Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Announces Open Data Policy With Executive Order

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the except-you-guys-in-the-atf dept.

Privacy 94

In an overdue but welcome move, President Obama today issued an executive order mandating "open and machine-readable data" for government-published information. Also, kodiaktau writes "In a move to make data more readily available, the United States of America has announced the Project Open Data and has chosen GitHub to host the content." Ars has a great article on the announced policy, but as you might expect, it comes with caveats, exceptions, sub-goals and committees; don't expect too much change per day, or assume you have a right to open data, exactly, in the eyes of the government, but — "subject to appropriations" — it sounds good on paper. (I'd like the next step to be requiring that all file formats used by the government be open source.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (4, Insightful)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680617)

This is the first time that I've seen someone talk about President Obama and Executive Orders in a way that makes sense. It is my understanding that Executive Orders have to do with the internal operations of the government, not as a mechanism of usurping congress when it comes to laws that have an effect on the American public.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680755)

It's not just Obama. There's a rich history of Presidents using EOs to try and get out of their duty to execute the law. It's been a bipartisan dereliction of duty (and illegitimate power grab).

But yes, you're right in that this sounds like a legitimate use - ordering an execution of the law which makes it more accessible.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680979)

You sir, have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (3, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682387)

You would think a Republican-led Congress would be inclined to limit what a Democrat as President does.

But it turns out...they would rather just let him do whatever, so when their guy gets in, he also gets to do 'whatever'.

And vice versa.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680765)

You are correct. And I would weigh this as something good.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680789)

It is my understanding that Executive Orders have to do with the internal operations of the government, not as a mechanism of usurping congress when it comes to laws that have an effect on the American public.

People seem to forget Executive Order 9066, which led to the creation of internment camps for "Japanese-americans" (or as I call them, citizens) during WWII. There's a great many more examples of executive orders going far beyond "internal operations of the government." And yes, Obama, like every other president has penned some questionable executive orders.

Of course, even snarking [slashdot.org] the President on slashdot is a hanging offense, so god help me for suggesting this; But it's clear that every administration. Every. Administration. Has used executive orders to expand the power of the executive branch, or as you put it "usurping congress". Whether this is a problem or not depends largely on your personal political preferences and which party controls the white house at the moment... but historically, they have a long tradition of going far beyond "internal operations of the government"... at least as I suspect you're thinking of it.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680817)

People seem to forget Executive Order 9066, which led to the creation of internment camps for "Japanese-americans" (or as I call them, citizens) during WWII. There's a great many more examples of executive orders going far beyond "internal operations of the government." And yes, Obama, like every other president has penned some questionable executive orders.

Forget? I have not forgotten; I think that's just as bad (actually, much, much worse) than whatever it is Obama has done. The fact that executive orders were abused in the past doesn't make abusing them okay, though.

Re: Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681785)

Ummm, perhaps you are unaware of the hearings the House of Representatives are holding with regard to the actions of Obama, Hiliary, the State Department and White House over the events in Benghazi eight months ago. The refusal to come to the aid of an Ambassador and SEALs for eight hours, with a real-time Predator drone overhead (so the US could see what was going on in real time), and then a cover up (lying) for weeks, then no impartial investigation for eight months is simply *criminal*. It is far far worse than internment camps (as bad as they were).

The message for the World is, the US will not come to your aid, no matter whether you are a US Ambassador, SEAL, ally (Mubarak), or country (Israel). America is no longer the greatest country on the Earth for promoting and defending Western values. That was Obama's intention.

Re: Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681887)

America is no longer the greatest country on the Earth for promoting and defending Western values. That was Obama's intention.

Sad part is, America probably is still the greatest country on the Earth for promoting and defending Western values. It is no longer that high a bar.

Re: Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43683805)

How is that anywhere nearly as bad as internment camps!?! I am not saying it was not bad, but that does not seem even close.

Re: Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#43683873)

Benghazi is bad, but nowhere near as bad interring Japanese Americans during WWII. Ambassadors and Navy Seals should know that they are going into hostile territory, and should be aware that they will be targets.

Interring Americans during a war is just a horrible thing to do. I understand the history of why it was done, but we all know it was wrong. It should never have happened, much like slavery and the Indian Wars.

I think your last statement is spot on though. I hope the truth is found out, and if any wrong doing was done (I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, even if it has to do with the highest figures in our govt), I hope they are punished to the fullest extend of the law, up to and including impeachment if needed (not that I want Joe Biden as President, Obama is better than that).

Re: Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (4, Insightful)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43684855)

Right...a confusing and hostile situation (which the President and staff clearly botched) that happened over an evening is comparable to a planned out and very public taking of American's rights?

It might be fun to jump on the whole government conspiracy bandwagon, but the two situations are in no way comparable. There are a lot of questions about Benghazi and some answers may seem obvious now in retrospect, but the Japanese Interment was clearly wrong.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680891)

You meant SNOGGING girlintraining =) Not snarking!

P.S. you made me giggle like a little girl in training. I don't think you have much to worry about.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2, Insightful)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680975)

Every branch, and each political faction, constantly, and steadily usurps power from the american people. Democrat vs Republican ballots merely ask, which powers do you want to lose today? Whichever you pick, the other party waits, because they will take away the other freedom soon enough. There is not an option that says, "I want more freedom", or "I want the government to have less control of my life."

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681401)

It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

markdavis (642305) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681719)

>"It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power."

And spending more money and making the government bigger. Year after year. Decade after decade. They also seem to agree in removing personal liberty in the process.

I call them, collectively, "republicrats" because they are really a lot more the same than different. Nothing will EVER really change until we change the system to allow other parties to actually win seats (like with instant runoff voting and potentially dismantling of the electoral college).

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43685945)

That's why I voted for Jill Stein (Green Party) despite being a libertarian. What America needs first and foremost is IRV or almost any other clone-independent system. I really hope that Americans, starting with independents and third-party supporters, can put aside our differences to address this huge glaring flaw which has led to widespread corruption. If that means supporting a socialist because she's the most popular voting system reform candidate, so be it - I'll happily accept four more years of socialism if that meant an end to the two-party duopoly.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (3, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681479)

We are merely mice voting for black or white cats [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681893)

I believe I'll vote for a calico!

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681725)

Every branch, and each political faction, constantly, and steadily usurps power from the american people. Democrat vs Republican ballots merely ask, which powers do you want to lose today? Whichever you pick, the other party waits, because they will take away the other freedom soon enough. There is not an option that says, "I want more freedom", or "I want the government to have less control of my life."

When you move to click on one orf those boxes it moves away.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681829)

"People seem to forget Executive Order 9066, which led to the creation of internment camps for "Japanese-americans" (or as I call them, citizens) during WWII. There's a great many more examples of executive orders going far beyond "internal operations of the government." And yes, Obama, like every other president has penned some questionable executive orders."

Well, I would say "like many other Presidents in recent history", I'm not sure "every" applies. But still...

Even so, I think what GP is referring to is "lawful authority". The fact that many Presidents have attempted to use Executive Orders to exceed their lawful authority, does not make another President who does it "not an asshole." Any more than the fact that a store has been robbed 4 times in the past means robbing it again makes somebody an okay guy.

Concerning that lawful authority, GP has it right: Executive Orders are just orders for Federal employees, much as a CEO will write policy for his corporation. They actually have no binding authority on anybody who is not a Federal employee, just as a CEO's orders do not affect non-employees.

As such (if we're just talking about the actual law), the President may order Federal employees to lock up some Americans, but those Americans are not legally obligated to obey. I believe the internment camp order also had something to do with wartime powers that really do not apply today (as we are not lawfully at war with anybody right now... never mind that we are de facto at war in far too many places).

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681843)

And yes, Obama, like every other president has penned some questionable executive orders

I thought the old campaign slogan was "Hope and Change", not "Well, everyone else is doing it".

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Common Joe (2807741) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682511)

Whether this is a problem or not depends largely on your personal political preferences and which party controls the white house at the moment...

The executive orders that go beyond the "internal operations of government" are largely a problem because of what I just emphasized in your quote. Based on what I read in your comments in numerous discussions, I know your head is screwed on straight, but I cannot tell you how many times I've had a conversation like the one that follows:

Friend or Family: Can you believe with $POLITICAL_PARTY_B did? They $SOMETHING_STUPID.

Me: Yeah. We voted them in. We really need to get a 3rd party in there. Actually, we need to get rid of the whole party mentality thing and just vote someone in who has morals and values.

Friend of Family: You didn't vote for $POLITICAL_PARTY_A? $POLITICAL_PARTY_B is so much worse than $POLITICAL_PARTY_A. That's why $POLITICAL_PARTY_B won.

Me: They are both the same. They both violate the same rights -- pick your amendment.

Friend of Family: But $POLITICAL_PARTY_B is so much worse than $POLITICAL_PARTY_A.

Me: They violate your rights differently and violate them at different rates, but averaged out, they are about the same.

Inevitably, at some point, the person I'm having the discussion with and I will have to agree to disagree. It's almost always the same conversation and it is always frustrating.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680813)

The Legislative Branch makes the laws
The Executive Branch executes them.
Which is another way of saying that "laws that have an effect on the American public" are "the internal operations of the government".

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681281)

The Legislature makes laws.
The Executive makes laws in the form of executive orders which have power of law because of powers granted in Constitution or by laws passed by Congress.
The Judiciary makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws that have the power of law.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681427)

The Judiciary make laws at (almost) random, depending on how they feel, and the current political climate. They pretend to have some semblance of reasonable justice and independance, but there have been way too many decisions which declare that "black is white" (with a straight face) to deserve any respect.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681615)

I can think of very few cases where the higher courts have done this without there being a valid legal question on the table that needed deciding. Certainly one side or the other may say it's obvious that only one interpretation is correct but things that make it to higher courts are never that simple.

(If the laws are vaguely written by congress then it is because congress intended to not get into specifics in order to get enough votes, so you can't go and later look at some politician's writing to decide what the congressional "intent" was.)

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43683365)

Barron v Baltimore. Cherokee Nation. Dred Scott. Slaughter-House. Wickard v. Filburn (and a boatload of other IC cases). Kelo. Citizens United.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681845)

"The Executive makes laws in the form of executive orders which have power of law because of powers granted in Constitution or by laws passed by Congress."

Uh-uh. Just no. That's not the way it works.

Executive Orders are NOT "laws". They are merely orders to Federal employees. If you're not a Federal employee, YOU don't have to obey Executive Orders.

The only way the executive "makes" law is via veto power, and indirectly via appointments. Executive Orders are just not law. Period.

Read your copy of the Constitution. (What? Don't have one?) There is nothing in there about Presidents making laws.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680957)

Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases:

1. Congress passes a countervailing law with a veto-proof majority.

2. The Supreme Court invalidates the order as unconstitutional.

1952 was the first time (2) occurred.

There have been some pretty significant executive orders, including Jackson's specie circular requiring that payment for federal lands be done in gold or silver, and FDR order that the military round up Japanese and German Americans in military zones.

Harry Truman desegregated the military via executive order, and Eisenhower did the same for public schools by executive order.

George Bush's order to restrict access to presidential papers was equally controversial.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681445)

"Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases"

Growing wheat for your own use has been held to be "interstate commerce." So much for that argument. Don't quote judicial decisions as part of a logical argument, they're two different worlds.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681673)

Desegregating the military may have been controversial, but it was 100% within the president's authority to do so as it was entirely an executive matter involving executive bodies. Jackson in general was a really annoying president intent on shaking things up who had to deal with subordinates intent on keeping things the status quo and ignoring the president, but he was still dealing with executive matters there.

On the other hand, FDR overreached in was clearly breaching constitutional rights (even as understood at that time).

You left off a third option: what if the executive order violates an existing statute? As in the Bush restriction of presidential papers despite the Freedom Of Information Act.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681865)

"Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases:"

You are leaving a HUGE part out. It may not be intentional but it comes very close to lying by omission.

Executive Orders have the power of law... for Federal employees and the military. Those are the people over whom the President has authority. Nobody else.

This is not to say they don't get away with it from time to time. But as far as real legal and Constitutional authority goes, the only people he can order around are his own employees, who are: anybody who works for the Federal government, and the military. That's it.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681055)

What Obama says on the stage is not what Obama does when he is backstage.

Please do not assume I am toeing some party line and blind to politics.
I am not left, right, democrat or republican. I support everyone or no one depending on the specific actions they take on things that matter to me.

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1, Insightful)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681573)

This is the first time that I've seen someone talk about President Obama and Executive Orders in a way that makes sense.

If you think it makes sense, then you have it wrong. Executive orders will be the downfall of this Republic.
...to better serve the American people... To whom are we being served? Self-serving traitors serving the people? How laughable is that? It seems to me that if a machine reads what is in front of it, then a human is not necessary, especially if people are to be enslaved. And, if machines can read then it is possible for them to write as well. What will these machines write and for whom, the NSA, CIA, DHS ?

Re:Only right use of an Executive Order I've seen (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#43686857)

This is the first time that I've seen someone talk about President Obama and Executive Orders in a way that makes sense. It is my understanding that Executive Orders have to do with the internal operations of the government, not as a mechanism of usurping congress when it comes to laws that have an effect on the American public.

That's odd. You and your GOP pals were remarkably silent when that dodge, and other shenanigans like "signing statements" (the equivalent of royal decree), were commonplace during the last administration. Mind you, in no case do I consider these actions acceptable, but I find it more than a little annoying that none of the GOP apologists had a single fucking thing to say about it until a Democrat took office.

machine-readable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680655)

what if the machine requires an encryption key, will one be provided?

O RLY? (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680663)

In an overdue but welcome move, President Obama today issued an executive order mandating "open and machine-readable data" for government-published information.

Yes, and after so much money and effort spent creating the databases and websites, they'll contain no data because it was all marked classified for national security reasons. /snark

Re:O RLY? (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680983)

In an overdue but welcome move, President Obama today issued an executive order mandating "open and machine-readable data" for government-published information.

Yes, and after so much money and effort spent creating the databases and websites, they'll contain no data because it was all marked classified for national security reasons. /snark

Nope, they will just leave out the embarrassing parts and distract you with petabytes of irrelevancy.

how can you mandate GitHub (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680711)

GitHub will collapse with such a colossal amount of data

How about information on Benghazi, then? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680733)

Open data, huh? Will this include some actual facts about Benghazi, or does Obama plan on continuing to cover that up?

How about Fast and Furious? Will we finally learn how much of a role Obama played in that?

Or how about opening up the data on how much the FBI knew about the Tsarnaevs ahead of time? Because apparently they were given quite specific information they declined to follow up on.

Oh, this is just about "open data formats" - kind of, sort of, but not really. Not about releasing any useful information. That's still going to be hidden behind "state secrets" and "security concerns."

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680785)

You do understand the distinction between content and format, right? PDF, DOC, XLS are formats. Benghazi, IRS tax code and responses to FOIA requests are content.

This isn't about the government becoming more forthcoming. It's about the government not requiring expensive or unavailable tools to understand the information they do release.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43680847)

This isn't about the government becoming more forthcoming. It's about the government not requiring expensive or unavailable tools to understand the information they do release.

No, I do understand. My point is that this is absolutely useless, because the government releases no useful information.

Great, we're going to have access to... well, who knows, they don't list any example data sets. Clicking through links I eventually get to Data.gov which shows me a map of active hurricanes and tropical storms, of which there currently aren't any.

Or I can pull up the "USDA Database for the Flavonoid Content of Selected Foods" which divides foods into, and I'm quoting here, "five subclasses of flavonoids (flavonols, flavones, flavanones, flava-3-ols.anthocyanadins)".

So that's great, we'll be able to pull up entirely meaningless data using... well, tools we write ourselves, I guess, because the open data initiative covers documenting formats, not ways to use the data.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681797)

Those are both great examples.

Now I can write my Cooking in Hurricane Country book and mash up the data to illustrate how a Flavonol is like a Vlass 4 Hurricane whereas Flavones are more like a Class 3.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681619)

This isn't about the government becoming more forthcoming.

No need for that.
Obama already gave us the most transparent Government in history. Remember?

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680805)

I'd like to find out how the House of Representatives manages to pick creationists and climate change deniers for the Science and Technology committee. And hopefully this will go back into the Bush administration so we can see how much of a Halliburton sock puppet that was.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680921)

I'd like to find out how the House of Representatives manages to pick creationists and climate change deniers for the Science and Technology committee.

Oh, it's easy. They've got dozens of them.

of all the stuff that should be opened.... (1)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680909)

how about opening up about torture which is a violation of international law?

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680969)

Open data, huh? Will this include some actual facts about Benghazi, or does Obama plan on continuing to cover that up?

They publish it right here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/countrytemplate_ly.html [cia.gov] . What coverup? Do you have any verbs, or just a place name? FWIW, Wikipedia's page is much better, but that's to be expected.

How about Fast and Furious? Will we finally learn how much of a role Obama played in that?

Unlike whatever unsubstantiated 911-truther new-age-shakra-measuring black-cat-fearing fantasy you have about Benghazi, F&F was a real scandal where the government was objectively working against its own people. I seriously doubt the president is going to want to talk about that much.

Or how about opening up the data on how much the FBI knew about the Tsarnaevs ahead of time?

Meh. Unlike F&F (active malice toward the people) that was the usual mere incompetence at worst and I'm not even sure it was that. What's there to know? How is that going to be interesting to anyone?

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0, Flamebait)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681037)

Benghazi, is as much a scandal as whitewater was. The difference between the two is no one died in regards to whitewater. And of course, if you're getting you news from nbc, cbs or abc along with cnn the information presented comes down to "some reporting or none at all."

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681177)

Because Faux News is such a reliable non-biased source.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681269)

You libtards are just so slanted to the left, anything even remotely resembling a centrist position to you is instantly "right-wing."

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681379)

In every other nation on earth Obama is considered center-right or moderate.

Re: How about information on Benghazi, then? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681805)

Nope. Obama belonged to the democratic socialist party of north america. He has always been far left. Its just the media portray him as centerist. Nb: i'm from outside the US.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682793)

In every other nation on earth Obama is considered center-right or moderate.

Really? I've lived in Canada for the majority of my live having been born here. And Obama is further to the left then the NDP.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43684257)

Really.

For example this poll conducted by the Economist. 67% of voter deemed Obama to be a centrist.

http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/barack-obama-centrist [economist.com]

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689585)

Well that's a really "well done poll" considering it was online only. I mean there's no chance of skewing on that, none at all.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682777)

Because Faux News is such a reliable non-biased source.

Well let's look at the news breakdown shall we, and you can shove your ignorance down while we're at it. Out of all the major networks can you tell us the only one that's covered the story. Vs what was covered in other cases? Well let's see, NBC, CBS and ABC pretty much had wall-to-wall coverage on Jodi Arias and that trial. Very news worthy, unlike the massive intelligence failure, the fact that the whitehouse actively covered up and changed talking points and tried to blame a youtube video. Or the fact that they actually *took* the call, but refused to do anything and forced the exfil teams to stand down.

Yep, now you tell me, which is the more important story.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681307)

What about Vince Foster?

Still that doesn't come up to the 100,000 or so that died because of the WMD lies.

Agreed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681783)

Benghazi, is as much a scandal as whitewater was.

True, in that neither is a scandal. Beating up Obama over Benghazi is so desperate, down there with the birthers and the swiftboaters.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681841)

And of course, if you're getting you news from nbc, cbs or abc along with cnn the information presented comes down to "some reporting or none at all."

Who? Aren't those TV stations from last century? I get my news from whoever news.google.com is linking to today.

BTW, I think Google is great and I need to buy their stock and the government is overregulating them and all of the court cases against them are unfair and all their competitors totally suck. But that's just a coincidence!

(But seriously: television news? Really? If ever I get news from TV, it's The Daily Show.mp4. I don't even watch Jim Lehrer anymore! Somehow the PVR's most recent 5 recordings always just sit there, unwatched, each one replaced a week later by a new one that I also don't spend the time to watch. I keep thinking, maybe some day I'll go back to watching TV news. Yep, I keep thinking that. And the years go by.)

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682783)

So you watch something that reinforces your partisanship? Good job on that one.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43687977)

In the partisan difference of opinion between the two different positions, "television ought to be funny" and "television ought to not be funny" it's true that I generally try to re-enforce my existing, inflexible, I-will-never-take-opposition-seriously-or-open-my-mind-to-reason partisan view.

I actually do sometimes watch non-comedies, though. Hannibal isn't funny; it takes opposite side in the partisan debate. (I'm not sure I like this show, though. Coincidence?) GoT isn't funny; that's another one from the other side; radically different than Jon Stewart's take on TV. Mad Men usually isn't funny. You know what, though? Even among these exceptions, it seems like there's always a joke here 'n' there. Holy crap, dude, I wonder if you're right. Am I only being exposed to one side of the comedy debate? Is this why I stopped watching Jim Lehrer? Honestly, his show is the only one I can think of, where I can't remember anything funny ever happening. Even David Attenborough sometimes doesn't exactly joke, but shows something funny anyway.

Re:How about information on Benghazi, then? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43689607)

Well then, when you decide to look at the news you'll see that the benghazi talking points [go.com] underwent 12 revisions including scrubbing all terrorist references. And that democrats [weeklystandard.com] have been leaning heavily on the press to try and get them to discredit the whistleblowers.

Yeah, all coming down to "it's a scandal, and a bad enough one that they're in CYA mode."

I thought that's what data.gov was? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680809)

This initiative [data.gov] has been going on for a while. Is the issue that not enough agencies are getting their data out fast enough, or comprehensively enough?

I'm also a little bit skeptical of relying on a random private company, GitHub, to be the canonical data host. What's wrong with hosting it on data.gov? Or if it's going to be hosted in the private sector, how about with a public-interest organization like the Internet Archive?

Re:I thought that's what data.gov was? (1)

foobsr (693224) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681425)

I'm also a little bit sceptical of relying on a random private company, GitHub, to be the canonical data host.

Dependency and control.

CC.

Re:I thought that's what data.gov was? (1)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681639)

I'd like to see them expand the initiative to include every federal law on the books. All laws should be on github. And they should modify those laws the same way we programmers do. There's no reason a legislator should be given a 500 page bill when when only 2 pages worth have been modified. They should be able to look at a diff and see what is being slipped in behind everyone's back.

Re:I thought that's what data.gov was? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682965)

Most amendments to existing law already are written as diffs in the first place, stuff like "subsection 23(b) of U.S. blah blah is hereby repealed, and in its place the following language is inserted".

Yes, Open *Your* Data Policy (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680893)

Clearly the Obama admin. wants all data to be open. Theirs, yours and anyone else.

Re:Yes, Open *Your* Data Policy (1)

naff89 (716141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682563)

Honestly, including their data on that list is a pretty big step forward for them these days.

Re:Yes, Open *Your* Data Policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43684239)

Clearly the Obama admin. wants all data to be open. Theirs, yours and anyone else.

As long as its not about how they handled Benghazi. That data must remain a secret!!!

Re:Yes, Open *Your* Data Policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43690449)

*not* "theirs", you mean.

Just a better way to hide omissions. (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680899)

When paper documents are redacted for distribution, they have to put on ugly black boxes, so that you can physically see that they have not told you shit. In a digital document, entire parts can be removed without anyone being wiser.

Re:Just a better way to hide omissions. (1)

Skrapion (955066) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680947)

Paper documents went out of vogue a long time ago. Your choice now is whether the digital documents are made private or public.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Re:Just a better way to hide omissions. (1)

ttucker (2884057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43686927)

Paper documents went out of vogue a long time ago. Your choice now is whether the digital documents are made private or public.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

The Trojans might have benefited greatly by looking in the mouth of a gift horse....

Re:Just a better way to hide omissions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43683527)

They do, however, tend to do the black box thing in digital documents like PDFs too. Several times without erasing the word behind the black box, so anyone who could edit a PDF could just delete the black boxes.

Fun with names (1)

quarterbuck (1268694) | about a year and a half ago | (#43680961)

I scanned through the order looking for the president of the USA to recommend "Git" as the tool of choice. Obama completely dodged that one and did not mention it in his release. Dang!

open data... sounds like green food (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681131)

Just ask Microsoft, their open format is even an international standard.... machine readable too.

It's all just government double speak.

Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681349)

Obama ordered transparency years ago. He didn't make it happen then either.

Executive Orders Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43681645)

Presidents Bush and Obama have shown a propensity for issuing Executive Orders that trump common ethics, morals as well as local, state and Federal including Constitution Law. Such a psychological mind-state argues that these Presidents are prone to lawlessness, so as far as it the 'lawlessness' satisfies their sexual cravings

Obama dictates 'Open' 'Machine Readable' standards.

What he is really wanting is an Open Vagina that is readable by his penis as the 'Machine of Choice.' How curd ! Even 'Third Grade' this 'Executive Order.'

Except for Benghazi emails (-1, Flamebait)

gnu-sucks (561404) | about a year and a half ago | (#43681651)

I mean, obviously, this is not something anyone would want to see for any reason.

And if anyone were to see them, why, they might find who is responsible for the utter lack of intelligent action before and during the 2012 September 11 terrorist attack.

Yeah, we definitely can't open that data...

Yeah, that's why the ACLU keeps suing... (2)

Macchendra (2919537) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682097)

Obama continued Bush stance's on seeking dismissal of a lawsuit to order a federal court to review the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. ACLU sued his administration. The ACLU also sued Obama for the release of government records on drone strikes that killed U.S. citizens in Yemen. The groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive sued to access to millions of missing White House emails over Bush's two terms in office. Obama refused to reverse the Bush admin's position. A federal judge ordered the Obama administration to release secret evidence it says justifies the continued imprisonment of over 100 Guantanamo Bay prisoners. In a report to the UN Human Rights Council, Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, said US secrecy around the drone program is undermining international law. Obama had responded to a question comparing Bradley Manning to Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers, detailing the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. According to President Obama, the cases are not similar because, 'Ellsberg's material wasn't classified the same way.' In fact, the material disclosed in the Pentagon Papers was designated Top Secret'”the highest secrecy designation under law'”whereas the material allegedly leaked by Manning to WikiLeaks was marked 'secret' or 'classified,' among the lowest-level secrecy designations.

Obama and Condoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43682139)

Obama is to 'Open Data' what Condoms are to a penis.

Open Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43682255)

Open for quick revisions and censorship.

maybe we can order unicorns too (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | about a year and a half ago | (#43682369)

There are two things lacking in this order:
1) teeth
2) funding

Asking the civil service to "report" on something quarterly is only going to lead to a meaningless blip in the inboxes of countless government employees. Data calls like this come in endlessly. Not funding it ensures that to actually write the reports and implement the policy we'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for people who couldn't get on a real (aka funded) project.

Most Transparent Administration in History (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43683301)

Yeah, how's that hollow campaign promise workin' out so far?

Re:Most Transparent Administration in History (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43683521)

I don't mean to seem churlish, but if the actual degree a politician intends to carry out campaign promises isn't transparent to you, then you probably shouldn't be voting. This holds true for every president ever.
Protip: Always look at what they've actually done, not what they promise to do. As they say, "Actions speak louder than words."

Re:Most Transparent Administration in History (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43683575)

Case in point - his first Presidential campaign, by which time he had no practical work experience, and less than two years in the Senate. There wasn't any "what they've actually done" to go on, because he hadn't done anything.

Except for individually created CAD designs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43683747)

And the Benghazi emails,
and the Fast & Furious emails,
and ...

Including Govt sponsored research papers? (1)

fygment (444210) | about a year and a half ago | (#43684071)

... hopefully?

bengahzi (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43687087)

Do you think he could make open the reason the State dept kept security levels in Benghazi lower than Paris after repeated requests?

Key phrase: "subject to appropriations" (1)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43690879)

In other news, Obama Administration institutes a Transparency Department, with an Openness Czar (starting salary $ 135,000 + benefits), 2 Assistant Vice-Chancellors of Openness (salary of $ 90,000 each + benefits), 4 Department Managers, 8 Assistant Department Managers, 22 full-time staffers... etc... etc.

"Hey taxpayers, you know how we promised you 'transparency'? Sure, you can haz. Here's a bill for a few million."

Just as a reminder, these are the same guys who just had a "press briefing" about Benghazi (anyone keeping track of how many months it's been since the event?) - BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/10/White-House-Benghazi-off-the-record [breitbart.com]

Re:Key phrase: "subject to appropriations" (1)

nutsy (33125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43736027)

Oh, please. Your source is Breitbart? They have about as much credibility as the National Enquirer.

And A Cherry On Top (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43692465)

I sent Obama an e-mail challenge.

Dearest Fuhrer Dictator Obama God.

I put Jolly Roger Peanut Butter all over my penis, and then added Nestle Quick Chocolate cream with a cherry on Top.

You can not resist sucking my penis even by Super Duper Executive Order you lout.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?