This article was taken from the July 2014 issue of Wired magazine. Be the first to read Wired's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by <span class="s1">subscribing online.
Back in January, Lawrence Lessig, a leader of the free-culture movement, spent two weeks marching the length of New Hampshire -- which traditionally holds America's first presidential primary -- trying to spark a national movement. He was inspired by his friend Aaron Swartz, the political activist who committed suicide a year ago in the face of hounding by a state prosecutor who thought that using a computer to copy academic articles from MIT's open network justified decades in jail.
Was Lessig trying to spark reform of the National Security Agency? Was he after a movement for fixing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, under which Swartz was charged? Was it a movement to defend net neutrality, which took a heavy blow in US courts a few weeks ago? No. Lessig hoped to galvanise citizens to demand campaign-finance reform, to free our representatives from their dependence on private money to run their campaigns. He is trying to strike at one of the evils that afflicts America.
To win this fight, he -- or we, because I fully support this cause too -- must remind citizens that their government has been corrupted by big money. But at the same time, we have to maintain and expand the belief that it can be fixed, that we can actually rule ourselves. I relate this story because it illustrates the problem facing the transparency movement, whereby western governments can simultaneously brag about their embrace of open data while spending tens of billions on surveillance of their own citizens.
Given all that we have learned from the NSA leaks, it is impossible to take seriously anything our leaders say about openness. But we can't forget that we still need government to ensure the common good. Somehow, we have to be for open government and against the deep state at the same time. One might say that this isn't a contradiction, and indeed, I think we all seek to expand the power of citizens to watch their government, and shrink the government's ability to watch us back. But these complementary goals produce contradictory effects. The currency of the open-government movement is trust: we are aiming for a government that is an institution we all make together and is worth trusting.
Thus, by posting data online and demonstrating broad demand for its provision, a pioneer such as Carl Malamud can almost single-handedly force the US Securities and Exchange Commission to turn its database of public-company filings into a free information service. Or groups such as Code for America, the Sunlight Foundation (which I helped set up and advise) and Britain's mysociety.org can work to make government data more accessible by showing what can be done with it to make public institutions do a better job.
On the other hand, the currency of the anti-surveillance movement is distrust: it sees governments as adversaries, and thus it fights not just for greater disclosure of what the surveillance state is doing, but rallies the public to fight back by hardening themselves against spies. The problem is that we actually appear to have two governments under one roof. There is the one we elect and the one that does its best to ignore elections.
We can't just tear down the government. That approach helps to make the public even more cynical and less likely to believe that government can be a force for good. Let's not burn down the village in order to save it.
Micah Sifry is cofounder of Personal Democracy Media and author of The Big Disconnect: Why the Internet Hasn't Transformed Politics (Yet) (OR Books)
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
