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!