Transparency is Bunk • Hacker News Board

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#21

Post by MaysonL » Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 11:28 PM UTC

sethg wrote: post #19

gojomo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heck - in California it takes a two-thirds majority to pass the annual budget

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#22

Post by silentOpen » Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 3:25 AM UTC

eli wrote: post #10

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…

Indeed, and there are real examples of local reporters uncovering corrupt congressman based on data in these public records. This is a lot harder if they have to travel to DC and sit in a basement reading room to pore over paper ledgers.

Where 'harder' is 'more expensive' and we know that the present newspaper model doesn't look like it can support expensive endeavors. Investigative journalism in the info age is only possible if those practicing it have info age tools.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#23

Post by eli » Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 3:26 AM UTC

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…

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

Really? I think the opposite. I can think of very few times where a social problem has been solved purely by technology.

(Anyway, I think the real answer is you need to attack the problem on all fronts at once)

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#24

Post by eli » Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 3:30 AM UTC

silentOpen wrote: post #22

eli wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and there are real examples of local reporters uncovering corrupt congressman based on data in these public records. This is a lot harder if they have to travel to DC and sit in a basement reading room to pore over paper ledgers.

Where 'harder' is 'more expensive' and we know that the present newspaper model doesn't look like it can support expensive endeavors. Investigative journalism in the info age is only possible if those practicing it have info age tools.

Well, yes, but "harder" as in "more difficult" too. It's basically impossible to do anything useful with data stored in a paper ledger that's only available in a basement reading room a few hours a day and copies cost $0.15 a page.

Re: Transparency is Bunk

#25

Post by randallsquared » Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 1:25 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #23

randallsquared wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Really? I think the opposite. I can think of very few times where a social problem has been solved purely by technology. (Anyway, I think the real answer is you need to attack the problem on all fronts at once)

I can think of very few times where a social problem has been solved purely by technology.

Here are some candidates, some more arguable than others:

Slavery was destroyed by the steam engine.

World wars are no longer rushed into due to nuclear weapons.

The Pill contributed strongly to equal treatment for women.

The automobile changed sexual mores drastically (whether you view this as a "solved problem" or not).

Poverty itself was solved by technology (yeah, I know that statement will be controversial, but I think it's eminently defensible).

In fact, I think a case could be made that technology is the only thing that has ever solved a social problem in anything like a permanent fashion.