I recently read an interesting article by Steven Adler that proposes Freedom of Information be included as part of basic human rights. Freedom of Information, in this definition, means that governments around the world should make their information freely available to the public and readily accessible over the Internet. As Adler writes:

“I believe that we must work to assert the Freedom of Information as a basic Human Right. It must be a 21st Century Goal to connect every human being on the planet to high quality, trusted information. There should be no technical, political, cultural, or economic barriers to Information.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Adler on his human rights proposition, but I do think it’s important to point out the operative phrase that calls for “high quality, trusted information.” Those attributes are hard to find these days.

As data management professionals, we recognize that information abounds and the right to peruse should be open.  But as I have written earlier (When Does Data Become TMI?), we live in a world glutted with entertainment stories expressed as headlines, digital homemade videos of people taken at their worst moments, vitriolic opinions expressed as facts, and the knee-jerk dissemination of reports from trusted news sources jumping the gun on government officials.

With all these competing interests, it becomes very difficult for some to determine what information should be regarded as “high quality, trusted” and what is just plain drivel. Junk food for the mind, if you will.

In a free society, this is to be expected. With the good, comes the bad. Mixing the truth with another incentive – profit or escapism perhaps – means that information can get skewed in the process.

This type of information misrepresentation is nothing new, going back to the 19th century era of Yellow Journalism. The contrast between then and now, however, is the same that Adler points out in his discussion. Namely, “people have the potential to access information without physical limits.”

Without constraints, Freedom of Information means that we have access to all information, from the high-quality to the low, like it or not, and it is up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff.

There is a difference between having accessible information, and actually wanting to discover it. As per Adler, I think people should have the former by right, but should not be intimidated for wanting to bask in their own ignorance on matters that, quite frankly, have no bearing on the state of the world.  I question whether people objectively can separate the truth from fear-mongering and whether all the stress we endure on a daily basis on potential what-ifs is truly worth the effort.

So, really, do we want to know someone’s version of the truth?  Would we have enough savvy to not get caught up in the crowd mentality?

What do you think?  Can complete Freedom of Information actually be harmful?  If there should be limits, who makes the call?