Hello, All: 

      In 2014 before I started posting research reports to Wikiversity, I published a bog on "Restrict secrecy more than data collection",[1] which includes 46 different notes to support the following:  

            1.  Many of the problems the US has are the product of things US government has are the products of things done in secret, like helping to organize military coups to replace democratically elected governments and otherwise support authoritarian governments in foreign countries to support US international business interests at the expense of the bottom 99 percent the world over. 

            2.  Governments and big businesses have in the past and will in the future routinely violate any regulations created in response to public pressure. 

            3.  I think we should focus on making it easier for the public to find out about these things, reducing the ability of governments to persecute people like Ed Snowden,[2] Jeff Sterling,[3] and Richard Barlow,[4] to name only three. 

      If there is interest, I can copy that article into Wikiversity, where others can revise it.[5]  It could use citations to works describing similar questionable activities by other governments, e.g., like books published by François-Xavier Verschave regarding similar actions by France.[6]  One action needed in the US, I believe, is legislation explicitly giving US federal judges Top Secret security clearances with the right to subpoena and declassify any document pertaining to cases in their jurisdiction, with appellate overview.  US public officials should not be allowed to suppress evidence in court through claims of national security, as they do today, under US v. Reynolds.[7]

      Thanks for all you do to advance the general interests against the special interests.[8]

      Spencer Graves, aka DavidMCEddy
      4550 Warwick Blvd 508
      Kansas City, Missouri 64111 USA





[5] I've published several research reports crudely related to this on Wikiversity under "Category:Freedom and abundance".  My most recent work there has focused on modeling the "Time to nuclear Armageddon".  I'm currently "Forecasting nuclear proliferation". 



I own the copyright to "Restrict secrecy more than data collection", and I'm happy to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 license.  That article was posted 2014-07-18.  Less than a year later, health concerns force my wife and I to move, and I can no longer edit that blog post myself.  I just emailed someone who can change that article asking it be labeled CC BY-SA. 

On 2020-04-07 07:33, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
Hi all,

COVID-19 or not, t he first year and a half of every new legislative term in the EU are characterised by a large number of public consultation the European Commission runs in order to prepare for its upcoming legislative initiatives. We have already shared the consultation on Artificial Intelligence regulation [1] in the last EU Policy Monitoring Report. Closely connected to it (as AI feeds on data).

The European Commission is asking whether a general, continental set of rules and principles for data sharing is a good idea, how to open up data for the public interest, if data access and sharing principles should be included in EU funding programmes and also which data sets should be considered high value.

The last point relates to the Open Data Directive [2] which was passed during the last legislative term and is formerly known as Public Sector Information Directive. It allows the European Commission to publish a list of "high-value datasets" that must be available for re-use free of charge and in machine readable formats.

In case you want to work with us on the answers, we have until 31 May 2020 to submit them. We would appreciate your input by 16 May 2020 on Meta:



Publicpolicy mailing list