http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation Comments on http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation en-gb rss@thegovernmentsays.com rss@thegovernmentsays.com daily 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10925#comment_2774 What a pity that you do not name names or publish their responses (OK, you can allow them to make some comments off the record and thus not publish). We ought to be able to respond to their statements. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10599#comment_2773 Cannot find anything about applying Information Assurance methods - that is essential, but central govt repeatedly ignores its own rules. No wonder that we are not impressed. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10550#comment_1573 A highly recommended site is elfingo.com for online auctions. They are the new ebay. Many smaller sites like this offer buyers far better deals than ebay ever could. Buyser also save a ton because this site charges little or nothing depending on the day. One more reaso I like elfingo.com is because they don't take a part of the sale at all. No commissions or final value fees. A+++ http://www.elfingo.com http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10579#comment_1026 The emphasis for encouraging - and enabling - easier access to PSI should focus (now) on all the major (larger by volume) sectors of information; whether or not they are deemed to be immediately valuable...<br /><br />The bulk of PSI is deemed to be 'ordinary' and/or 'not particularly valuable'. Once the greater majority of PSI is routinely available, then it will be easier to bring pressure to bear for easier access to the potentially 'high-value' data, like geographic information, etc) access to which is, of course, more contentious.<br /><br />Let's move the 'cultural view' to a place where easy access to PSI is the norm. Do this for the bulk of less contentious, less valuable PSI first. Then add the more difficult sectors; using the precedent set.<br /><br /> http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10579#comment_683 This recommendation has been especially welcomed by the Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI) which is the independent body that advises ministers and the Office of Public Sector Information on exactly that issue: http://www.appsi.gov.uk/ministers/observations-power-of-information-report.pdf http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10811#comment_537 Did you give any consideration to the more widespread adoption of specific use charging models? I supply mapping to farmers, and am unable to provide them with OS MasterMap because of the hideously expensive "one-size-fits-all" royalties, which were obviously set with developers in mind. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10550#comment_536 Agreed. I have been saying much of this for years, but thought nobody was listening. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10573#comment_290 A clear reason as to why this recommendation should be implemented: http://www.idealgovernment.com/index.php/blog/ukgovernors_vs_governornet_the_legend_of_jack_blacks_forum_is_way_hardcore/ http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10626#comment_277 Post code information needs to be free, in the same way as you're suggesting the Ordnance Survey should push forward with Open Space. Similarly, political boundaries, e.g. what house numbers in what streets vote towards which seats, should also be freed by the Government. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10693#comment_255 Try getting a list of every school in England to create a map of schools!! http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10579#comment_254 This really should have been No. 1, IMHO. I reckon there are a lot of people out there with much better ideas of how things should work better.<br /><br />A key component of such a service though, would be a "campaign filter" to reduce the impact of targeted campaigns. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10626#comment_250 The report fails to note that the postcode database is owned by Royal Mail, who charge a <strong>lot<strong> of money for access to it. It's not available to individuals or non-profit groups without deep pockets. This is in sharp contrast to the US, where the equivalent zipcode information is freely available and widely used. http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10675#comment_247 Link for the Cross-Cutting review's relevant bit: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spending_review_2000/associated_documents/spend_sr00_ad_ccrpart5.cfm http://www.commentonthis.com/powerofinformation/comments/10550#comment_242 Congratulations to Tom and Ed for a very interesting and well written review.