Sometimes it's easy to forget that the government wasn't always on the web (or for that matter that there wasn't always a web). We've all become quickly accustomed to its presence, everything from the Congress to the IRS is right there, just a click away. The sheer amount of government information online is staggering. To be honest with you, I never really gave a lot of thought to how the government goes about deciding what is put on the net for public access.
I'm thinking about it now.
News item: The National Cancer Institute until recently advised the public that "recent large studies" showed "no association between abortion and breast cancer." That has been changed. Now, without anything new developing in research or in clinical studies, the site claims abortion may indeed be a causal risk factor according to some studies. Many wonder if the best available science is being deliberately ignored due to the administration's view on abortion.
News item: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to have instructions on the proper use of condoms and said they could be "highly effective" in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, even though the only 100% effective means of prevention is abstinence. It also cited studies showing that making condoms available to young people does not result in their having sex at an earlier age. That information is gone now. The site now simply says condoms can reduce the risk of sexually transmitted disease and adds "No protective method is 100% effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD." It has been suggested the changes were made due to the administration's preference for "abstinence only" education.
News item: The U.S. Department of Education issued an internal memo stating in part that information on its website that "does not reflect the priorities, philosophies, or goals of the present administration" or "runs counter to current administration priorities" would be removed, regardless of its value or accuracy. The American Educational Research Association issued an action alert highlighting their concerns about this move.
News item: In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 Attorney General John Ashcroft issued new guidelines to governmental agencies restricting what had previously been public information from being made public. This flies in the face of the Freedom of Information act of 1966 and has resulted the removal of what some have estimated to be tens of thousands of web pages of unclassified public information. Librarians, scientists and researchers have voiced concern.
News item: The Software and Information Industry Association have successfully lobbied Congress and the President to shut down PubScience, a government web site that offered free access to scientific and technical articles. Several of the association's members now charge the public for the information that used to be available for free from the government. Legal, agricultural, and possibly medical government information sites may be targeted next.
News item: Missoula, Montana officials were surprised to learn that that inspectors found foot-wide gaps in a portion of the aging Milltown Dam upstream from them. A county employee found the information on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) website. Missoula County commissioners were upset that they were never told about the potential problem, and when they complained to FERC, they were told it was a national security issue and couldn't be given any further information. Three days later, the webpage with the information was removed entirely. Peter Neilsen, Missoula's environmental health supervisor was outraged. "Our downtown is five miles downstream from this dam, and we are in fact threatened by this structure. The citizens of Missoula have a concern for their public health, safety and welfare, and we are having information withheld from us."
Hmmm. I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
I find the way the government is handling our public information to be troubling. The government does not own any of this information. It's ours. It belongs to us. This information shouldn't be subject to ideological whims, pressure from groups that would rather charge you for it, or vague and illegal directives from a man who lost an election to a dead guy.
I'm interested to know what the readers think, and what you think we can do about it. So, what say you?
