja medialla on jo nyt olemassa oikeus tietoon – myös hankintatietoon – silloin kun kyse ei ole erityisistä seikoista kuten esimerkiksi turvallisuusasioista tai tietyn tyyppisistä yrityssalaisuuksista. Riippumatta Hansel-laista, oikeus tähän tietoon on olemassa, eikä siltä osin ole tiedossa muutoksia.  Mutta kiinnostava muutos on, että Hansel-lain myötä saadaan selkeyttä ja yhdenmukaisuutta tiedon julkaisuun liittyviin käytänteihin ja laki toteuttaa ja tarkentaa siten julkisuuslain henkeä.

Yksi toimija hankintatiedon julkaisijana on tehokas tapa lisätä läpinäkyvyyttä ilman suurta hallinnollista taakkaa julkishallinnolle

Yksi datan avaamisen haasteista julkishallinnossa on ollut julkisuuslain erilaisten tulkintojen määrä – tämä tuli esille mm. Valtioneuvoston kanslian selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan “Avoimen datan hyödyntäminen ja vaikuttavuus”  -raportissat, jonka ETLA ja Open Knowledge Finland tekivät. Vastaavasti kaupungit avatessaan ostolaskujaan, ovat soveltaneet toisistaan poikkeavia käytäntöjä ja dataformaatteja. 6Aika-hanke ja kuntaliitto ovatkin pyrkineet ohjeistamalla yhtenäistämään käytäntöjä. Kaavailtu käytäntö yhtenäistää käytäntöjä eri ministeriöiden, virastojen ja tutkimuslaitosten kesken. Kaavailtu käytäntö keventää hallinnollista taakkaa kun asiat, kuten tiedon siivoaminen, formatointi, priorisointi, ongelmienratkaisu, dokumentointi, julkaisukäytännöt ym. tukitoiminnot hoidetaan yhdessä paikassa, eli Hansel toimii tässä siis eräänlaisena ns. clearinghousena, laadunvarmistajana ja tiedon hyödyntäjien rajapintana. Yhtenäiset käytännöt puolestaan paitsi lisäävät julkishallinnon tehokkuutta datan julkaisussa, myös helpottavat datan löydettävyyttä ja hyödynnettävyyttä.  Sivumennen sanoen, uuden lakiehdotuksen kaavailemat tietopalvelut täydentävät muita meneillään olevia hankkeita, kuten YTI-hanke ja Kuntatieto-ohjelma. Hansel on valtionvarainministeriön ohjaukessa ja hankintatietojen avoimuus yhtenä asiana Valtion hankintojen digitalisaatio -toteutusohjelmaa, joten tahtotilaa modernisointiin tuntuu olevan laajemmin.  

Kansainväliset johtajuus ja tehtyjen sitoumuksien lunastaminen

Yleisesti Suomi sijoittuu kansainvälisesti avoimeen dataan ja avoimeen tietoon liittyvissä vertailuissa melko hyvin. Esimerkiksi uusimmassa Open Knowledge Internationalin Government Open Data Index 2016 -vertailussa olemme sijalla 5. Toisaalta, nimenomaan taloustietojen avoimuudessa olemme varsin surkeita – hankintojen (“procurement” – hankintailmoitusten ja sopimusten) tiimoilta “45% avoin” ja ostojen (“Government spending” – todellinen kulutus) jopa hälyttävällä 0% tasolla! Hansel-lain myötä pysymme mukana kansainvälisessä kehityksessä kun vahvistamme todettuja heikkouksiamme.   Suomi on myös mukana USA:n ex-Presidentti Obaman aloittamassa avoimen hallinnon kumppanuusohjelmassa (Open Government Partnership), jossa eri maiden (yli 70 maata on mukana) hallinnot yhdessä kansalaisyhteiskunnan kanssa tekevät sitovia avoimuutta edistäviä konkreettisia toimenpiteitä ja sitoumuksia.  Hankintatietojen avoimuus on myös Suomen Avoimen hallinnon 3. Toimintaohjelmassa (2017-2019) yhtenä konkreettisena lupauksena. Toimintaohjelmassa sanotaan näin.
  1. sitoumus
Julkaistaan valtion hankintatiedot kansalaisille. Julkaistaan avoimesti verkossa tiedot siitä, mitä valtio ostaa, millä rahalla ja mistä. Valtion hankintatiedot julkaistaan keväällä 2017 avoimena datana. Samalla toteutetaan kaikille avoin palvelu, jossa kansalaiset ja yritykset voivat seurata lähes reaaliaikaisesti valtion hankintoihin liittyvän rahan käyttöä. Palvelujen tietosisältönä ovat hankintojen julkiset tiedot, joista käy ilmi, mitä valtion organisaatiot hankkivat ja mistä hankinnat tehdään. Sinänsä Hansel-laki ja sen kuvailemat hankintatietoon liittyvät tietopalvelut eivät ole välttämättä suunniteltuja “vain” kansalaisille, vaan palveluille on luonnollisesti useita eri käyttäjiä, kuten yritykset, media ja julkinen sektori itse. Ylipäätään olennaista on, että data avataan. Tällöin erilaiset toimijat voivat tehdä omista näkökulmistaan erilaisia kiinnostavia sovelluksia – joku tekee vertailuja tai visualisointeja, joku myynnin ja markkinoinnin työkaluja ja niin edelleen! Näin eri toimijat täydentävät Hanselin osaamista ja tarjontaa – tieto kun ei jakamalla kulu. Eräänlainen verrokki voisi olla valtion budjetti ja sen ympärillä olevat sovellukset: valtion budjettia kuvaava, Hahmota Oy:n tekemä www.valtionbudjetti.fi joka tavallaan täydentää VM:n omaa www.tutkibudjettia.fi -palvelua. Vastaavasti Hanselin mahdollisesti tuottaman verkkotyökalun (jolla voi tutkia ja analysoida hankintoja tietyin kriteerein) lisäksi on hyvin mahdollista, että syntyy muita palveluita tai analyysityökaluja hankintoihin. Toteuttaakseen kaavailtua lakia sekä em. avoimen hallinnon sitoumusta, Hansel onkin käsittääkseni hahmotellut tulevaa verkkopalvelua, jossa hankintoja voisi analysoida. Alla muutamia esimerkinomaisia ruutukaappauksia sovelluksesta, jotka antavat suuntaviivoja siitä miltä verkkopalvelu voisi näyttää. Nämä ruutukaappaukset ovat tietystikin suuntaa-antavia, mutta vaikuttavat lupaavalta. Tarkempia analyysejä varten itse kukin voisi sitten ladata tietoa sopivin kriteerein rajattuna. Ylipäätään talouden ja talouselämän avoimuutta ja avointa tietoa olisi järkevää lisätä jatkossa. Tavoitteena tulisi mielestämme olla, että “kolminaisuus”, eli  julkiset budjetit, sopimukset ja hankinnat olisivat saatavilla avoimesti standardimuotoisina. Hankintatiedot on erinomainen askel.   Odotamme Open Knowledge:ssa innolla uutta Hansel-lakia ja ylipäätään julkisten hankintojen lisääntyvää avoimuutta. Avoimuus on omiaan paitsi hälventämään mahdollista epäluottamusta, myös lisäämään tehokkuutta ja reilua kilpailua. Kyseessä on siis veronmaksajien etu ja oikeudenmukaisuus. The post Valtion hankintatiedot avoimena datana – hieno edistysaskel tulossa?! appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Brazil’s Information Access Law and the problem of ‘un-anonymous’ request for public information

Open Knowledge Brazil - July 19, 2017 in Brazil, Freedom of Information, OK Brazil, Open Government Partnership

It is critical to build mechanisms that allow and promote the exercise of right to information access in a way that is safe to Information Access Law users. In this blog, Ariel Kogan (managing director of Open Knowledge Brasil) and Fabiano Angélico (transparency and integrity adviser and author of the book “Lei de Acesso à Informação: Reforço ao Controle Democrático” (Information Access Act: Reinforcement for the Democratic Control) ) talk about the importance of anonymous requests of information to preserve the identity, privacy and safety of citizens. According to the Brazilian Information Access Law, which has been effective for five years this May, the information requesting party – either an individual or an entity – needs to inform the government authority of its name and a document number. This obligation has shown to be problematic, especially for journalists and activists who search for information that might uncover cases of corruption or misappropriation of public resources.  Brazil submitted its third action plan to Open Government Partnership in December of 2016. One of the country’s commitments is to “create new mechanisms or improve existing mechanisms to evaluate and monitor the passive transparency of Law 12.527 of 2011 in the Federal Government”. Another commitment is to “safeguard the requesting party’s identity under excusable cases through adjustments in request procedures and channels”. 

Image: Digital Rights LAC (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

Brazil has however failed to adhere to some of the commitments of the Open Government Partnership. The following paragraphs document the treatment meted out to some individuals who have dared to use the Information Access Act to request for somewhat sensitive data. Several cases of subtle or aggressive threats, employee termination and other kinds of reprisals have been reported. A member of a non-governmental organisation (NGO), Renato used a state government’s system to request information on their military police. A military police officer responded to his request with a threatening tone. The officer even mentioned the names of the fundraisers of the NGO of which Renato is a member. Joana, a federal government public employee, requested a ministry information about a quite controversial contract. Shortly afterwards and without previous notice, she was dismissed from her leadership position while she was on vacation. João, a state company public employee, suspected that the company’s top executives were misusing public funds. He asked his brother to request information access. He was then discharged with cause for disobedience. Feeling threatened, Maria was afraid to request information about the budget execution of the town where she lived. Searching the Internet, she found another person who lived in a very distant town who was in a similar situation. They then decided to exchange favours, and one requested information on behalf of the other. It was safer for both of them. Manoel, a journalist, requested information from a city hall via the Information Access Act. However, he didn’t inform that he was a journalist. In a few days, the municipal secretary of communications called him and, is a less than cordial tone, said that Manoel didn’t need to use the Information Access Law to collect data.  All names mentioned above are fictitious.  The reported cases, however, are unfortunately real. In addition to discharges and threatens, the requesting party identification leads the government to respond to information requests according to the requesting party “status”. Research in several countries, including Brazil, shows that the response to the same information request is more complete when the requesting party is identified as an investigator from a renowned university, for example than when the individual is identified just by his/her name. These cases demonstrate that the identification of the requesting party may have not democratic and republican consequences. In all cases, an illegal and disproportionate force was used to silence requests for information. It is, therefore, critical to develop mechanisms that allow and promote the exercise of the right to safely and, if necessary, anonymously access information. This would be enriching for all and would allow social control in many critical situations. The Information Access Act may be an excellent tool to identify and monitor suspicions of misuse of public resources, contract frauds, or other improprieties in public agencies. For this law to be effective, however, it is essential that the requesting party is safeguarded. We believe this will be the next great challenge to the Information Access Act implementation process.  

Divide, rant and conquer: Addressing the difficulty of 2016 and the future of open government at #OGP16

Mor Rubinstein - December 20, 2016 in community, Events, OGP, Open Government Partnership, open-government

Mor Rubinstein reports on one of the Civil Society Morning workshop sessions during the Open Government Partnership Summit. The structure of the session involved ‘ranting’ in turns with fellow attendees. As 2016 draws to a close and a new year begins, the session serves as a useful reminder of the cathartic and productive processes of ranting and listening as necessary steps toward progress. About a month ago, I got an exciting email from the Open Government Partnership support unit in which I was invited to host a workshop during the civil society morning of the OGP Summit in Paris with Zuzana Wienk about the future of the open government movement.
img_20161207_121154401Session in action!
To be honest, 2016 was a very challenging year for open government, and in many ways, this movement often feels just unrealistic. Maybe citizens don’t really care about the facts anymore, but about their emotions. And those emotions are usually a combination of fear and hate of the other, the unknown and change. I was really upset and started to rant about it. A LOT. So when I got the opportunity to actually host a session, I thought – What if I could actually take other people’s rants into a productive space? How can we get all of the negative out, look it in the eye without being afraid of it, and then move from there to somewhere better?

What if I could actually take other people’s rants into a productive space? How can we get all of the negativity out, look it in the eye without being afraid of it, and then move from there to somewhere better?

Thanks to Google, I found the method of “Rant for a productive meeting”. Briefly, the principals are simple – divide the room into pairs, allow the couples to meet with one another for a minute. After that let the pairs rant in turns. For three minutes one person speaks and rants and the other person will listen and will prompt for reactions. In the next three minutes, the partners swap roles. After this rant period, a new question is raised into the room: “Now what?” Allow the participants to write (on a post-it of course) their thoughts and ideas on how to move forward. As the last step – share! So we had around 16 participants from different regions in the session. You can find their thoughts just below. If you think any of ideas worth pursuing or discussing, just start a discussion about it on our forum here.
img_20161207_123820014Here they are in raw – ideas from our session
Here are the Open Government Future ideas that came out from the rant session (to make it an easier read, we divided them into themes):

Civil society

  • Linking and leveraging with other initiatives to achieve greater results.
  • Now, what? Civic monitoring not only related to National Actions Plans, sustained with a small percentage of funding.
  • We need to call out Open Washing
  • Be proactive to share data CSOs
  • More educational programs – Civic educations
  • Better coordination of national society.
  • How to sustain in the long term a municipal civil society monitoring ecosystem?
    • Solution: Every local context has project funded with public money.
    • Every (almost) project funded have correction issues.
    • Use a little part of the budget to the project to fund civic monitoring actions.

Government

  • Empowering individuals legislatures / elected officials.
  • Dependencies of politicians & businesses
  • Government to engage the youth to support government openness.
  • Share knowledge within government institutions to avoid duplication – reinventing the wheel.
  • Engagement of the EU institutions

Relationships between government and citizens

  • Rebirth of the Socratic dialogue
  • Democratic participation digital tools (e.g.,. Parliament hackathons)

Media

  • Opinions != Facts
  • We need fact checking

Process of OGP

  • For OGP, the first five years have been about quantity, next five years should be about quality.
  • Now, what? Locally based processes. Cities involved in subnational OGP is not enough.
  • OGP needs to connect more deliberately with international processes (SDG, FFD, etc.)
  • Use innovative ways to share data
  • Clarify engagement and action opportunities for civil society with OGP and for opposition parties.
  • OGP needs to “Speak” to the citizens, adapting its communications tools and vocabulary / bridging the civil society and citizens gap.
  • A strategic planning event with CSO steering committee participation in a near future OGP, what’s next?
  • Learn from other’s experience and build on lessons learnt.
  • We need to make OGP sexier! (Link with other related agendas, better comms, better citizen language).
  • Clear and coordinate M&E framework to track changes over time
  • Integrating OGP into the national development agenda.
  • OGP agenda should transcend political transitions or change of government or agenda of a country e.g. – Brexit, Trump.
I hope that out of these ideas, we can get a better and vibrant open government community in 2017!
31455429556_c717f35967_z

Credit: Open Government Partnership/Photograph by Evan Abramson

Join Open Data from Around the World session at the Paris OGP summit

Mor Rubinstein - November 22, 2016 in Events, OGP, Open Government Data, Open Government Partnership

Open Government Data from around the world session is back at the OGP summit, this time with a twist! Come and join as active participants and share open data updates from your country on Thursday, December 8th on 12 pm! What is Open Government Data from around the world session? In this one hour session, we are trying to connect the open data community and to get as many updates as we can from all over the world. It is a rapid session, where each participant can speak for 2 minutes and give a quick update about their country status. This year, celebrating 5 years of OGP, we will also ask you to share the good, the bad and the ugly of OGP in your country. There is no session without your participation, so we encourage you to sign up and take part of it! There is no right or wrong, just a time limit and you must have an update about a country (i.e geographical place). Government officials, CSOs and others are welcome to present! We can host potentially up to 60 different speakers! Why should I come to this session?
  • Learn about other initiatives in the world in one hour!
  • It is fun and informal
  • Great place to network
  • Good place to get your OGD initiative known
What will come out of this session? Daniel and Mor will tweet and use Facebook Live during the event, and will summarise it to you in a blog post, so we can keep collaborating after the OGP summit So how can I participate? Learn more about this session in this doc – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlE–j9lNhyEHSUcYTdSL4Kit-sUuvlCdQxOugCevlg/edit#heading=h.jstk65wkq7f0 If you have more questions, just reach out to us – Daniel Dietrich – ddie@me.com   and Mor Rubinstein – mor.rubinstein@okfn.org

Kritik af dansk handlingsplan for open government

Niels Erik Kaaber Rasmussen - September 26, 2015 in Government, OGP, open gov, Open Government Partnership

OGPlogoOpen Government Partnership (OGP) er et multilateralt initiativ, der binder de deltagende regeringer til at opstille konkrete mål for øget gennemsigtighed, styrkelse (empowerment) af borgere, bekæmpelse af korruption og anvendelse af ny teknologi til at styrke den offentlige forvaltning. Danmark har deltaget i OGP siden 2011 og i henhold til retningslinjerne for samarbejdet udarbejdet en national handlingsplan, der beskriver, hvordan Danmark vil arbejde for at opfylde målsætningerne ved at gennemføre en række konkrete initiativer. Regeringens selvevaluering af handlingsplanen for 2013-2014 har netop været i høring. Her er Open Knowledge Danmarks generelle kommentarer til handlingsplanen: I “the Open Government Declaration” binder landene sig til at “promote transparency, fight corruption, empower citizens, and harness the power of new technologies to make government more effective and accountable”. Det er alle idealer vi støtter. Men det stærke danske fokus på “med ny teknologi at skabe en mere effektiv offentlig sektor” virker desværre til at overskygge de øvrige visioner. Det gælder f.eks. initiativerne om vækstteams, frikommuner, plan for digital velfærd, brugervenlighed ved digital selvbetjening og kampagne om digital kommunikation. Det er beklageligt, fordi OGP er et af de få steder, hvor civilsamfundsindragelse virkelig (burde) prioriteres. På OGP’s hjemmeside står blandt andet: “OGP’s vision is that more governments become sustainably more transparent, more accountable, and more responsive to their own citizens, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of governance, as well as the quality of services that citizens receive” – her er gennemsigtighed, ansvarlighed og responsivitet ift. borgere midlet til endemålet om bedre governance – herunder også en mere effektiv offentlig forvaltning. I den danske handlingsplan er den offentlige sektors effektivitet målet, mens kvaliteten kommer i anden række og midlet kun i begrænset omfang er gennemsigtighed, ansvarlighed og responsivitet ift borgere.  

Global Legislative Openness Week

Niels Erik Kaaber Rasmussen - September 13, 2015 in åben data, begivenhed, datajournalistik, english, event, Folketinget, lovgivning, offentlige data, OGP, Open Government Partnership

GLOW - Global Legislative Openness Week

GLOW – Global Legislative Openness Week 2015

English summary: Open parliamentary data in Denmark and how to make use of them
During Global Legislative Openness Week (GLOW) an event on open parliamentary data in Denmark was held at the University of Copenhagen. A civil servant from the Danish parliament (Folketinget) introduced their one-year-old open data initiative and gave an overview of the possibilities and the perspectives. Next a datajournalist from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation showcased examples of how to make stories of political and legislative data. Having access to open legislative data raises the question of how to make use of it, how to turn it into knowledge and make it accessible for a broader audience.  
Kresten Morten fra DR's undersøgende databaseredaktion fortæller om datajournalistisk dækning af dansk politik.

Kresten Morten fra DR’s undersøgende databaseredaktion fortæller om datajournalistisk dækning af dansk politik.

Global Legislative Openness Week” (GLOW) er en uge, hvor der afholdes arrangementer om parlamenters åbenhed verden over. Ugen er et initiativ under det internationale samarbejde “Open Government Partnership” (OGP), som Danmark har tilsluttet sig. OGP omfatter 65 lande og sigter mod at opstille konkrete, bindende mål om øget gennemsigtighed, øget borgerinddragelse, anti-korruption og anvendelse af ny teknologi til bedre regeringsførelse. I forbindelse med dette års uge afholdt Open Knowledge Danmark i samarbejde med Foreningen Gennemsigt et gå-hjem-møde om åbne lovgivningsrelaterede data og anvendelsen heraf. Kvantitativt Netværk ved Center for Valg og Partier under Københavns Universitet var værter ved arrangementet idet de havde stillet lokale til rådighed. Tak.
GLOW 2015

Til møde om åbne lovgivningsrelaterede data.

På mødet indledte projektleder for Folketingets projekt åbne data med at fortælle om opbygningen af deres data og mulighederne for videreanvendelse. Data kan tilgås via en API og selvom det i høj grad letter adgangen og tilgængeligheden af data, var vurderingen at det stadig er nødvendigt at have en person med programmeringskendskab ved sin side, når data skal hentes ind til f.eks. Excel. Desuden kræver tolkning af data en vis forståelse for folketingets forretningsgange. Den lidt tekniske introduktion blev efterfulgt af et oplæg om den datajournalistiske dækning af dansk politik. Kresten Morten fra DRs undersøgende databaseredaktion vidste flere interessante eksempler, på hvordan data kan fungere som fundament for gode journalistiske historier. Kresten tog udgangspunkt i DRs dækning af folketingsvalget 2015.
GLOW 2015

Anders Gilbro fra Folketinget fortæller om mulighederne med folketingets åbne data.

Som forsøg blev mødet live-transmitteret via Periscope, hvis nogen har set med og har ideer til hvordan vi bruger dette eller tilsvarende medier bedre, så send os gerne en kommentar. Se også: I forbindelse med Global Legislative Openness Week 2014 afholdt Open Knowledge Danmark en data-workshop om folketingets API.  

Gå-hjem-møde om politiske data

Niels Erik Kaaber Rasmussen - September 2, 2015 in åben data, begivenhed, datajournalistik, event, Folketinget, Government, Open Government Partnership

Gå-hjem-møde om politiske data på Kommunehospitalet (CSS), torsdag d. 10. september kl. 16.15-18.00 Politiske data er interessante for journalister, forskere, interesseorganisationer og almindelige borgere. Folketinget lancerede sidste år et initiativ, der skal gøre det lettere at få adgang til og videreanvende centrale data omkring Folketingets arbejde. Kom og hør om projektet og om perspektiverne for at arbejde med åbne lovgivnings-data i Danmark. Til arrangementet kommer:
  • Projektleder for Folketingets åbne data-projekt, Anders Gilbro Nielsen, som vil introducere projektet og fortælle om ideerne bag.
  • Datajournalist, Kresten Morten Munksgaard, fra DR’s databaseredaktion, der vil fortælle om formidling af data-baserede historier om dansk politik blandt andet med fokus på databaseredaktionens dækning af folketingsvalget 2015.
De to oplæg vil begge være af 30 minutters varighed, med god mulighed for spørgsmål og kommentarer.
Gå-hjem-møde om Folketingets data Tid: Torsdag, d. 10. september, 2015, kl. 16.15-18.00 Sted: Frokoststuen, CSS 4.2.26, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 København K Tilmelding ikke nødvendig. Værter: Center for Valg og Partier og Kvantitativt Netværk. Arrangeret af: Open Knowledge Danmark og Foreningen Gennemsigt
GLOW - Global Legislative Openness Week

GLOW – Global Legislative Openness Week

Arrangementet afholdes i anledning af ”Global Legislative Openness Week”, der er en uge, hvor der afholdes arrangementer om parlamenters åbenhed verden over, det er et initiativ under det internationale samarbejde “Open Government Partnership” (OGP), som Danmark har tilsluttet sig. OGP omfatter 65 lande og sigter mod at opstille konkrete, bindende mål om øget gennemsigtighed, øget borgerinddragelse, anti-korruption og anvendelse af ny teknologi til bedre regeringsførelse.   Se også: I forbindelse med sidste års Global Legislative Openness Week afholdt Open Knowledge Danmark en data-workshop om parlamentariske data.  

Joint Submission to UN Data Revolution Group

Rufus Pollock - October 16, 2014 in Featured, News, Open Data, Open Economics, Open Government Data, Open Government Partnership, Open Knowledge, open-government, OpenSpending, Policy, Science, United Nations, www foundation

The following is the joint Submission to the UN Secretary General’s Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution from the World Wide Web Foundation, Open Knowledge, Fundar and the Open Institute, October 15, 2014. It derives from and builds on the Global Open Data Initiative’s Declaration on Open Data.

To the UN Secretary General’s Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution

Societies cannot develop in a fair, just and sustainable manner unless citizens are able to hold governments and other powerful actors to account, and participate in the decisions fundamentally affecting their well-being. Accountability and participation, in turn, are meaningless unless citizens know what their government is doing, and can freely access government data and information, share that information with other citizens, and act on it when necessary. A true “revolution” through data will be one that enables all of us to hold our governments accountable for fulfilling their obligations, and to play an informed and active role in decisions fundamentally affecting their well-being. We believe such a revolution requires ambitious commitments to make data open; invest in the ability of all stakeholders to use data effectively; and to commit to protecting the rights to information, free expression, free association and privacy, without which data-driven accountability will wither on the vine. In addition, opening up government data creates new opportunities for SMEs and entrepreneurs, drives improved efficiency and service delivery innovation within government, and advances scientific progress. The initial costs (including any lost revenue from licenses and access charges) will be repaid many times over by the growth of knowledge and innovative data-driven businesses and services that create jobs, deliver social value and boost GDP. The Sustainable Development Goals should include measurable, time-bound steps to:

1. Make data open by default

Government data should be open by default, and this principle should ultimately be entrenched in law. Open means that data should be freely available for use, reuse and redistribution by anyone for any purpose and should be provided in a machine-readable form (specifically it should be open data as defined by the Open Definition and in line with the 10 Open Data Principles).
  • Government information management (including procurement requirements and research funding, IT management, and the design of new laws, policies and procedures) should be reformed as necessary to ensure that such systems have built-in features ensuring that open data can be released without additional effort.
  • Non-compliance, or poor data quality, should not be used as an excuse for non-publication of existing data.
  • Governments should adopt flexible intellectual property and copyright policies that encourage unrestricted public reuse and analysis of government data.

2. Put accountability at the core of the data revolution

A data revolution requires more than selective release of the datasets that are easiest or most comfortable for governments to open. It should empower citizens to hold government accountable for the performance of its core functions and obligations. However, research by the Web Foundation and Open Knowledge shows that critical accountability data such as company registers, land record, and government contracts are least likely to be freely available to the public. At a minimum, governments endorsing the SDGs should commit to the open release by 2018 of all datasets that are fundamental to citizen-state accountability. This should include:
  • data on public revenues, budgets and expenditure;
  • who owns and benefits from companies, charities and trusts;
  • who exercises what rights over key natural resources (land records, mineral licenses, forest concessions etc) and on what terms;
  • public procurement records and government contracts;
  • office holders, elected and un-elected and their declared financial interests and details of campaign contributions;
  • public services, especially health and education: who is in charge, responsible, how they are funded, and data that can be used to assess their performance;
  • constitution, laws, and records of debates by elected representatives;
  • crime data, especially those related to human rights violations such as forced disappearance and human trafficking;
  • census data;
  • the national map and other essential geodata.
    • Governments should create comprehensive indices of existing government data sets, whether published or not, as a foundation for new transparency policies, to empower public scrutiny of information management, and to enable policymakers to identify gaps in existing data creation and collection.

 3. Provide no-cost access to government data

One of the greatest barriers to access to ostensibly publicly-available information is the cost imposed on the public for access–even when the cost is minimal. Most government information is collected for governmental purposes, and the existence of user fees has little to no effect on whether the government gathers the data in the first place.
  • Governments should remove fees for access, which skew the pool of who is willing (or able) to access information and preclude transformative uses of the data that in turn generates business growth and tax revenues.

  • Governments should also minimise the indirect cost of using and re-using data by adopting commonly owned, non-proprietary (or “open”) formats that allow potential users to access the data without the need to pay for a proprietary software license.

  • Such open formats and standards should be commonly adopted across departments and agencies to harmonise the way information is published, reducing the transaction costs of accessing, using and combining data.

4. Put the users first

Experience shows that open data flounders without a strong user community, and the best way to build such a community is by involving users from the very start in designing and developing open data systems.

  • Within government: The different branches of government (including the legislature and judiciary, as well as different agencies and line ministries within the executive) stand to gain important benefits from sharing and combining their data. Successful open data initiatives create buy-in and cultural change within government by establishing cross-departmental working groups or other structures that allow officials the space they need to create reliable, permanent, ambitious open data policies.
  • Beyond government: Civil society groups and businesses should be considered equal stakeholders alongside internal government actors. Agencies leading on open data should involve and consult these stakeholders – including technologists, journalists, NGOs, legislators, other governments, academics and researchers, private industry, and independent members of the public – at every stage in the process.
  • Stakeholders both inside and outside government should be fully involved in identifying priority datasets and designing related initiatives that can help to address key social or economic problems, foster entrepreneurship and create jobs. Government should support and facilitate the critical role of both private sector and public service intermediaries in making data useful.

5. Invest in capacity

Governments should start with initiatives and requirements that are appropriate to their own current capacity to create and release credible data, and that complement the current capacity of key stakeholders to analyze and reuse it. At the same time, in order to unlock the full social, political and economic benefits of open data, all stakeholders should invest in rapidly broadening and deepening capacity.
  • Governments and their development partners need to invest in making data simple to navigate and understand, available in all national languages, and accessible through appropriate channels such as mobile phone platforms where appropriate.
  • Governments and their development partners should support training for officials, SMEs and CSOs to tackle lack of data and web skills, and should make complementary investments in improving the quality and timeliness of government statistics.

6. Improve the quality of official data

Poor quality, coverage and timeliness of government information – including administrative and sectoral data, geospatial data, and survey data – is a major barrier to unlocking the full value of open data.
  • Governments should develop plans to implement the Paris21 2011 Busan Action Plan, which calls for increased resources for statistical and information systems, tackling important gaps and weaknesses (including the lack of gender disaggregation in key datasets), and fully integrating statistics into decision-making.
  • Governments should bring their statistical efforts into line with international data standards and schemas, to facilitate reuse and analysis across various jurisdictions.
  • Private firms and NGOs that collect data which could be used alongside government statistics to solve public problems in areas such as disease control, disaster relief, urban planning, etc. should enter into partnerships to make this data available to government agencies and the public without charge, in fully anonymized form and subject to robust privacy protections.

7. Foster more accountable, transparent and participatory governance

A data revolution cannot succeed in an environment of secrecy, fear and repression of dissent.
  • The SDGs should include robust commitments to uphold fundamental rights to freedom of expression, information and association; foster independent and diverse media; and implement robust safeguards for personal privacy, as outlined in the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • In addition, in line with their commitments in the UN Millennium Declaration (2000) and the Declaration of the Open Government Partnership (2011), the SDGs should include concrete steps to tackle gaps in participation, inclusion, integrity and transparency in governance, creating momentum and legitimacy for reform through public dialogue and consensus.

Colophon

This submission derives and follows on from the Global Open Data Inititiave’s Global Open Data Declaration which was jointly created by Fundar, Open Institute, Open Knowledge and World Wide Web Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation with input from civil society organizations around the world. The full text of the Declaration can be found here: http://globalopendatainitiative.org/declaration/

Open Knowledge Ireland welcomes Minister Howlin’s announcement that Government has approved the removal of an application fee for Freedom of Information Requests

Flora Fleischer - July 1, 2014 in Freedom of Information, OGPirl, Open Government Partnership, Press Release

 1st July 2014 okirlogo

Open Knowledge Ireland - dedicated to promoting open data and open knowledge for citizens (openknowledge.ie)

  Open Knowledge Ireland welcomes today’s announcement by the Minister that the suggested reforms to the FOI fees regime includes the removal of the €15 application fee for non-personal requests. On April 10th 2014 Open Knowledge Ireland together with a squad of Freedom of Information advocates for Ireland wrote an Open Letter to Minister Brendan Howlin asking to leverage the Government’s commitment to the Open Government Partnership as an opportunity to remove fees at all stages of FOI and AIE requests and appeals. The letter was signed by 74 signatories urging the Minister to consider the points outlined for his upcoming FOI bill. On May 7th, at the Civil Society Day, which was held on the eve of the OGP Europe regional meeting, the upfront fees charged in Ireland for submission of FOI requests were brought to the attention of 120 civil society and government representatives from 30 countries.

And today we are pleased to see the Minister is making a step in the right direction!

Denis Parfenov, Open Knowledge Ambassador for Ireland and one of the Founders of the Open Knowledge Chapter in Ireland, in his reaction today said that he “warmly welcomes this announcement”.

This is a great success story for all citizens and FOI advocates who were involved in pushing to drop FOI fees as part of Ireland’s first OGP Action Plan. Open Knowledge Ireland together with Irish citizens and other Irish civil society organisations had been pushing to include a commitment on free FOI requests into the 2 year Action Plan and we are very pleased that the Minister has considered the recommendations of Irish Civil Society OGP Network.

Flora, Co-Founder at Open Knowledge Ireland gives an early reaction to the announcement and has collated early voices from passionate FOI advocates in Ireland:

Open Knowledge Ireland is adopting a cautious position to the FOI reforms announced today. While we’re welcoming the announcements and Minister Howlin’s consideration of the Open Government Partnership principles, we still need to wait until we see the full set of proposed amendments in order to make an accurate assessment of the impact of all the changes.

 

In the following find our low down of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly + Next Steps

The Good

The Bad

And the Ugly

    • How far reaching is the commitment to openness really? The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform “has asked that we [the civil society network involved in providing feedback on the proposed OGP Action Plan] would review the sentence in the CS Foreword expressing disappointment that more progress wasn’t made in relation to the abolition of fees” in light of the announcement that was made today.
      1. The request was sent not to the whole network but to one or more persons that the Department chooses to work together with.
      2. We are being asked to change the wording without having insights to the actual suggested amendments which are more than likely ready to go and could be provided for insight.
      3. Good to see there was an outcry by FOI advocates that the wording should not be changed until promises have turned into actions and until detailed amendments have been shared.
 

Next Steps

- We really need to wait and see the actual suggested amendments and the new bill before we can make any quality assessment. In the meantime these documents provide more detail about the suggested changes. Some of those raise questions:                    Cross-posted: