Right to Data Code of Practice Consultation

[Summary: notes on another open data consultation response]

As if to provide plenty of opportunities for procrastination from working on my PhD, government is providing a constant stream of open data related consultations right now. Next up, a consultation on the Code of Practice to be issued concerning the ‘Right to Data’ introduced by the 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act.

This one is hosted over on Data.gov.uk, and takes the form of a copy of the current draft with space for paragraph-by-paragraph commenting.

I’ve added in a few responses, in particular to note that:

• The current Act, and regulations, define ‘dataset’ to mean ‘raw dataset’ (i.e. not the product of analysis) and so, on my reading, have nothing to say on the right to machine-readable versions of processed data. However, there are legitimate cases when a user might machine readable access to processed data. For example: the understand the way data has been analysed in order to justify a particular policy.

  I can understand why the Act sought a definition of ‘raw data’, but it seems that legitimate cases for access to data are being missed out because of a narrow focus on the interests of those who only want ‘raw data now’. A call for ‘transparency now’ and access to the data required to hold  government to account places different demands on how the obligation to publish machine-readable data should be defined.

• The current definition of machine readable is very weak. And more detail is needed here to avoid authorities providing data that is in machine-readable formats, but that remains almost impossible to do anything with (see for example, Tony Hirst’s recent reports of data wrangling challenges with an open dataset, and my exploration of the Digital Landscapes research)
• A Freedom of Information request, particularly for data, is an opportunity for engagement (and it’s demand led – so already 1 star of open data engagement ) and in many cases, identifying the right format for data, and ways of making it available in cost effective ways, will only happen through conversation between authorities and requesters. The guidance could encourage authorities to make more of this engagement opportunity.

  The creation of a Right to Data is both an asset, and a threat, to open data activism. If lots of requests for data that may previously have been dealt with through dialogue between citizens and state get forced into a 20-day request and response process that can be antagonistic, and feel like a drain on authorities, rather than a constructive engagement, support for data may be undermined. It may be in the interest of both citizens and state to see the Right to Data as a backstop for when other ways of opening data, through conversation and collaboration, have failed.

• I made a number of points on the possibility of charging for data, again on the opportunities of engagement for authorities to benefit from the insights of users in finding ways to cost-effectively get machine-readable data out of existing systems, on the need for transparency of contractor costs that may prevent release, and for open licenses to apply to non-machine readable datasets too, so that re-users can create derivative open datasets if they choose.