Taxpayer-funded data locked behind insurance firm's paywall

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot reveal weather forecasts from a particularly accurate hurricane prediction model to the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm.

The model at issue is called the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) Corrected Consensus Approach (HCCA). In 2023, it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).

2020 contract between NOAA and RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Post, requires NOAA to keep HCCA forecasts – which incorporate a proprietary technique from RenaissanceRe – secret for five years.

  • @[email protected]English
    66•1 month ago

    This doesn’t sound so bad from the government’s perspective…

    RenaissanceRe developed a piece of technology that the government wanted to use (for free) in their own hurricane model. The only way RenaissanceRe would allow this is if the government kept the models private for 5 years.

    The government’s use of this data would help it to respond and prepare local governments for hurricanes. Keeping the data private for 5 years is the only way of getting it, so this is better than not having the data.

    Maybe it’s a little shitty on RenaissanceRe‘s part, but it’s no different than healthcare companies keeping patents for a number of years knowing that their medicines could save lives if it were cheaper and more available.

    Edit: Washington Post source

    https://web.archive.org/web/20240926193035/https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/09/26/noaa-hurricane-model-hcca-accuweather/

    • @[email protected]
      5•1 month ago

      Well I can’t say how it works with software since my experience is only with hardware, but that’s not the way the government usually receives a product.

      Usually the government puts out a Request for Proposal (RFP). Companies will respond with a proposal and the government chooses one. The product is developed and ultimately delivered to the government for it to use as it sees fit. If new technology is created during the development, the company providing the product can usually patent that technology.

      It’s possible other models for this exist, but I’m not aware of any product the defense contractor I worked for ever telling the government how or where to use a product. On the other hand, I’m not aware of the government ever wanting to expose that knowledge either. Usually it’s the other way around. So it would be a non-issue.

      But to me it makes no sense that the RESULTS of the model can’t be shared. The real important stuff is HOW the model works. I admit I did not read the article, only the piece at the bottom. Please disregard if this is based on false information.

      • @[email protected]English
        6•1 month ago

        In what you’re describing, the government pays for the software, then uses the software as they see fit. Probably includes service contracts that last for a year or so past dev completion.

        Well, according to the Washington Post article, the government did not provide compensation for this. It seemed to me like this company developed this on its own and is allowing the government to use it to help people, but just wants 5 years of profiting off this before it goes public and is used by other private for profit weather companies.

        Again, I’m not saying this is great, but the amount of rage in the comment section does not match what is actually happening.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•1 month ago

            Right, it just seems like when you say, “that’s not the way the government usually receives a product”, that you are implying there’s something wrong with the way they received this product.

            It just seems so unrelated to what you deal with (scientific studies vs software products) that it isn’t even worth mentioning.

            • @[email protected]
              0•1 month ago

              I can see that. But no.

              Like I said, not sure how it works with software. Was only involved with that once and it worked pretty much the same as hardware.

    • @[email protected]
      1•1 month ago

      Sure John is shooting people to death but it’s no different than Jack stabbing people to death. Makes you think 🤔