Page:Opengov report.pdf/27

 will resolve the easiest cases, leaving more challenging requests—seeking information agencies could not disclose categorically proactively—to be sought through FOIA. In short, as agencies release more and more information on their own, greater proactive transparency will leave a higher percentage of harder cases among traditional FOIA requests. More frequent denials or partial denials thus can be a consequence of the desirable progress agencies have made to disclose more information proactively.

Sometimes the utility of Data.gov has been underestimated as well. For example, notwithstanding the unprecedented volume of government data sets newly available there, downloaded over two million times, some have raised questions about the form of data agencies have made available through Data.gov to the general public. Agencies have provided mostly raw, "wholesale" data through Data.gov, as opposed to user-friendly "retail" data that has been aggregated in some way. As some have rightly observed, for ordinary citizens raw data sets may not be immediately meaningful.

Although the raw data sets at Data.gov do require aggregation and synthesis, at the same time those data come with an important advantage, which is precisely that they can be analyzed, synthesized, and repackaged in any way. In other words, raw data are flexible, and upon making such data available to the public, agencies have explicitly invited the public to put that information to new uses, tailored however users of that information desire. It would therefore not be preferable to specify the form agency data available through Data.gov should take. Better for agencies to provide their own data, in the form agencies already maintain it, as they see fit. The Open Government Directive instructs agencies to include within their Open Government Plans "high-value" data, but leaves agencies to determine which of their data are of high value, while agencies' Open Government Plans invite feedback about which data would be highly valued by the public.

The White House's release of its visitor records has also been the subject of misplaced criticism. Some have alleged that these visitor records are incomplete; others observe that they do not record meetings that occur outside of the White House. But the visitor entry system, used by previous administrations as well, was created solely for the purposes of ensuring secure access to the White House complex. It is over-inclusive, for example, with respect to those who have been security cleared to enter but who do not show up or for whom meetings are cancelled. Also, the visitor records may list the White House staffer who seeks clearance for visitors, as opposed to the White House official with whom visitors meet; the entrance system was not created to match outside parties with the person or office convening a meeting, but to ensure those coming in do not pose security risks. Finally, White House personnel appropriately meet with other government officials and outside parties beyond the White House gate, for reasons of convenience, courtesy, and availability of space, and it is not clear what a functioning White House would otherwise look like.

None of this is to suggest that the Administration's efforts to make government more open are beyond improvement, however. Creating a more open government depends, crucially, on input from the public and all interested parties about how our democracy can best be strengthened, and our government made more efficient and effective—feedback both positive and negative. At the same time, the significance of the steps the Administration has already taken can bear public scrutiny and critique.