The negative effects of open government data - investigating the dark side of open data

Reports and research appears to assume that the benefits of open data dominate open data's negative consequences. Moreover, much of the existing research discusses benefits and disadvantages on a high level without providing much detailed insight in the underlying processes. Yet many governments are reluctant to open their data, as they are afraid of possible negative consequences of opening data. The objective of this policy paper is to better understand the aspects of the dark side of open data and contributes to the literature by providing a more realistic perspective on open data. We conducted nineteen in depth interviews with public sector officials and data archivists and identified sixteen categories of negative effects. For the dark side inherent to open data efforts the research suggests that a context and dataset dependent decision-making model needs to be made weighing the benefits of open data on the one hand (e.g. creating transparency, the possibility to strengthen economic growth), and the risks and disadvantages of open data (e.g. violating privacy and possible misuse and misinterpretation of data) on the other hand.

[1]  J. Prins Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council , 2006 .

[2]  Tim Davies,et al.  Researching the emerging impacts of open data - ODDC conceptual framework , 2013 .

[3]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  Katleen Janssen,et al.  The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[5]  Frank Bannister,et al.  The Trouble with Transparency: A Critical Review of Openness in e‐Government , 2011 .

[6]  J. Ramon Gil-Garcia,et al.  Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-Government phenomena , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[8]  K. Janssen Legal interoperability – barriers to the harmonization of licences , 2011 .

[9]  M. Strathern The Tyranny of Transparency , 2000 .

[10]  John Carlo Bertot,et al.  Measurement of Open Government: Metrics and Process , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[11]  Michael Gurstein,et al.  Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? , 2011, First Monday.

[12]  Frank Bannister,et al.  Barriers to open data release: A view from the top , 2014, Inf. Polity.

[13]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  Sunil Choenni,et al.  Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in local government , 2012, ICEGOV.

[15]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[16]  Sten Jönsson Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[17]  J. Fountain Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[18]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government , 2012, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[19]  Markus Freitag,et al.  GovWILD: integrating open government data for transparency , 2012, WWW.

[20]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[21]  Maria Teresa Borzacchiello,et al.  The impact on innovation of open access to spatial environmental information: a research strategy , 2012, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[22]  Patrice McDermott,et al.  Building open government , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  Data-Driven Innovation through Open Government Data , 2014, J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res..