OPEN DATA POLICY (COMMUNICATION; 10/4/2017):
Earlier this spring I was here listening to a few people give a presentation on how they are striving to make data more accessible to the public. At the time the shooting of Quanice Hayes was a hot topic, thus for many in the room ‘open data seemed to translate strictly to crime and law enforcement statistics.
But when I hear ‘open data’ it means more to me than that. When I go to solve a problem, in the beginning I don’t know what patterns will emerge. It is only once I start messing around with the numbers and variables that I begin to see the connections between things that I previously thought were. It is this kind of understanding of the problem that is required to attain user control.
Here we’re talking about social issues – group dynamics not just individual actions. There are many variables to identify, and even more patterns to emerge. My point here is that I don’t see too many enlightening patterns emerging by providing data solely on crime and law enforcement. In fact, once an issue has evolved to the point where a cops steps in, at this point we’re talking about the effect, not the real underlying cause.
There are numerous researchers and curious minds alike right here in Portland who would benefit from making medical, industrial, infrastructural, environmental, educational, and to the extent that is possible for the government – even consumer data more accessible. You gotta figure there is a reason that corporations are paying money to get data on what may seem like redundant things. More data means more patterns means more understanding. Understanding can translate to more leverage for consumers and citizens alike.
What triggered me signing up for this communication was that over the summer I heard in the news that Disney was getting sued for mining data on 13 year olds and using it to adjust their marketing strategy. This data thing is a new frontier. What I’m saying to you guys is that you can wait until issues like this pop up on your table and force you to regulate a free market, or you can try to be proactive and level the playing field for everyone.
I do realize they are just getting started with this data accessibility project, so maybe this is not me coming here to point the finger, but there is more to data than crime and law enforcement statistics.
Thank you.
EXTENSION OF HOUSING EMERGENCY (TESTIMONY: 10/4/2017):
Metaphorically speaking, If you wanted to bury everyone in this room, you would not need to do much more than exactly what they are asking of you. Trying to give everyone their own individual unit whether they can afford it or not is not only the source of much inequality, but it has been tried many times over, and with questionable success.
More concerning to me is that owning your own individual private unit has become the American standard, and if you cannot meet that standard then god help you, because there are no other options. Relying on government funds to keep a roof over our head is a sad testament to those who came before us, some of which died for the sake of liberty. And yes I believe liberty is tied to who is paying your bills. On the other hand increasingly smaller, isolated, and claustrophobic units are good to have, but they are not for everyone.
So once again, large scale bunk housing, pod-hostels - these forms of infrastructure being made available on the monthly rental market with no strings attached should at least be explored before throwing all our eggs in a government funded basket or locking ourselves in closets.
Privacy is good, but a rental market monopolized by it is bad. The shelter model and charitable institutions in general are a flawed concept as they implicitly assume individual liberty is an expendable thing, and the majority ends up paying the price of a few bad apples. They are not humane alternatives.
Earlier this spring I was here listening to a few people give a presentation on how they are striving to make data more accessible to the public. At the time the shooting of Quanice Hayes was a hot topic, thus for many in the room ‘open data seemed to translate strictly to crime and law enforcement statistics.
But when I hear ‘open data’ it means more to me than that. When I go to solve a problem, in the beginning I don’t know what patterns will emerge. It is only once I start messing around with the numbers and variables that I begin to see the connections between things that I previously thought were. It is this kind of understanding of the problem that is required to attain user control.
Here we’re talking about social issues – group dynamics not just individual actions. There are many variables to identify, and even more patterns to emerge. My point here is that I don’t see too many enlightening patterns emerging by providing data solely on crime and law enforcement. In fact, once an issue has evolved to the point where a cops steps in, at this point we’re talking about the effect, not the real underlying cause.
There are numerous researchers and curious minds alike right here in Portland who would benefit from making medical, industrial, infrastructural, environmental, educational, and to the extent that is possible for the government – even consumer data more accessible. You gotta figure there is a reason that corporations are paying money to get data on what may seem like redundant things. More data means more patterns means more understanding. Understanding can translate to more leverage for consumers and citizens alike.
What triggered me signing up for this communication was that over the summer I heard in the news that Disney was getting sued for mining data on 13 year olds and using it to adjust their marketing strategy. This data thing is a new frontier. What I’m saying to you guys is that you can wait until issues like this pop up on your table and force you to regulate a free market, or you can try to be proactive and level the playing field for everyone.
I do realize they are just getting started with this data accessibility project, so maybe this is not me coming here to point the finger, but there is more to data than crime and law enforcement statistics.
Thank you.
EXTENSION OF HOUSING EMERGENCY (TESTIMONY: 10/4/2017):
Metaphorically speaking, If you wanted to bury everyone in this room, you would not need to do much more than exactly what they are asking of you. Trying to give everyone their own individual unit whether they can afford it or not is not only the source of much inequality, but it has been tried many times over, and with questionable success.
More concerning to me is that owning your own individual private unit has become the American standard, and if you cannot meet that standard then god help you, because there are no other options. Relying on government funds to keep a roof over our head is a sad testament to those who came before us, some of which died for the sake of liberty. And yes I believe liberty is tied to who is paying your bills. On the other hand increasingly smaller, isolated, and claustrophobic units are good to have, but they are not for everyone.
So once again, large scale bunk housing, pod-hostels - these forms of infrastructure being made available on the monthly rental market with no strings attached should at least be explored before throwing all our eggs in a government funded basket or locking ourselves in closets.
Privacy is good, but a rental market monopolized by it is bad. The shelter model and charitable institutions in general are a flawed concept as they implicitly assume individual liberty is an expendable thing, and the majority ends up paying the price of a few bad apples. They are not humane alternatives.