Reasons given for not providing data?
Summary
- There are 11 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jim McLeod at 2009 Jul 09 14:58 NZST
Can we approach this from an issues and options perspective. What are the reasons for not providing data? What is/are the best options for resolving this/these blocks. I intend to collect and aggregate the reasons from the forum's I have access to. And to then do the same to see if we can remove or at least reduce the barriers. I recall that in his sign-off from SSC on In Devel Laurence mentioned the reasons he had heard as: 1) there has been no demand for the data we have already published, 2) the data quality is not up to standard, 3) the data was only collected for a specific purpose, 4) the data will be misinterpreted, 5) we do not have sufficient resources to properly present the data. Others I have heard are: 6) I want to get as much value from the data as possible before letting it go 7) I don't know the standards for publishing the data or there aren't any standards 8) We don't have permission from our organisation to release the data. 9) There may be privacy issues. 10) We don't have the resources to answer questions that the data may generate. Have you come across any others?
Also data was gathered for a mix of clients, some public some commercial and we don't know the provenance. this is similar to the reasons given by BBC tv why they don't make much archive material available as they cannot work through all the old contracts of the people involved. Andrew 2009/7/5 <email obscured>>: > Can we approach this from an issues and options perspective. What are the reasons for not providing data? What is/are the best options for resolving this/these blocks. I intend to collect and aggregate the reasons from the forum's I have access to. And to then do the same to see if we can remove or at least reduce the barriers. > > I recall that in his sign-off from SSC on In Devel Laurence mentioned the reasons he had heard as: > 1) there has been no demand for the data we have already published, > 2) the data quality is not up to standard, > 3) the data was only collected for a specific purpose, > 4) the data will be misinterpreted, > 5) we do not have sufficient resources to properly present the data. > > Others I have heard are: > 6) I want to get as much value from the data as possible before letting it go > 7) I don't know the standards for publishing the data or there aren't any standards > 8) We don't have permission from our organisation to release the data. > 9) There may be privacy issues. > 10) We don't have the resources to answer questions that the data may generate.
> > Have you come across any others? > > Jim > ----------------------------------------- > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/3K2A6PXLcrcbcKblxD4TRU > > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe > > Start your own free groups and site with > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net > > Host your own online groups site with > GroupServer http://groupserver.org >
On 2009-07-05, at 15:48 , <email obscured> wrote: > Have you come across any others? We need to ensure that all agencies using the data are using the latest set, and provide error feedback. Releasing it outside of our custom licence would mean that we can no longer ensure that all users are using the most recent, or are correcting errors. (NZ Fire Service - NZ Localities) Cheers Gav
> > We need to ensure that all agencies using the data are using the > latest set, and provide error feedback. Releasing it outside of our > custom licence would mean that we can no longer ensure that all users > are using the most recent, or are correcting errors. (NZ Fire Service > - NZ Localities) Notes: NZFS weren't providing notifications of updates on their website (as mentioned in their own license agreement), and nor do they seem to provide any automated data quality feedback system. So that really limits the spread of that dataset to those already in the know, and limits those who can provide quality feedback to an even narrower set of people (those who know about the data AND who are capable and motivated of providing feedback via a non-automated system).
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:48 PM, <email obscured>> wrote: > Can we approach this from an issues and options perspective. What are the reasons for not providing data? What is/are the best options for resolving this/these blocks. I intend to collect and aggregate the reasons from the forum's I have access to. And to then do the same to see if we can remove or at least reduce the barriers. > > I recall that in his sign-off from SSC on In Devel Laurence mentioned the reasons he had heard as: > 1) there has been no demand for the data we have already published, > 2) the data quality is not up to standard, > 3) the data was only collected for a specific purpose, > 4) the data will be misinterpreted, > 5) we do not have sufficient resources to properly present the data. > > Others I have heard are: > 6) I want to get as much value from the data as possible before letting it go > 7) I don't know the standards for publishing the data or there aren't any standards > 8) We don't have permission from our organisation to release the data. > 9) There may be privacy issues. > 10) We don't have the resources to answer questions that the data may generate. Concerns of the purpose the data will be used for - maybe terrorists will use it. From a more technical level, I've heard the following from people over a few beers: The underlying systems are not reliable/secure enough for exposure to to anyone outside the organisation. The standard wasn't implemented correctly - don't want to show the quality or some portion of it.
> > Have you come across any others? > > Jim > ----------------------------------------- > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/3K2A6PXLcrcbcKblxD4TRU > > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe > > Start your own free groups and site with > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net > > Host your own online groups site with > GroupServer http://groupserver.org > -- www.br3nda.com www.coffee.geek.nz "Support living artists - the dead ones don't need it." - Collette Rene Fergus
On 2009-07-05, at 19:12 , Brenda Wallace wrote: > Concerns of the purpose the data will be used for - maybe terrorists > will use it. > > The underlying systems are not reliable/secure enough for exposure to > to anyone outside the organisation. > The standard wasn't implemented correctly - don't want to show the > quality or some portion of it. Expanding on this is the issue of commercial sensitivity. Telco's in particular have been _very_ hesitant to release geospatial data of their networks - usually around claims of commercial sensitivity. The whole 'terrorist' use of data is a bit of a red herring. If they really want the data, they will get it some way or other, whether it is open or not. And most of the data can easily be recreated by performing your own field surveys - it just takes a bit longer. Cheers Gav
All sounds good, will advise MS. Am meeting today with DIA folks and will advise on their agenda, also having a pre-meet meeting with MS folks tomorrow.
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Gavin Treadgold Sent: Monday, 6 July 2009 12:59 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [ninjas] Reasons given for not providing data? On 2009-07-05, at 19:12 , Brenda Wallace wrote: > Concerns of the purpose the data will be used for - maybe terrorists > will use it. > > The underlying systems are not reliable/secure enough for exposure to > to anyone outside the organisation. > The standard wasn't implemented correctly - don't want to show the > quality or some portion of it. Expanding on this is the issue of commercial sensitivity. Telco's in particular have been _very_ hesitant to release geospatial data of their networks - usually around claims of commercial sensitivity. The whole 'terrorist' use of data is a bit of a red herring. If they really want the data, they will get it some way or other, whether it is open or not. And most of the data can easily be recreated by performing your own field surveys - it just takes a bit longer. Cheers Gav ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/3VrNaDr81JUlXoY3tYFaH3 To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Disclaimer: The information in this email (including attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gavin <email obscured>> wrote: > The whole 'terrorist' use of data is a bit of a red herring. If they > really want the data, they will get it some way or other, whether it > is open or not. And most of the data can easily be recreated by > performing your own field surveys - it just takes a bit longer. rebuttal to that argument: sure, the organised/funded/lotsa-spare-time-and-expertise "terrorist" can do their own surveys (as can you and I if we really want access to such things) - but by putting it freely available online you're also supplying the data to those not in the above categories, who take an offered opportunity rather than work to make one.
On 6/07/2009, at 12:59 PM, Gavin Treadgold wrote: > > On 2009-07-05, at 19:12 , Brenda Wallace wrote: > >> Concerns of the purpose the data will be used for - maybe terrorists >> will use it. >> >> The underlying systems are not reliable/secure enough for exposure to >> to anyone outside the organisation. >> The standard wasn't implemented correctly - don't want to show the >> quality or some portion of it. > > Expanding on this is the issue of commercial sensitivity. Telco's in > particular have been _very_ hesitant to release geospatial data of > their networks - usually around claims of commercial sensitivity. > > The whole 'terrorist' use of data is a bit of a red herring. If they > really want the data, they will get it some way or other, whether it > is open or not. And most of the data can easily be recreated by > performing your own field surveys - it just takes a bit longer. See bottom of this page: http://www.chorus.co.nz/cabinet-notices
Hi, On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ed <email obscured>> wrote: > On 6/07/2009, at 12:59 PM, Gavin Treadgold wrote: >> >> Expanding on this is the issue of commercial sensitivity. Telco's in >> particular have been _very_ hesitant to release geospatial data of >> their networks - usually around claims of commercial sensitivity. > > See bottom of this page: > > http://www.chorus.co.nz/cabinet-notices > As I understand it this was forced to be released by Telecom c/- the Commerce Commission. Problem is that its not released under any license, except maybe defaulting to the general terms of the site: Telecom owns all copyright and all other intellectual property rights in this site. Everything on this site is copyrighted unless otherwise noted. Telecom welcomes the use of this site for your non-commercial use only provided that you retain all copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices contained in the content. We advise that you may not copy or display for redistribution to third parties or for commercial purposes any portion of this site without Telecom's express permission. Rob :)
Loading…
Privacy Acceptable Use Terms of Service About OnlineGroups.Net Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an email groups site like this one with OnlineGroups.Net. Collaborate and share information online in your organization.