Posts tagged as:

Congress to Produce Earmark Data?

by on May 12, 2010 · 2 comments

A bill introduced in the Senate yesterday would require Congress to bring earmarks out of the shadows, producing earmark data in a format that the public can easily use.

S. 3335 calls for a “unified and searchable database on a public website for congressional earmarks.” This is something President Obama called for in his 2010 State of the Union speech, though we haven’t heard much more from him about it since then.

The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), and is currently cosponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO). Its House counterpart is H.R. 5258 (Cassidy R-LA), which also has bipartisan support.

Importantly the bill is not just about a web site. The bill would enable the public to “programmatically search and access all data in a serialized machine readable format via a web-services application programming interface.” That gobbledegook means that people could access the data for themselves, slicing and dicing it to learn whatever they want or to display it however they want.

I’ve noted here before the efforts of my government transparency web site WashingtonWatch.com to capture earmark data and the related effort to get earmark data directly from Congress at Earmarkdata.org.

Support for these bills across parties and ideologies suggests good things may be in store for earmark transparency.

SHARE: 2 comments

HouseLive.gov Video: Wait and See

by on April 27, 2010 · 2 comments

The potential of streaming video from the House of Representatives is so great that my first impression of the House’s new video offering, HouseLive.gov, has been disappointment. There is much room to improve HouseLive.gov, and I hope it will improve.

At first, I couldn’t find any video that was actually live. (That would inject a bit of irony into the name, eh?) But there is live video: On the homepage, scroll down to the top of the “Most Recent Sessions” chart. If the top of the list has an item called “In Progress,” the House is in session. Clicking the video link will get you live video from the House floor.

(Don’t be fooled by the “Subscribe to Live Feeds” box. Those are RSS feeds, which are “live”—as in regularly updated. They’re not live video or audio.)

Most people will probably access this from the House clerk’s familiar “Floor Summary” page, which has near-real-time updates about House activity. But that page says “Streaming video is not available for this session.” That’s a hiccup that should be easy to fix.

Selecting a past day, one can watch the video of that day, but in my early tests, you had to watch the video from the beginning. I don’t think many people are going to watch 10 hours of video to pick up their representative’s remarks on the bill to congratulate Camp Dudley of Westport, New York, on its 125th anniversary.

I’ve been testing in Firefox. In Internet Explorer, I got some links that do things. It appears you will be able to navigate around a day’s video based on the activity of the House. That is, you can jump to where the House began debate on the Camp Dudley bill.

Hopefully, the system will work in standards-compliant browsers, not only Microsoft’s. I note that the video currently plays only in Windows Media Player or Microsoft’s Silverlight. I’ll leave it to friends better versed in video to critique the selection of formats, but I have doubts about these two as being the best, and most open, available.

Beyond junctures in House debate, there should be more tagging to make the video useful. Not only should you be able to navigate via House activity, you should be able to navigate by bill number, and by member of Congress.

When you do navigate around, I don’t see that the “share” link changes. This needs fixing so that people can direct friends and colleagues to key portions of debates. In fact, you should be able to link to any point in the video. Ideally, there should be an embed function that allows defined segments of video to go into blog posts and such. That latter one is a big ask, but Congress is a big, important institution.

It’s early yet. Maybe these things are in the works or on the drawing board. Rolling HouseLive.go out in “beta,” getting feedback, and fixing it is A-OK. But sometimes government agencies set a course and have a hard time changing after that. The Thomas legislative system, brilliant as it was for 1995, still isn’t publishing bill data in good formats, and a private provider has had to take up the slack.

HouseLive.gov is better than nothing. It can be much, much better than it is.

SHARE: 2 comments

It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Cover-Up

by on April 21, 2010 · 2 comments

Secrecy breeds suspicion, and little in the intellectual property area has garnered more suspicion than ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

ACTA is a multilateral trade agreement that has been under negotiation since 2007. But the negotiations haven’t been public, and access to key documents has only been provided to people willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

It is inconsistent with the U.S. public’s expectations to have government officials negotiate public policies without providing public access to the deliberations and the documents. There are some limitations and exceptions to this principle. Generic diplomatic relations probably develop best in an environment where candor can prevail. Issues related to national security may require secret negotiations. But intellectual property issues affect all Americans’ communications, commerce, entertainment, expression, access to knowledge, medical care, privacy, and more.

The good news is that a text of the current draft agreement has now been released. According to James Love of Knowledge Ecology International, ACTA “goes way beyond counterfeiting and copyright piracy, into several categories of intellectual property rights, including patents, semi conductor chip designs, pharmaceutical test data and other topics.”

Public debate on ACTA can now begin, but it begins with doubts surrounding it, doubts that were sown by the non-public process in which ACTA has developed so far.

SHARE: 2 comments

New Google Tool Discloses Censorship & User Data Requests from Governments

by on April 20, 2010 · 6 comments

Google has just launched a new tool that lets users view the total number of requests received “from government agencies around the world to remove content from our services, or provide information about users of our services and products.” As the FAQ explains, the tool overlays the requests received over the last six months, except for countries like China that prohibit the release of such numbers, on a map with totals for both data requests if over 30 (criminal-related but not civil) and removal requests if over 10 (not including requests from private parties, like DMCA copyright take-down notices). Google makes a few important observations about the data—especially that Brazil and India’s numbers are skewed way off because of the popularity of Orkut, Google’s answer to Facebook, there.

This tool represents the beginning of a new era in transparency into how governments censor the Internet and violate users’ privacy. I very much look forward to seeing Google improve this tool to provide greater granularity of disclosure, and to seeing other companies improve upon what Google has started. Over time, this transparency could do wonders to advance Internet freedom for users by promoting positive competition among countries.

To illustrate the kinds of things one could do with this data with a more robust interface, I put together the following spreadsheet (by scraping Google’s request numbers and mashing them up with total Internet users numbers I found here (which are mostly from late 2009):

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AtwIXain9oyPdFJBQUxMcUpselNYcElGUHhhMnBuUUE&hl=en&output=html&widget=true

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Broadband Baselines

by on April 1, 2010 · 0 comments

The national broadband plan drafted by Federal Communications Commission staff has a lot of goals in it. Goals for broadband infrastructure deployment include:

  1. Make broadband with 4 Mbps download speeds available to every American
  2. Over the long term, have broadband with 100 Mbps download and 50 Mbps upload speeds available to 100 million American homes, with 50 Mbps downloads available to 100 million homes by 2015
  3. Have the fastest and most extensive wireless broadband networks in the world
  4. Ensure that no state lags significantly behind in 3G wireless coverage
  5. Ensure that every community has access to 1 Gbps broadband service in institutions like schools, libraries, and hospitals

The plan also outlines a number of policy steps that the FCC and other federal agencies could take to help accomplish these goals.

So far, so good. But to truly hold federal agencies accountable for achieving these objectives, we need more than goals, measures, and a list of policy proposals. We also need a realistic baseline that tells us how the market is likely to progress toward these goals in the absence of new federal action, and some way to determine how much the specific policy initiatives affect the amount of the goal achieved.

Here’s what will happen in the absence of a well-defined baseline and analysis that shows how much improvement in the goals is actually caused by federal policies: The broadband plan announces goals. The government will take some actions. Measurement will show that broadband deployment improved, moving the nation closer to achieving the goals. The FCC and other decisionmakers will then claim that their chosen policies have succeeded, because broadband deployment improved.

But in the absence of proof that the policies cause a measurable change in outcomes, this is like the rooster claiming that his crowing makes the sun rise. Scientists call this the ” post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy: “B happened after A, therefore A must have caused B.” (Brush up on your Latin a little more, and you’ll even find out what Mercatus means. But I digress.)

Enough abstractions. Let me give a few examples.

The first goal listed above is to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband with 4 Mbps download speeds. In his second comment on my March 17 “Broadband Funding Gap” post, James Riso notes that the plan acknowledges that 5 out of the 7 million households that currently lack access to 4 Mbps broadband will soon be covered by 4th generation wireless. That means coverage for 83 percent of the households that lack 4 Mbps broadband is already “baked into the cake.” 

Accurate accountability must avoid giving future policy changes credit for this increase in deployment, because it was going to happen anyway.  (Of course, policymakers need to avoid taking steps that would discourage this deployment, such as levying the 15 percent universal service fee on 4th generation wireless.) The relevant question for evaluating future policy changes is, “How do they affect deployment to the remaining 2 million households?”

Similarly, the goal of 50 Mbps to 100 million households by 2015 seems to have been chosen because cable and fiber broadband providers indicate that they plan to cover more than that many homes by 2013 with broadband capable of delivering those speeds (pp. 21-22). Future policy initiatives should get zero credit for contributing toward this goal unless analysis demonstrates that the initiatives increased deployment of very high speed broadband over and above what the companies were already planning.

If you think this point is so basic that it’s not worth mentioning, you haven’t read enough government reports. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is endemic, and not just on technology-related topics. For example, both sides regularly display this fallacy whenever the unemployment figures get released: “Unemployment increased after Obama’s election, therefore his administration caused the unemployment.” “The recession started when Bush was president, therefore his administration caused the unemployment.” These are at best hypotheses whose truth, untruth, and quantititive significance needs to be established by analysis that controls for other factors affecting the results.

Just take this as an advance warning on reporting results of the national broadband plan: Tone down the triumphalism.  

Note: For those of you who just can’t get enough discussion of the national broadband plan, Jerry Brito and I will have a dialog on other aspects of the plan in a future podcast that will be available here on Surprisingilyfree.com.

SHARE: 0 comments

Earmark Requests Going Online—But in the Wrong Formats

by on March 28, 2010 · 2 comments

earmarkpigAs required by rules instituted last year, members of Congress are posting their earmark requests online. And in a small improvement over past practice, the House Appropriations Committee  is posting links to all those pages (in alphabetical order and by state). The Senate Appropriations Committee is doing the same.

So, great. You can go line-by-line and figure out what requests your member of Congress has put in. But what’s the total number of your members’ requests? What’s the total amount of his or her requests? Who requested the most earmarks, in dollars or in number? Where in your district is the money supposed to go?

HTML pages and PDF documents are very hard to work with and don’t allow us to answer these questions. The Earmarkdata.org project is asking Congress to produce information about what it’s doing in formats sites like WashingtonWatch.com can use.

If you haven’t already, please sign the petition at Earmarkdata.org And please tell a friend about this effort too.

SHARE: 2 comments

House Procedure—and Transparency in Collapse

by on March 17, 2010 · 3 comments

Over on the WashingtonWatch.com blog, I’ve laid out in the simplest terms I could what’s going on in terms of procedure with health care overhaul legislation. The post, called “What is Deeming, Anyway?“, comes in at a mere 900 words… If you’re a real public policy junkie, you might like it.

But what about the transparency oriented processes that President Obama and leaders like Speaker Pelosi promised the public? Recall that the Speaker promised to post the health care bill online for 72 hours before a vote back in September.

There was debate about whether she stuck to her promise then. And it was probably a one-time promise. It’s almost certain that she will not do so now. If she lines up the votes to pass the bill, the vote will happen. Right. Then.

What about President Obama’s promise to put health care negotiations on C-SPAN? The daylong roundtable debate on health care was an engaging illustration of what happens when you do transparent legislating. Voters got a clearer picture of where each side stands—and perhaps saw that there actually is some competence on both sides of the aisle. Some competence.

The health care negotiations going on right now are the ones that matter. This is when the most important details are being hammered out. This is when the bargaining that draws the public’s ire is happening. But I’m not seeing it on C-SPAN.

President Obama’s promise may have been naive, but that doesn’t excuse it. The inside negotiations going on this week represent an ongoing violation of the president’s C-SPAN promise.

And there’s good reason to anticipate that the president will violate his Sunlight Before Signing promise as well. This was his promise to post bills online for five days after he receives them from Congress before signing them into law. Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Just Give Us the Data! Earmarks Edition

by on March 15, 2010 · 1 comment

This morning, a small group of us open government collaborators (joined by others) rolled out a transparency campaign called “Just Give Us the Earmark Data!“

Visitors to EarmarkData.org are encouraged there to sign a petition asking Congress to publish data about earmarks in formats that are useful for public oversight. Developers can also participate in perfecting the data schema that will capture the “earmarks ecosystem” in the best possible way.

There has been a lot of action on earmarks recently. House Democrats announced last week that they would restrict their earmarking only to non-profits. The next day, House Republicans announced that they would forgo earmarking entirely. That’s House Democrats and House Republicans. Don’t assume that earmarking is going to go away.

Whatever happens, our demand is simple: Just give us the data!

If you agree that Congress should make good information about earmarking available, please sign the petition—and pass along the word with a Tweet, a Facebook post, an email, or whatever communication you like!

(If you’re a developer, take a look at the schema and join in the conversation about it on our Google group.)

SHARE: 1 comment

FCC Announces Transparency Plans on a Scanned PDF

by on March 15, 2010 · 10 comments

What struck me most about the executive summary of the FCC’s “National Broadband Plan” is that they published it in one of the most opaque formats going: It’s a PDF scan of a printed document.

This means you can’t cut and paste the bullet point that says:

Increase civic engagement by making government more open and transparent, creating a robust public media ecosystem and modernizing the democratic process.

This and other observations/snark in my recent Cato@Liberty post join Adam’s early comment on the FCC’s incredible cost claims. Undoubtedly, there will be more here at TLF.

SHARE: 10 comments

WashingtonWatch.com: Over 100,000 Comments on One Bill

by on February 11, 2010 · 4 comments

It’s not the highest-toned debate the world of public policy has ever seen, but the WashingtonWatch.com discussion on Public Law 111-92, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009, has now reached over 100,000 comments.

I’ve discussed the astounding level of commentary—and all the efforts to keep it civil—in a post on the WashingtonWatch.com blog.

SHARE: 4 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →