Comments on: The transparency trap: why open government might be worse than closed http://futurismic.com/2009/10/13/the-transparency-trap-why-open-government-might-be-worse-than-closed/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Chris http://futurismic.com/2009/10/13/the-transparency-trap-why-open-government-might-be-worse-than-closed/comment-page-1/#comment-50072 Chris Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:54:50 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9266#comment-50072 I am so outraged at Lessig for this. When he very publicly switched his academic focus from copyfight to corruption, I was enthused. But my god, this is his conclusion? As I see it, this is the same kind of fence-sitting that Obama has engaged in with health care. Everyone knows (i.e. many international non-partisan studies draw the same conclusion) that a single-payer program is the most economical and healthy alternative, but we refuse to pursue this strategy because of "powerful political forces" (Insurance companies, Drug Companies, the AMA: i.e., money) opposition to it. Honestly, what is Lessig really worried about? That we miss the subtleties of double-dealing in smoke filled rooms? It seems relatively obvious to a massive number of Americans that legalized corruption known as lobbying has destroyed the fairness of our political system, and until we get the money out of the system (public financing of campaigns) we will never be free of this plutocracy. Sorry for the soap-boxing, but I hate being stabbed in the back by prominent left intellectuals. It feels similar to when Christopher Hitchens started backing the Bush administration. The Horror, the horror... I am so outraged at Lessig for this. When he very publicly switched his academic focus from copyfight to corruption, I was enthused. But my god, this is his conclusion? As I see it, this is the same kind of fence-sitting that Obama has engaged in with health care. Everyone knows (i.e. many international non-partisan studies draw the same conclusion) that a single-payer program is the most economical and healthy alternative, but we refuse to pursue this strategy because of “powerful political forces” (Insurance companies, Drug Companies, the AMA: i.e., money) opposition to it.

Honestly, what is Lessig really worried about? That we miss the subtleties of double-dealing in smoke filled rooms? It seems relatively obvious to a massive number of Americans that legalized corruption known as lobbying has destroyed the fairness of our political system, and until we get the money out of the system (public financing of campaigns) we will never be free of this plutocracy.

Sorry for the soap-boxing, but I hate being stabbed in the back by prominent left intellectuals. It feels similar to when Christopher Hitchens started backing the Bush administration. The Horror, the horror…

]]> By: Greg http://futurismic.com/2009/10/13/the-transparency-trap-why-open-government-might-be-worse-than-closed/comment-page-1/#comment-49697 Greg Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:24:46 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9266#comment-49697 What worries me isn't transparency itself, but complete confidence in the system that creates that transparency. The illusion of transparency is a powerful thing. What worries me isn’t transparency itself, but complete confidence in the system that creates that transparency. The illusion of transparency is a powerful thing.

]]> By: Bill http://futurismic.com/2009/10/13/the-transparency-trap-why-open-government-might-be-worse-than-closed/comment-page-1/#comment-49368 Bill Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:14:40 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9266#comment-49368 Oh, and I forgot to mention that the first "near-future transparent-government-collapse technothriller" was written thirty years ago by John Brunner. See "The Shockwave Rider"! Speaking of which, I think I'll add "enforced government transparency" to my index... Cheers! Oh, and I forgot to mention that the first “near-future transparent-government-collapse technothriller” was written thirty years ago by John Brunner. See “The Shockwave Rider”! Speaking of which, I think I’ll add “enforced government transparency” to my index…

Cheers!

]]> By: Bill http://futurismic.com/2009/10/13/the-transparency-trap-why-open-government-might-be-worse-than-closed/comment-page-1/#comment-49364 Bill Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:05:19 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9266#comment-49364 Paul - great post! This is a very important topic for all of us. I'm wondering if there isn't a confusion (or a collision) of two separable notions: the idea of transparency with respect to what a government _has done_ as opposed to the open source government idea of having lots of people contributing to what a government _is doing at the moment_. I think that we could avoid a lot of the problems that Lessig is talking about by arranging for "delayed transparency", which I'll define as "after a bill is passed, every detail is on the table". This would let us see what corporations contributed money to whom, what legislators met with which lobbyists, etc. By "everything" on the table, I mean relevant matters only. I don't care what politicians do in their private lives. All that data is private and off-topic. In essence, this would give voters the opportunity to review the performance of their elected officials at regular intervals (i.e., elections) and give them the opportunity to do their jobs without being picked on for every last moment of every day. Every legislator will, of course, know that all of the relevant details will emerge. They will make their decisions knowing that we (the people, as we say in the US) will see everything once the bill is passed (or not) and will pass judgement on their performance in full possession of the facts. I'm hoping that this knowledge would affect their decision-making. Paul – great post! This is a very important topic for all of us. I’m wondering if there isn’t a confusion (or a collision) of two separable notions: the idea of transparency with respect to what a government _has done_ as opposed to the open source government idea of having lots of people contributing to what a government _is doing at the moment_.

I think that we could avoid a lot of the problems that Lessig is talking about by arranging for “delayed transparency”, which I’ll define as “after a bill is passed, every detail is on the table”. This would let us see what corporations contributed money to whom, what legislators met with which lobbyists, etc.

By “everything” on the table, I mean relevant matters only. I don’t care what politicians do in their private lives. All that data is private and off-topic. In essence, this would give voters the opportunity to review the performance of their elected officials at regular intervals (i.e., elections) and give them the opportunity to do their jobs without being picked on for every last moment of every day.

Every legislator will, of course, know that all of the relevant details will emerge. They will make their decisions knowing that we (the people, as we say in the US) will see everything once the bill is passed (or not) and will pass judgement on their performance in full possession of the facts. I’m hoping that this knowledge would affect their decision-making.

]]>