[asimov42]

I've thought about this a lot for India as well. To be realistic we would need unprecedented levels of transparency to get the amount of data needed to get usable results. With the amount of nepotism around even constructing a simple network of party heads of each state and related companies and contracts awarded for public work would be valuable.

At this stage we really should think of it more in terms of documenting corruption rather than stopping corruption. When (and if) the system is ready to change the data would be extremely useful to see why things are happening the way they are and work out if solutions would just move the corruption-bottleneck rather than eliminate it.

[tree_of_item]

> At this stage we really should think of it more in terms of documenting corruption rather than stopping corruption.

This is a very good point; often I see people block this sort of discussion by asking "Well, what are you gonna do about it??" Taking this point of view sidesteps that question.

[NhanH]

Tell them that documenting will allow better history be recorded. Then you can redirect the argument of "is history as a subject any useful" to external endpoint.

[denzil_correa]

I have always told the same about India. We need to make everything accessible WITHOUT the need of a Right to Information query. Almost every query that is made via RTI should be accessible within a few clicks.

[jalayir]

Can we automate the creation of RTI requests using NLP, and autonomously analyze the results?

[denzil_correa]

The requests are not a problem, the availability of data is.

[sandGorgon]

I agree. Do you know of Datameet? A bunch of people who try to do this a lot.

But I'm a big believer in technology being able to leverage RTI and data.gov.in to build an AI ombudsman