Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 210 posts

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#121

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

emptyfile wrote: post #116
dominotw wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fund new tunnelling is this supposed to be a double entendre ? I don't see how this follows from the parent comment.

The comment is making fun of a proposal Boris Johnson once made about building a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland, which is considered borderline physically impossible as far as I understand.

Bridge, yes.

Tunnel, no. It’s very feasible and practical from a civil-engineering perspective, but the economic value of a road connection between NI and Scotland has not been demonstrated to outweigh the economic cost of its construction.

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#122

Post by mytailorisrich »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #9
mensetmanusman wrote: post #2

That’s great. Removing a platform for people that say, in hindsight, ‘it was obvious that was going to fail’ is a step in the right direction. If western societies insist on outsourcing R&D through misguided tax laws, they have no idea the amount of harm they are doing to the next generation of young people (who will be subservient to the innovating countries that were smarter in their policies).

IMHO, the exemption from the freedom of information act is more in fact aimed at protecting investment in sensitive new tech by in effect making it secret until the government decides otherwise. That's why the title of the article is actually " Secrecy for high-risk tech research ". It's 'high risk' but also aimed at being high rewards and potentially targeting sensitive domains so they don't want others to know what…

I see my comment above is going down well...

Just for reference, the FOI already provides for the following exemptions:

22A Information obtained in the course of, or derived from, a programme of research.

24 Information for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

26 Information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice defence of the realm.

29 Information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the economic or financial interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of it.

43 Information that constitutes a trade secret or would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests.

I think that pretty much 100% of that new agency's work will fall within one of these exemptions so IMHO it makes sense to exempt it altogether and avoid having to deal with FOI requests in the first place. The agency along with the government will then have full discretion to make research and results public as they deemed useful and that will also allow them to work with private companies to license/commercialise stuff.

(Note that a lot of DARPA's work is also secret.)

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#123

Post by lordnacho »

dalbasal wrote: post #103
lordnacho wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good point, Labour did a bunch of PPI deals that didn't seem to benefit the public as much as the private collaborators. So it's not exclusive to one party, but the Conversatives have been in power for a fairly long time now. Long term we need transparency from whoever is in charge.

Sure, corruption and insiderism is an important topic in its own right. Up and down this thread though, it seems that British HNers are insisting that it's the only topic. IE, they're against this agency (and presumably everything else that spends money in any way) because corruption. Is this true for roads? No new schools, parks or research agencies until corruption is gone? It seems over the top to me. The " Boris'…

Ideas that I haven't tested:

- Once you leave office, you get a big salary for life, but can't have another job. No working for a bank, or happening into consultancy. No speaking fees, though you are of course free to give speeches to whomever you like. Yeah it's draconian, but there's plenty of people who want the role.

- Make all the government's accounts visible to everyone. All the money, wherever it goes, is tied to some contract. Website where you can find out who they paid to do the plumbing in number 10, with a full paper trail.

- You have to certify that you're not mates with anyone who is offering the contract for the new bridge. Someone finds out you went to school with him. You go to jail together (more likely a fine), lose the contract, he loses his job. Yes, it's a bummer if you're competent and you happen to know the PM, who needs you for something. But again, there's a lot of competent people.

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#124

Post by 45ure »

samizdis wrote: post #93
kurthr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, seems more like a way to keep scandals like Cummings no-bid contract to his friends from coming to light. If it can be used as a slush fund, it probably will be, and eventually probably exclusively. https://www.theweek.co.uk/951989/what-next-for-dominic-cummi...

The data visualisation exercise My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November. It is described on the site as: A visualization of the connections between Tory politicians and companies being awarded government contracts during the pandemic based on a wide range of investigative reporting. Perhaps it hit a raw nerve or two. [1] https://www.sophie-e-hill.com/post/my-little-crony/

>My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November.

It wasn't widely reported in the mainstream media, but it drew attention via Byline Times. Similarly, the Tufton Street gang, with the same cast of characters, whose tentacles also reach across the Atlantic, will never be featured as comprehensively by the MSM; far too many incestuous relationships.

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/13/mapped-boris-johnson-s-g...

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#125

Post by Jochim »

dalbasal wrote: post #103
lordnacho wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good point, Labour did a bunch of PPI deals that didn't seem to benefit the public as much as the private collaborators. So it's not exclusive to one party, but the Conversatives have been in power for a fairly long time now. Long term we need transparency from whoever is in charge.

Sure, corruption and insiderism is an important topic in its own right. Up and down this thread though, it seems that British HNers are insisting that it's the only topic. IE, they're against this agency (and presumably everything else that spends money in any way) because corruption. Is this true for roads? No new schools, parks or research agencies until corruption is gone? It seems over the top to me. The " Boris'…

> It existed yesterday, last year. I'm sure Winston Churchill's girlfriend also did well out of the deal. c'est la vie.

It's exactly this type of dismissal that allows this level of corruption to fester. It was unacceptable yesterday and it still is today. The point is to try and do something about it rather than sit back while they make it harder to punish because "it's already a problem".

A research fund where the public will be forbidden from scrutinising the spending of people who are known to be corrupt is not comparable to a public park.

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#126

Post by omginternets »

jarmitage wrote: post #63

The FOI part means this is dead on arrival and will be abused all ends up. For this to work you need the public to understand why DARPA worked. Hiding details of failures makes that impossible (and again, completely open to corruption).

Genuine question: why did DARPA work?

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#127

Post by OJFord »

LinuxBender wrote: post #90
jarmitage wrote: post #63

The FOI part means this is dead on arrival and will be abused all ends up. For this to work you need the public to understand why DARPA worked. Hiding details of failures makes that impossible (and again, completely open to corruption).

In the U.S. everything is technically exempt from FOIA to a degree. Having gone through that process while I was in the military, I found many of the loopholes. The obvious ones are that the answer can be "Classified" or "Decline to answer" or in my case, the answer can be boxes and boxes of paperwork that is worded so vague that it may as well not have existed. No idea if this is the same in the U.K. Is there anyone…

I haven't submitted one personally, but from knowing someone who has (and has received them) and reading Private Eye (satirical & investigative magazine here) I gather a more common/easily usable excuse this side of the pond is 'commercial sensitivity'.

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#128

Post by [deleted] »

dalbasal wrote: post #82
oli5679 wrote: post #53

The USA's DARPA program funded important research into - The internet - GPS - Graphical user interface and mouse - Onion routing - Voice assistant Hopefully this program executes well. There is clearly a big social payoff to betting big on credible people doing risky research with high potential impact. https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-in...

DARPA gets used as an example a lot, so let's take it as a our type specimen. What makes an (D)ARPA? What (besides funding) made it work? Is secrecy and/or low accountability important? Defense/weapons focus? Was the cold war a necessary condition? Do they have an investment philosophy that could be copied? Managerial philosophy? Is high level stuff even relevant or is it details like 5 year PM appointments and selec…

[deleted]

Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI

#129

Post by grey-area »

jariel wrote: post #118
grey-area wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem people have is the FOI exception. There is no good reason for this, save corruption and wasting public funds. Other agencies are subject to FOI requests and public oversight, why should this one be different? So the objection is to that specific clause and based on very real facts about recent and ongoing corruption. Priti Patel is another example and there is a very long list if you want one of a…

"There is no good reason for this, " No, there are a ton of things the US et. al. do in secret, it's normal. There needs to be oversight, public is better, but an independent council can work. But yes, there's going to be a problem with graft.

We have government agencies for secret stuff - spies and the military, they already have lots of R&D funds.
Post reply on HN