I listened. Hartzog didn’t spend very much time on any of the definitions so I’m not sure he pointed out any inconsistencies among the ones on OKI sites. Does a table of those exist? Maybe you want to create such a thing @Stephen.
Far more interesting to me was Hartzog’s critique of open data not permitting privacy restrictions and thus not being acceptable to regulators or the public and thus being non-sustainable. I’m not certain he completely appreciates the nuances of open data (by the OD, or similar) particularly around not charging money (freedom, not price; it actually must be ok to sell open data) or around share-alike (which is not a template for other restrictions; its purpose is merely to prevent other restrictions from being added). But he probably does understand, and his critique is worth taking seriously in either case.
Around 45 minutes the host, Ellen Broad (I think) of ODI clearly articulates why OD and similar are focused on limiting the damage of property-based control over data and that privacy has a different basis and is hard to bundle with property mitigations in one definition, let alone one license or similar legal instrument.
Hartzog backed up his argument with claims that “fire-and-forget data” is not very valuable and wanted open data advocates to back off of such data and thus become more comfortable with data which is not just dumped into the world, and which includes conditions of use around privacy best practices. I think Hartzog vastly overstates the uselessness of data dumps. One of the wins of open data is people using datasets long after whatever researcher or entity who made the dataset is long gone, for new purposes. At the end of Q&A someone asks about census data; Hartzog says it’s a hard problem.
Still, I think it’s very worthwhile taking Hartzog’s critique seriously and imagining how the OD might begin to address it. One beginning might be just to point out in the definition that use of data free of IP encumbrances (and thus OD) can be subject to other regulation and this doesn’t necessarily make it non-open.
Also toward the end Hartzog briefly mentions several technical, legal, and procedural protections for privacy in data sharing. If anyone has a relatively exhaustive list of such I’d enjoy reading and thinking about how each complements and/or is in conflict with openness.
Thanks for posting the video Stephen!