This is an unsexy directive that could be a profound game-changer for civic society. If you've ever tried to get data from a public entity and had to argue about the particulars of PDF over Excel, this kind of statement is at least a good precedent to work from...some information will still be unparsable, just as much information, period, is still withheld despite transparency laws...but this is a pretty strong statement nonetheless.
Edit: I do think there's a large risk of an unintended chilling effect, as well-intentioned as this initiative. The blog post that was linked to later in this discussion talks about how defaulting to machine data will "ensure privacy"...which can only mean that there will be some process to decide which data should be machine data and which shouldn't...and, I think this will inevitably cause some datasets to just not be released at all, if there are large technical concerns in making sure the data doesn't "violate privacy"
As an example, a couple years ago the Obama administration took down a public database after a doctor complained that a newspaper was able to use it to track evidence against him in a story:
The database contained anonymized data about doctor malpractice records...but of course, if you have a doctor with a particularly long history of malpractice in a s single zip code, it's not hard to connect those anonymous records to an identity. So I think there will be some cases where an agency will decide not to put up data because of the fear that computerized analysis of it will reveal things that they don't want revealed.
>4(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.<
>4(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.<
(emphases mine)
Don't these provisions take the teeth out of the order?
Re: 4(c) Executive orders creating causes of action is a very hairy topic. In theory, executive orders are instructions by the President to the bureaucracy to guide the executive's exercise of discretion delegated by Congress. They are not laws and generally are not construed to affect the rights of third parties by creating causes of action.
Re: 4(b), every action of the executive is subject to the availability of appropriations.
Sadly, the Supreme Court just (unanimously) endorsed steps in the opposite direction.[1][2]
The oral arguments included outrageous statements from the usual suspects, and what sounded almost like intentionally obtuse statements about the value of open government. Alito chortled in his written opinion, that with respect to freedom of information laws in general: "There is no contention that the Nation’s unity foundered in their absence, or that it is suffering now because of the citizens-only FOIA provisions that several States have enacted".[3]
I read the Court opinion [1] (which is a fairly easy read).
The situation is that "Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grants Virginia citizens
access to all public records, but grants no such right to non Virginians." [1]
The plaintiffs claimed that this law violated their constitutional rights. The court disagreed (and cited precedent).
It is not the job of the court to decide weather or not a law is a good idea. It is only their job to decide weather or not it is constitutional.
Definitely a step in the right direction, but when I worked on federal contracting I used a VM because surfing through the different departments was wading through a sea of expired SSL certificates.
In terms of basic IT management Uncle Sam is way behind the times.
Unfortunately, that would be hard due to myriad of local rules and regulations that may impede this. For example, in my county public property records are not accessible on the web because some law prohibits publishing some details on government officials, and since some government officials own property that means their details can be taken from there which means to access public records I have to physically drive to government building and ask clerks to give me the info verbally. Pretty annoying since it does not add privacy (the data is still public) but make me waste 2 hours for something that I could have done in 2 minutes.
Oh yeah, I have no doubt that it's a tough battle. I mean, do you really think the government wants to be transparent? Hell no, otherwise all the crooked county commissioners and city council members who are getting kickbacks to support zoning changes, etc., would be more likely to get exposed. And obviously nobody wants that... :-)
Its also useful to have the business of government open and machine readable. In Ireland we have recently had a change in how debate information from our Parliament was published forcing a complete overhaul of the website most people use to keep track of their public representatives.
http://www.thejournal.ie/kildarestreet-com-back-from-the-dea...
I wonder when the White House will be offering an RSS feed of citizens they've executed extra-judicially? Or perhaps a social network graph linking lobbyists and politicians & their staff?
Edit: I do think there's a large risk of an unintended chilling effect, as well-intentioned as this initiative. The blog post that was linked to later in this discussion talks about how defaulting to machine data will "ensure privacy"...which can only mean that there will be some process to decide which data should be machine data and which shouldn't...and, I think this will inevitably cause some datasets to just not be released at all, if there are large technical concerns in making sure the data doesn't "violate privacy"
As an example, a couple years ago the Obama administration took down a public database after a doctor complained that a newspaper was able to use it to track evidence against him in a story:
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-complaints-from-a-doct...
The database contained anonymized data about doctor malpractice records...but of course, if you have a doctor with a particularly long history of malpractice in a s single zip code, it's not hard to connect those anonymous records to an identity. So I think there will be some cases where an agency will decide not to put up data because of the fear that computerized analysis of it will reveal things that they don't want revealed.