The Open Data Inquiry has presented its proposal for a new law in an interim report, which is to replace the existing PSI Act. Creating an entirely new law seems reasonable, as the existing legislation has in practice had very little effect. The new law is to transpose the Open Data Directive into Swedish law, it contains quite a lot of new elements and it has the potential to be a strong driving force for open data in Sweden.
The report is called ”Innovation through information”, which clearly shifts the focus from the PSI Act’s inside-out perspective to an outside-in perspective that aims for the use of information. The benefit arises when information is used, not when it is published, so this is very welcome, and the tone it sets is an important statement on the part of the inquiry. In this article I summarise some of the biggest and most important new elements.
The proposed law applies to public authorities, which also includes municipalities and regions, as they too are legally authorities, as well as public undertakings, which is an extension.
Openness by default
The big news is that we are moving closer to the principle of ”Openness by default” through:
- information released following a request should primarily be provided electronically
- authorities are encouraged to continuously publish digital information on their own initiative unless it is inappropriate
A refusal must be justified in writing and can be appealed. These are big and important steps towards greater openness!
Today the basic rule is that you get access to information on paper, so this basic rule is changed so that digital release becomes the norm. A big and important step!
Something important that is established is:
It follows from general principles of Swedish law that information that has been made available may also be freely re-used.
This means that what is, for example, published on an authority’s website or through APIs may be freely used by others unless there are rules that say otherwise. This is not new in the proposed law but a confirmation of long-established practice.
Chapter 2, Section 1 An authority or a public undertaking should make information available on its own initiative, unless this is inappropriate with regard to the protection of personal data or critical infrastructure, or with regard to Sweden’s security or information security in general.
Dynamic data
Dynamic data, which is digital information that is updated frequently or in real time (think, for example, of APIs and IoT data), is to be published via suitable interfaces and, where appropriate, as a bulk download. This is therefore mandatory and may cover very large parts of authorities’ information. The boundaries of what ”updated frequently” means will be determined through practice over the next few years, but it is a big difference from the current situation.
Chapter 4, Section 4 Dynamic data shall be made available via suitable interfaces and, where appropriate, as a bulk download.
Fees
The proposed law still allows the Government (or the authority’s highest decision-making body in the case of a municipality/region) to decide that the authority should charge fees to finance a substantial part of its operations. What is interesting is that the inquiry itself argues very clearly that fees should not be charged, since they affect use negatively.
According to the proposed law, decisions on fee financing may not apply for longer than 2 years before they must be reviewed, and may only be taken if there are strong grounds for doing so. In practice this opens up an ongoing dialogue on the question of fee financing and will make it much easier to change than today, when the decision in practice applies forever.
In order for information to be re-used to the greatest possible extent, the starting point of the Open Data Act is that conditions, including fees, should be used restrictively.
It also becomes much harder to give a single actor exclusive access to a body of information, even though the time periods for this may still seem long.
Formats
The proposal also specifies that information should be provided in its existing format, while at the same time steering towards open, machine-readable, accessible and searchable formats. I interpret this as meaning that you should provide information in its existing format while also striving to provide it in formats with the listed properties. This is a good balance, as some target groups want the basic unprocessed data, which is also cheaper to publish, while there are other target groups that need other formats. One tricky point is that format can also refer to the data models of what is made available, and not just file formats. My interpretation is that both are covered by the proposal, but it may be open to interpretation and may need clarifying.
It is worth noting that the formats the law refers to come from the request made by whoever wants to use the information, so anyone is free to make requests, and it is up to the authorities to refuse or accommodate them.
Information shall primarily be provided in existing formats. This means, for example, that information held by an authority as a PDF file shall be provided in that form. The purpose is to minimise the work of digitising information. Furthermore, public actors shall strive to provide information in formats that are open and machine-readable, to the extent that this does not affect their core operations.
Other
Other aspects worth noting are:
- Submitting a ”Request for re-use” is a new form of request introduced by the proposal
- A decision to refuse a request for re-use must always be in writing
- The inquiry is continuing to look at whether existing rules on access to documents need to be changed to fit the proposed law
- DIGG is proposed to be given an extended remit to promote the application of the law and needs additional funding for this
- The inquiry distinguishes between making available and providing.
- ”Making available” is about WHETHER information can be made available
- ”Providing” is about HOW information is to be provided.
- An authority is to keep a list of which authorities are to charge fees for full cost recovery.