[kictanet] Freedom of Information Bill and Open Standards

[Evans Ikua]

Apologies for cross-posting.

The Peruvian Government in 2005 passed a law mandating the use of
Free/Libre software in all Government agencies (bodies funded by the tax
payer). I have reproduced some excerpts here below that tie in with our
Freedom of Information Bill (and to a large extent the Data Protection
Bill). Please note that the use of the term free is not to be confused to
mean free of cost, but more about liberty, openness, open standards and
access to source code.

*"The guarantee of these rights in our Constitution is not solely based on
the good will of the State's agents to fulfill the norms of the
Constitution, but also based on the use of technologies that in some cases
contribute, and in others do not, to an effective protection of said
citizens' rights.*

*It is in this context of utmost importance for the State to implement
those technologies that help reinforce the exercise of the right of
citizens' to access information and to withhold it in cases that require so.
*

*The use of Free Software in all of the State's agencies points in this
direction. Basically, we can say that the fundamental principles that drive
the present Bill are tightly related to the basic guarantees of a
democratic State and we can sum them up in the following:*

   - *Free Access of the citizens to public information*
   - *Pereniality of public data*
   - *Security of the State and of the citizens*

*To guarantee the citizens' free access to information, it is indispensable
that the coding of the data not be tied to a sole provider. The use of
standard and open formats guarantees this free access, making possible the
creation of compatible software.*

*To guarantee the pereniality of public data, it is indispensable that the
use and maintenance of software does not depend on the good will of the
providers, nor of monopolic conditions, imposed by them. Systems can be
guaranteed by the availability of the source code.*

*To guarantee national security it is vital to have systems that are devoid
of elements that allow remote control or the transmission of non-desired
information to third-parties. Therefore, it is required to have systems
whose source code is freely accessible to the public, so that its
inspection be allowed by the State, the citizens and a great number of
freelance experts in the world."*
Please see the following links for more info:
Peru's Bill - Use of free software in Government
agencies<http://opensource.org/docs/bill-EngTrans.php>

Peruvian Congressman refutes Microsoft's "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt"
(F.U.D.) concerning free and open source
software.<http://opensource.org/docs/peru_and_ms.php>

Now, looking at our Freedom of Information Bill, the right to access of
information by citizens is also anchored in the constitution under Article
35 of the Constitution. But the FOI does not make any reference to the
method of processing or storage of that data and information by tghe public
bodies. Part VII, Section 49, says "Every public authority or private body
shall operate and maintain digital records"*

There are two weaknesses with this particular section:
*

   1. Is the Government mandated to require Private (bodies) companies to
   maintain digital records?* *Is this what the Bill aims to achieve? Or is
   it targeted at particular private bodies that deal with public data, say
   Banks or Hospitals? How does one differentiate? Maybe it needs to be a bit
   more specific
   2. he requirement to maintain digital records also needs to go further
   and demand that such records must be maintained in an open and standard
   format, without tying the public to specific proprietary formats. As
   indicated in the above excerpt from the Peruvian Act, it is pretty obvious
   that the technology used has a large bearing to the access of information
   to citizens. There are certain instances where even web based applications
   in certain public bodies could only work on certain browsers. This denies
   all the right to access such public information.
   At the same time, storing public data in proprietary formats means that
   the availability of such data in the long term depends on the survival and
   availability of the particular vendor (pereniality of public data). This
   also  extends to the processing systems.

Fast forward to 2013, would the IEBC be able to give access to the source
code of the softwares that it will use in its operations for public audit
and scrutiny? What if someone has a problem with the electronic voter
registration or voting and feels that they need to have access to that code
so as to ensure transparency? And what about all other public bodies?

In the mean time, if I was to ask for information from a public body, what
formats will I get the information in? Will those formats still be
supported 20 years from now? Will the vendor require that we upgrade our
systems (of course at additional costs) for us to continue getting access?

To answer these questions, the FOI needs to be very specific and demand
that all public bodies process and store data in open and standard formats
that are not vendor specific, nor proprietary. As tax payers and the people
paying for these entities, we have a right to demand this.


-- 
*----------------------------------------------------
Kind Regards,
Evans Ikua,*
lanetconsulting.com,
lpi-eastafrica.org,
ict-innovation.fossfa.net,
Skype: @ikuae
Cell: +254-722-955831
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20120726/97a3183a/attachment.htm>