In 2014 before I started posting research reports to Wikiversity,
I published a bog on "Restrict secrecy more than data collection",
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, Jeff Sterling,
and Richard Barlow, to name only three.
If there is interest, I can copy that article into Wikiversity,
where others can revise it. 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. 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.
Thanks for all you do to advance the general interests against
the special interests.
Spencer Graves, aka DavidMCEddy
4550 Warwick Blvd 508
Kansas City, Missouri 64111 USA
 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:
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  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  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
Publicpolicy mailing list