495
submitted 2 months ago by lemmee_in@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 66 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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/

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I didn't see the "for free" part. Can you help?

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

From the original Washington post story

The agreement signed in 2020 by NOAA and the company enabled the agency to collaborate with the firm but does not allow the government to provide compensation. It states HCCA forecasts are “trade secrets and confidential information” that “shall not be publicly disclosed or disseminated” for a period of five years from the effective date of the agreement. The terms of the agreement were released to The Washington Post in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

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

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Thanks. I must have just missed it.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

All I said was that it was not the normal way. I'm not paying judgement either way.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months 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.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months 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.

[-] kureta@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

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

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It’s not good behavior

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
495 points (96.1% liked)

News

23659 readers
3180 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS