TNR Debate Recap: Against Transparency

The New Republic

You have read:

0 / 8

free articles in the past 30 days.

Already a subscriber?

Log in here

sign up for unlimited access for just $34.97Sign me up

THE PLANK OCTOBER 19, 2009

TNR Debate Recap: Against Transparency

In our last issue, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig made the provocative case outlining the perils of what he called the “naked transparency movement,” which seeks to make massive amounts of data about the government readily available for public consumption. In a TNR debate last week, six writers weighed in on his essay. Check them out:

  •  Tim Wu explained why we treat transparency as a miracle cure—and why it never works as well as we'd hope.
  • Ellen Miller and Michael Klein defended their organization, the Sunlight Foundation, from Lessig’s criticism.
  • Jeffrey Rosen argued that the courts could be better arbiters of what government makes transparent and what it keeps secret.
  • David Weinberger reminded us that more data isn’t what’s making Americans stupid.
  • Floyd Abrams raised the first amendment implications of Lessig’s proposal for campaign finance reform.

 Today, Lessig took on his critics in the final part of our debate. Happy reading!

share this article on facebook or twitter

posted in: the plank, person career, harvard, lawrence lessig, tim wu, professor

print this article

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to Top

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK