Governments, Data, Transparency, Threats, and Common Sense
December 14, 2009
A happy quack to the reader (one of two or three sad to say) who sent me a link to The Register’s “Gov Slams Critical Database Report as Opaque, Flawed, Inaccurate”. The idea is that the UK government has a bit of a tussle underway with an outfit called Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. The Trust published a report. The UK government says, according to the Register, that the consultants got its facts wrong. In my experience, this is the pot calling the kettle discolored.
Here are some links provided by my colleague in the Eastern Mediterranean basin:
- http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf see especially “Developing Effective Systems” pdf
- http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/government-response-rowntree-illegal-databases-report.pdf
I think consultants get stuff wrong and I think governments get stuff wrong as well. This is the norm. The reason is that consultants don’t see government efforts from the government’s point of view. The government, on the other hand, has a tough time seeing consultants as much more than reasons to have another meeting. By definition, citizen facing data will be assembled with intent. By definition, consultants will be able to find fault with almost any data a government entity produces. When consultants produce data for the government and then the government makes those data available to citizens, then other consultants will rise to the occasion. In short, data, transparency, threats to the nation state, and common sense collide. Part of the landscape. Live with it, opines this addled goose.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to report to the manager of the US government’s Recovery.gov Web site that I was not paid to write this paragraph pointing out what seems obvious to geese living in Harrod’s Creek. Real humans may have another viewpoint. No problemo. I disclosed, didn’t I?
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
