Information is the one and only primary fuel that drives the world, that's the thinking here in the basement newsroom of the K-Landnews with its imaginary lava lamp and the stress release computer mouse (an old roller mouse with the cord clipped to a few inches so no one gets smacked by a PS2 plug when it sails past the lava lamp).
We won't delve into the finer points of bored nerds, the difference between data and information and so on, and just call it information for this post. The sophisticated bit that goes data must be interpreted to become information is true on the rational cognitive level for humans but trees and bacteria do well without any recognizable way of making that rational distinction.
Without information, we would not exist, we would not have central heating or have been able to send humans to the moon.
So, we think it important to look at how different cultures handle information, in particular the bit about sharing of information. To limit the scope of the post as well as our ability to mess up the argument beyond redemption, we'll just have a dig at how Germans do it, primarily with regard to their Freedom of Information (FOIA) laws.
These laws are basically copies of the U.S. FOIA, with very similar exemptions and cost reimbursement provisions, and ensuing legal battles.
Where it gets interesting on the German side is how copyright law and "company proprietary information" are being used very widely and very successfully to block the release of documents.
Restriction based on copyright law is the main tool to deny the public access to scientific publications produced for government agencies. We would violate rights of the authors, the government says, claiming it cannot do anything even when the project was 100% financed with public funds.
Private publishing houses can and do make authors sign comprehensive releases but German government officials merely shrug when you bring up this option.
A notable break with this required a long legal battle that saw the highest court finally come down on the side of FOIA in the case of federal parliamentary research office reports.
This body produces research on any conceivable subject, from UFO sightings to family benefits, for members of the federal parliament. Parliament administration claimed a FOIA exception because the research was used by members of parliament in policy planning.
The court said, sure, but although ordered by one or more members, the resulting research papers are made available to all members and, hence, cannot be regarded as "personal".
As it stands, Germans should not feel too confident that the court decision settles the matter.
The current government recently passed a midnight amendment to a bill that removed one of the essential group of documents from FOIA in a single stroke: reports by the federal budget oversight agency are no longer accessible via FOIA requests.
Company proprietary information is the single most widely used tool to hide the names of government suppliers and consultants and the cost of products or services. Sorry, proprietary, the government says when citizens ask which law firms had a consulting contract on policy X or bill Y.
Sorry, proprietary, officials write when a newspaper wants to know who got the latest gig to improve the government presence in social media.
Not all is bleak, of course. Many government agencies do provide some information at no cost in electronic form as .pdf documents.
But Open Data won't be one of the first things that comes to mind when you think of Germany for some time to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment