Q: What’s happening with the Power of Information agenda now, and perhaps offer some thoughts on how local government might take forward some of it recommendations. How are the ideas within Power of Information being developed at a local level? How do they link, if at all, to local initiatives such as Digital Districts or Citilab?

The power of information; the opportunity to make an informed choice; freedom to make use of easily available information for one’s own needs. Sounds ideal… perhaps?

However, the situation in the UK today sees us experiencing something quite different.

Lobbyists’ and activists are trying to persuade Central Government to make the information backbone of Britain’s established systems available for all to make use of. Whether this information is for research, design, build or demonstration, the common denominator in this entire process is resistance. Resistance to be open and sharing, resistance to change the historical way of working, resistance to accept that the gatekeepers no longer hold the keys.

MP’s expenses are just one example- there’s plenty more (see research notes).

“The Power of Information” is an independent review written in June 2007 by Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg.

Since before its publication, there have been comments, responses and radical activist groups set up, all of whom have one common request: “Our taxes fund the collection of public data – yet we pay again to access it. Make the data freely available to stimulate innovation” argued Charles Arthur and Michael Cross (The Guardian, March 2006).

The combined forces of multiple voices, all repeating and relaying the same message is a growing movement in the UK. Figures such as Arthur, Cross, Watson, Perrin, Allen, Sommerville, Levandowski, Canning, Campbell, Payne, Ashton, Bounds, Sizemore and Clarke are just a few of the leaders, but there is an entire army of activists, all attempting to make data and information freely available, in an open source environment.

Notably, in the same month that Mayo and Steinberg released their publication, Hillary Armstrong, (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) responded by saying“If 30,000 parents were meeting in a park or football stadium to share information and tips about parenting, government would take notice.” (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/corp/assets/publications/reports/power_information/power_information_response.pdf)

This draws direct relation to the Flashmob movement (Leadbeater, We Think, 2008)

Since June 2007, Lord Davies of Oldham published his response in the House of Lords (House of Lords Library, March 2008), then Watson responded immediately to that by being part of a small team that formed the Power of Information Task Force. Joining him were Loosemore, Perrin, and Allan, amongst others, many of whom are at the forefront of this radical movement today.

Time marched on, proposals were written, consultations and seminars took place, voices were heard, and then in June 2008, the Channel 4 initiative, 4iP was announced. The official launch of this fund took place at Hello Digital in October 2008. Then, immediately following this event, the term “Freedom of Information” became the new buzz phrase, one which many activist-led web platforms rely upon heavily.

Freedom: perhaps a potentially maverick, dangerous and challenging term in its own right.

It is this phrase that perhaps strikes fear into the power holders and gatekeepers in both Local and National Government. This in itself may be argued or considered a challenge to, and change in operating procedures, attitudes, practice and psychological power management, simply because the facts that underpin all official statements will potentially be available for public viewing and use.

Add to that the fact that many of the power holders are digital migrants, and their technical understanding of open data availability, and the repercussions of making that freely available, consideration should also be taken for the somewhat skeptical, nay prohibitive actions of those that currently hold office.

On the back of this movement, we have seen the launch of http://talkaboutlocal.com, http://helpmeinvestigate.com, http://www.dracos.co.uk/ and http://bccdiy.com. Interestingly, these four web-based activities are all running from a Birmingham base. There are more Nationally focused platforms (http:futuregovnetwork.com, http://www.showusabetterway.co.uk, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and http://www.mysociety.org/ ), all of which operate and revolve around the basic principle of sharing information and publicly owned data.

Fast-forward to July 2009. The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit published the white paper “Empowering citizens in the information age”

Some would consider that the summary contains positive news: “New technologies are providing opportunities to open up information as never before. Governments around the world are responding to this technological revolution by re-evaluating the approach they take to information transparency. The shift required, however, is more than just a technical one. The starting point for government in countries such as the USA, which are at the leading edge of information transparency, is that government information should be in the public domain and easily available for use and re-use by citizens. This approach is underpinned by freedom of information legislation and practices which actively promote openness in government. Across other countries, government cultures will similarly need to change, possibly prompted by changes in legislation.”

Consideration for the real benefits of the power of information will require culture change, perhaps not actually legislation, and not even significant amounts of extra financial support.

Strong leadership from politicians will be required certainly, but with good administration support and acceptance from Central Government of the benefits; using the information and data that exist, the improvement and change on the semantic web, and the influences and improvements this will bring to everyday life will be significant.

Relating this to Birmingham’s Digital Districts, the first phase of this development programme, which is closely linked to Birmingham’s Big City Plan, is one of open, accessible and effective communication network support. The internet pipes that serve the businesses and residents of the Eastside Regeneration area will be the backbone for which the information and data is shared.

Based on the easily available information and open data and the way it is used, will enable people to make whatever use they see fit for positive (and possibly negative) gain. The hopes of economic growth, community cohesion, information sharing, social gain and regional improvement are potentially what will drive the success of this initiative forwards.

Birmingham is internationally recognized as a leader in the field of digital innovation (Sion Simon, Minister for Culture and Creative Industries, October 2009). Taking into consideration the Birmingham-based radical activist developers mentioned above and more as yet unmentioned, the improved communications infrastructure will potentially enable the technical developers to innovate even further, making full use of the openly available data and information. It is hoped by the City, that this in turn will greatly assist the much-needed improvement of delivery of public sector services, highlighted in the Power of Information document (transport, health, education and more). This in turn, it is argued that (Shirky, 2009) “A revolution doesn’t happen when a society adopts new tools. It happens when society adopts new behaviours.” Cultural change, open sharing of information, cohesion; it could be argued that they are all inextricably linked, which leads me effectively onto another interesting idea; Citilab.

Based in a converted textiles factory in Cornella, Barcelona, Citilab first opened its doors in November 2007.

Supported by Local Government, industry and residents, it is not that the innovative nature of the centre, but how the long-standing cultural offering of the local people make this project successful.

Promotion of knowledge transfer, sharing and innovation are the key elements in operation here, all encompassing, participative and collaborative throughout. Delivering education in a digital age, innovation is linked to neighbourhoods, young people learn and share programming, robots are used for play, elderly citizens redesign their daily lives, with everyone participating using social media tools and technology when working together to form new types of audiovisual cultures. Local citizens, when coming into contact with people who share a common project, play a key role co-designing during the innovation process.

People and shared culture is what motivates them before the technology, the application of which only makes sense if it contributes to improving their way of life. Working together, sharing and cohesion is at the root of the social innovation and this is the spirit of all participants that make up the Citilab project, spreading their knowledge via open and easily accessible networks.

Learning and sharing is delivered by following the Massachusetts Institute of technology fluidity model, where participants are encouraged to have an open attitude to the constant adaptation to technology and developing thought structures, suitable for all generations to gain access to information, which is readily available.

However, there appears to be a significant difference in mainstream cultures between Barcelona and the UK. Traditional media is reportedly heavily monitored, with all content being created by the Spanish Government. The opportunity for freedom of expression, at first glance, appears to be somewhat stifled and negatively discouraged. This is in stark contrast to what currently exists in UK society.

Given that much of public influence is driven by mainstream media content in both Spanish and UK societies, perhaps consideration should be given to the affect that these influences have on the reasons for cultural differences, added to many hundreds of years of historic backgrounds of course.

It has been reported (Chris Pinchen, Citilab, 2009) that Citilab participants look towards Birmingham’s social media ‘scene’ and technology advances for inspiration. Birmingham is viewed as leading the way in this field by Citilab, with its close community, communication openness and sharing ethos.

However, Citilab also have this philosophy, but with the added benefits of physical support and adoption, integration and implementation from the local government.

It could be argued that this appears to be somewhat lacking, not only in Birmingham, but in the UK as a whole.

Perhaps consideration should be taken for observing and learning from Barcelona’s culture and standard operating procedures. By adopting the sharing of information and data principles, then reciprocal benefits could be mutually exchanged, both nationally and internationally, and the power of information transfer could perhaps demonstrate real, tangible and beneficial freedom for us all.

Following on from the WMRO event we attended last week, ‘Sharing Information Digitally’, the overarching agreement in the room seemed to leave me with a sense of déjà vous.

Over the past 12 months, I have attended many events that followed a similar theme, where all the (mostly good) speakers gave presentations, cited good positive case studies, pointed out the benefits for adoption of these new principles, and explained how cost savings could be achieved.

Yet here we are, one year on, and the same group of like-minded people seem to be repeating the same message to what looks like the same group of audience members, with a few added exceptions. Heads nod in agreement, pointed, detailed and intelligent questions are raised, yet there does not appear to be any action taken. I am referring to self-conducted, local geographic observations and analysis here – not national.

Let us look back just one week. Using the http://bccdiy.com project as an example, there has been widespread internet coverage with links pointing to and from the project, the mainstream press have given it coverage, and national newspapers and their websites have also run features. Yet, to my knowledge, only one representative from the local council has made any credit, and even that has been hosted by an external organisation (see point 4).

Not one high-ranking official, with the power to make a change has mentioned the project, or made any attempt to form any type of partnership, link, or even take part in a formal discussion about integration or usability. It appears that exactly the opposite has taken place. The door appears to have been firmly slammed shut, and from the outside, it looks as if any form of official involvement, partnership investigation, negotiation, engagement or participation has been absolutely refused.

The open-source data sharing systems are in place, volunteer users are comfortable working with them, and similar models have been proven to work many times over in similar circumstances, so where is the stumbling block? More to the point, who is stopping this from progressing, and perhaps more to the point, why?

Perhaps consideration should be offered to one potential negative side to human nature for a second here.

Lack of understanding, mis-information, ignorance, or simple refusal to accept an alternative practice- these are all factors that could be argued as challenges to be overcome, or at the extreme, fears to be conquered.

The reluctance to change a familiar system, the insecurity that comes when mechanisms for open, inwardly-facing scrutiny are made available, the possible loss of a position of controlling power, the inability to hide honest mistakes or worse, wrongdoing, possible exposure to systematic failures, the evidence that brings questioning and criticism, or suspicion knocking at the door. These must be factors that terrify the local government representatives who are ultimately responsible for any possible repercussions or criticisms that any form of data-sharing could reveal.

But let us perhaps reverse the focus of attention here, for just one alternative consideration.

The sharing of data does not only take place in one direction. Sharing is sharing; the transfer of information, freely, in multiple directions, equally and openly accessible.

Perhaps the possibility of sharing additional data held by individuals should also be considered here. Driving licences, expenses and expenditure, birthdates, marriages, divorces, children born out of wedlock, sexual orientation, medical records, identity cards, bank details, income support claims, educational qualifications, employment history, child benefit payments, criminal records, TV licence payments, council tax declarations, salaries and bonuses- there is a plethora of information that could be argued as data that should be shared.

By making data freely available, this alternative operating procedure and cultural change will have much wider implications into our future. The way government, financial institutions and citizens operate on a daily basis will be radically affected.

With data freely available, targeted marketing messages will become an everyday occurrence. The technology exists for the domestic refrigerator to talk directly to the data collection server at your preferred supermarket, and your delivery driver will bring the items you have consumed direct to your door, without you having to complete a shopping list. There are many more similar examples available.

Perhaps by taking the above into consideration and looking inwardly for a moment, further understanding about the reluctance to share sensitive information can be gained. Combine this with the natural human reluctance to change a familiar practice, add the possible implications that the change process could bring to either the individual in charge or the department involved, and then consider that the representatives in charge are all digital migrants of senior years, then perhaps the human factors to be considered alongside the actual change process become more poignant and significant.

But have we not seen this before? Take for instance the intellectual studies and written works completed between 1964 and 2002 by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, and their considered political radicalism, and perhaps extreme left-wing ideals.

The dynamic shift of capital assets and the distribution of wealth have been threatened by such similar radical ideals historically. It has become known in modern times as ‘Social Democracy’.

It has its roots back in 1848, in a book called The Communist Manifesto. I am sure you know the author.

Birmingham, England; The heartlands of the Industrial Revolution. Now, this great city has grown to become truly cosmopolitan, multinational and diverse. It is Britain’s second largest by population (1,010,200 source: ONS).

Without doubt, there is history here; real, evidenced, recorded and recognised for its significance in shaping what we now regard as the modern western world

Great leading figures of the Eighteenth century, amongst them Boulton, Priestley, Watt, Erasmus Darwin and Wedgewood were the influential intellectuals behind not only this city, but also many of the current infrastructures, sciences, arts and industrial practices across the western world that we find commonplace today.

In many ways, the regular social meetings held by these intellectuals (The Lunar Society) were perhaps the most significant recognised physical forum where ideas were, exchanged, critiqued, developed and instigated (listen to the Real Player stream of Radio 4’s programme, “In Our Time” here: www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20030605.shtml )

I was born in Birmingham. I was educated here, and stayed until I was eighteen. After a twelve year gap (spent working in London and touring worldwide), I returned thirteen years ago. During my teenage years, I witnessed the recession, the riots, city landscape changes, the growing integration and discourse between indigenous and ethnic groups, the challenges presented by new technologies, and gradual adoption and acceptance of the fact that no longer was Birmingham the hub of industrial manufacturing as seen in post-Victorian times.

The pits and behemoth factories that “Culture is Ordinary” (Williams, 1958) describes have now all but disappeared in Birmingham, with a few exceptions. The mass ‘working class’ and “depressed” people have dispersed across education, creative industries, banking, and service sectors, amongst others. No longer is this once industrialised city a world leader in manufacturing.

Modern day Birmingham, with its developing cultural offerings combined with the plethora of multiple backgrounds, religions, races, languages and communities is undergoing another revolution, however this time, it is electronic, online and is taking place in real time.

A new industry is emerging. It is based again around social gatherings and meetings, the free exchange of ideas, to be criticised, encouraged, assisted, developed and delivered. This new industry has a revolutionary form of communication, one which is open to all, with shared understanding, learning and engagement at its heart. It is called Social Media.

In 2006 I made a decision to quit the commercial world, and engage in a practice where my focus was people-based. I left behind the trappings, pressure and motivation of financial success, and moved into education and the voluntary sector, to learn about how the democratic decision-making process affected people’s lives, and to investigate how my own actions could positively affect another’s life. I entered the world of Birmingham’s Social Media culture in 2008 (see here: http://justblogging.co.uk/2009/06/how-did-this-all-start/ ).

My very first experience of this new world was a physical meeting- one where ideas were exchanged, advice was given, absorbed and subsequently acted upon. Although new technology and ideas were introduced, I was not left with a feeling of alienation. Challenged; yes. Disconnected; no.

This meeting was the laying of the formation block that later became a community group that is successful, recognised, and is still developing and growing. This group is physical, engaging, welcoming, human and real. The means of communication is delivered via the use of online social media tools, but the real benefits, aims and objectives are delivered in the physical world by people taking action for their self-determined and chosen causes. This group is just one example of many such practices and community groups operating across Birmingham.

Today I am experiencing similar. I attend many physical group meetings across the city. Some are technical, some are discussing developments and relaying information, some are challenging potentially radical changes in the way the city population and government operate, some are simply social, but they all have one common denominator. They all use social media tools as an open format of communication to discuss and develop.

The many community groups and networks operating in Birmingham are cross-pollinating, communicating, sharing, growing, experiencing change and developing together. There are no boundaries; there is no leader or steering committee. However, the cultural experience presents itself to me as one of common good, with all participants working alongside each other to achieve a better society- sharing human experiences, opinions, discussions, and information.

There is a similarity here that draws from Birmingham’s previous history. No longer is the population simply being spoon-fed information by recognised leaders, which is twisted and spun by the mainstream media. Birmingham is slowly shaping its own future, by applying practices and lessons learned from the past. Every person has the opportunity to request information, seek out new ideas, communicate and critique, develop and deliver either individually, or as an entire group.

Such is the cultural offering and experiences to be gained in the Birmingham social media ‘scene’. Engage with it- you will find that the people are human, real, welcoming, warm, considerate, and understanding; yet challenging, expressive, knowledgeable and appreciative at the same time.