Dear Editor,

I appreciated the focus on data sharing in the April issue of Earth Observation Magazine. Adena Schutzberg was right on her usual target with "Emergency And Non-Emergency Data Sharing." Al Butler's piece, "Is The FGDC Relevant?", and Peter Gomez's piece, "Data Sharing: Easier Said than Done! But WHY?" in the same issue, as well as the other articles, were excellent.

The argument of "Why should I (or my company) do all the work to make data functionality seamless if I (my company) won't realize immediate benefits?" may be good from the standpoint of a business profit & loss statement. It also may be a good argument for governmental agencies with lean budgets, and subsequently, lower taxes for the voters.

In my opinion, we need to continue to seek solutions where businesses, institutions, and governments receive just compensation for their work, and we cannot allow public safety and welfare to be compromised or sacrificed on the altar of profit motives. Mr. Gomez relates that significant attention to detail is necessary, but it can be done! Thank goodness for the technical people who continue to make good things happen.

In my opinion, Mr. Butler correctly recognizes metadata and other data exchange standards as technical solutions. He also correctly assesses the office/political organizational impediments to data exchange as a deeper problem.

People who focus on technical aspects of problem solving can feel helpless when political horsepower is needed to overcome the real organizational obstacles and to enable data exchange. Unfortunately, frustration sets in when scientific method and truth too often become the casualties of shortsighted lobbying and media spin.

Mr. Butler's frustration is understandable. Secrecy ranges from a somewhat benign shielding of data and process secrets from others, to a more ominous campaign of lies and deception to consolidate wealth and power. We need to remember Thomas Jefferson's quote, "People cannot be safe without information." Are we collectively willing to contribute to democracy's need for an informed, voting citizenry? Are we willing to contribute to the common good, or are we more interested in "What's in it for me?"