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

Transparency is Bunk

aaronsw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#11

Post by randallsquared »

eli wrote: post #6
randallsquared wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real transparency would amount to such a large change in the system that it's unrealistic to think it can be tacked on. The scope of work is too large.

Yeah, it sounds hard so we probably shouldn't even try.

I don't even know where to begin.

Aaron has noticed that a simple goal like "transparency" can't be immediately, directly implemented, because the system is such that it's like trying to dig a hole in water. Of course, you can put a hole in water, since that's what a boat is, but doing it incrementally (a piece here, a piece there, then bailing out the water, checking for leaks, etc) is going to be much more difficult than just building a boat out of the water and putting it in. Activists always seem to start out wanting to "just make these specific changes" from within the system, and that usually works, in general, when the changes are in the direction the system is already going, "with the flow," as it were.

If you want to make a change that is against the flow, it's far, far easier to make the change away from the system and then drop it in so that the system (government, a corporation, a church, or whatever) is forced to deal with it whole.

This is a very interesting topic: part economics, part psychology, part politics, and more; I've spent a lot of time thinking about it over the last 10 years, but I am just an egg, understanding little. :)

Re-reading, I notice that this is still unclear, so what I'm saying is that we need to focus on solutions that are primarily technical, because social and political solutions almost never work in the first place and tend to roll back as soon as the pressure lets up. The internet is killing copyright in a way that we anti-copyright folk would never have been able to do with "education" and "reform".

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#12

Post by eli »

randallsquared wrote: post #11
eli wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it sounds hard so we probably shouldn't even try.

I don't even know where to begin. Aaron has noticed that a simple goal like "transparency" can't be immediately, directly implemented, because the system is such that it's like trying to dig a hole in water. Of course, you can put a hole in water, since that's what a boat is, but doing it incrementally (a piece here, a piece there, then bailing out the water, checking for leaks, etc) is going to be much more difficul…

I don't think anyone ever claimed transparency was a simple goal.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#13

Post by tjic »

scottdw2 wrote: post #7
quoderat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe Congress should meet for a few days every few years, so only the really important things ever get worked on.

That would never work. To start with, you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. If you said "you get one week every 2 years to pass everything", the entire congress would spend 1 year and 51 weeks in secret meetings trying to figuring out what to vote for in their 1 week of voting time. All that would happen as a result is there would be a 2 year back log of legislation, and it would take F…

> you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other.

Actually, many states have open meeting laws where, if it becomes clear that politicians met and discussed certain topics, it is a crime, and it's punishable.

They don't often get used, but I think that the threat does alter behavior at least a bit.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#14

Post by boris »

cjoh wrote: post #5

What Aaron doesn't give due attention to here is that improving existing government transparency is part of a larger information ecosystem. Digitizing previously paper-bound and siloed databases makes possible a new kind of "connect-the-dots" work that used to take investigative journalists months to do--or they simply didn't even try. His own project, Watchdog.net, has pioneered a new way of finding links, or "hands…

This assumes that the public databases actually contain any information that will allow you to connect the dots. Aaron's claim seems to be that they mostly contain fluff that has nothing to do with the actual functioning of the government. That's why you have to investigate and uncover rather than simply analyze to get to the truth.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#15

Post by ben »

tjic wrote: post #13
scottdw2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would never work. To start with, you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. If you said "you get one week every 2 years to pass everything", the entire congress would spend 1 year and 51 weeks in secret meetings trying to figuring out what to vote for in their 1 week of voting time. All that would happen as a result is there would be a 2 year back log of legislation, and it would take F…

> you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. Actually, many states have open meeting laws where, if it becomes clear that politicians met and discussed certain topics, it is a crime, and it's punishable. They don't often get used, but I think that the threat does alter behavior at least a bit.

I'd like to read about these, particularly about how they could be Constitutional, but I can't seem to find the correct words for a Google search. Would you post a link, or possibly a set of words to search for?

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#16

Post by zk »

ben wrote: post #15
tjic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. Actually, many states have open meeting laws where, if it becomes clear that politicians met and discussed certain topics, it is a crime, and it's punishable. They don't often get used, but I think that the threat does alter behavior at least a bit.

I'd like to read about these, particularly about how they could be Constitutional, but I can't seem to find the correct words for a Google search. Would you post a link, or possibly a set of words to search for?

http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/index.php provides an outline of open meeting laws by state.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#17

Post by gojomo »

scottdw2 wrote: post #7
quoderat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe Congress should meet for a few days every few years, so only the really important things ever get worked on.

That would never work. To start with, you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. If you said "you get one week every 2 years to pass everything", the entire congress would spend 1 year and 51 weeks in secret meetings trying to figuring out what to vote for in their 1 week of voting time. All that would happen as a result is there would be a 2 year back log of legislation, and it would take F…

Seemingly arbitrary limits on the time/compensation of legislators might have more of an effect than you think. The Texas legislature meets only once every two years, and its session is constitutionally limited to 140 days.

The California legislature seems to meet constantly, and regularly spends time in extended sessions trying to pass overdue budgets in a never-ending fiscal crisis. California doesn't get any benefit from the extra official time its legislators put in, and Texas legislators aren't busy preplanning legislation the entire time they're out of session.

Given the fickleness of public opinion, there are natural limits as to how much planning months' ahead of time can help.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#18

Post by pradocchia »

cjoh wrote: post #5

What Aaron doesn't give due attention to here is that improving existing government transparency is part of a larger information ecosystem. Digitizing previously paper-bound and siloed databases makes possible a new kind of "connect-the-dots" work that used to take investigative journalists months to do--or they simply didn't even try. His own project, Watchdog.net, has pioneered a new way of finding links, or "hands…

> We're just at the beginning of a new wave of data- and citizen-empowered watchdogging of government

Back in the mid 90s, a company called Hamilton Securities created an online tool for analyzing flows of government money at the local level. It didn't work out so well for them:

http://www.dunwalke.com/11_Hamilton_Securities.htm

Much has changed since then. It's still going to be hard slog.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#19

Post by sethg »

gojomo wrote: post #17
scottdw2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would never work. To start with, you can't stop members of Congress from associating with each other. If you said "you get one week every 2 years to pass everything", the entire congress would spend 1 year and 51 weeks in secret meetings trying to figuring out what to vote for in their 1 week of voting time. All that would happen as a result is there would be a 2 year back log of legislation, and it would take F…

Seemingly arbitrary limits on the time/compensation of legislators might have more of an effect than you think. The Texas legislature meets only once every two years, and its session is constitutionally limited to 140 days. The California legislature seems to meet constantly, and regularly spends time in extended sessions trying to pass overdue budgets in a never-ending fiscal crisis. California doesn't get any benef…

AIUI, one reason California is in a constant fiscal crisis is that it takes a supermajority to raise taxes and other constitutional provisions mandate how a certain proportion of the budget should be spent. So it's much harder for California legislators to negotiate a budget than for Texas legislators.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#20

Post by brandnewlow »

boris wrote: post #14
cjoh wrote: post #5

What Aaron doesn't give due attention to here is that improving existing government transparency is part of a larger information ecosystem. Digitizing previously paper-bound and siloed databases makes possible a new kind of "connect-the-dots" work that used to take investigative journalists months to do--or they simply didn't even try. His own project, Watchdog.net, has pioneered a new way of finding links, or "hands…

This assumes that the public databases actually contain any information that will allow you to connect the dots. Aaron's claim seems to be that they mostly contain fluff that has nothing to do with the actual functioning of the government. That's why you have to investigate and uncover rather than simply analyze to get to the truth.

Yes. Yhe definition of the word "news" has been expanded to include anything that seems new. The other way of looking at it is to limit it to "things someone doesn't want you to announce." The argument in this article is that these databases are full only of data that people want you to announce. So how useful can it really be?
Post reply on HN