Circulation

Technology has enhanced the opportunity for transparency in our government, but has it come at the expense of privacy?

The Obama administration talks a lot about transparency at the federal level. In his aim to increase public participation in government, Obama utilizes technology to make government more accessible — and transparent — to the public. He uses whitehouse.gov, transparency.gov, usaspending.gov, recovery.gov and many social networking sites (myspace, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.) to provide updates, details and documents to the public.

Transparency in government serves many purposes; for example, it creates accountability, builds public trust and confidence and it creates an informed citizenry. As an information professional, I agree with the intent of transparency and advocate wholeheartedly for access to information for the very reasons stated above.

However, That doesn’t mean that transparency is without its issues – in fact, one major competing interest to transparency is privacy.

One interesting case study that highlights the tension between transparency and privacy is that of California’s Proposition 8 and the release of information on all donors involved pursuant to California’s campaign finance disclosure law, the Political Reform Act of 1974. This particular case study really brings home the challenges and contradictions between these two concepts.

Proposition 8 amended the California state constitution to recognize only marriage between a man and a woman, overturning the May 15, 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that same sex couples have a constitutionally protected and ensured right to marry. The Political Reform Act requires the state to disclose “the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to [political] campaigns” in the state of California (Sanders, 2009).

After Proposition 8 passed, a multitude of resources emerged thanks to the Political Reform Act. These resources – such as the SF Chronicle database or Eightmaps.com – publicly share information about those who donated money toward the measure. (The SF Chronicle’s database releases information on those who donated for or against the measure; Eightmaps.com’s interactive map focuses on those who donated toward the passage of Prop 8 only.)

As a result of their public “outing” from these resources, many individuals and businesses who donated to groups in favor of Proposition 8 assert they received harassment, were the target of consumer boycotts, picketing and even death threats (Wisckol, 2008)

Because of this, Proposition 8 proponents took their case to court – not in regards to their initial fight regarding same-sex marriage, but this time regarding their right to privacy. They unsuccessfully argued their case against California’s campaign finance disclosure law, citing that the Act led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. The Prop 8 proponents’ request to throw out the law or shield the donor’s names was denied.

In summarizing the rationale for his decision, U.S. District Judge Morrison noted: “If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it’s a ballot measure” (Egelko, 2008).

The New York Times had a wonderful article regarding this case; they poignantly pointed out the clash between “political transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom of speech” (Stone, 2008). Today’s technological advances allow for ease of opportunity for both privacy and speech, yet it compounds the problems that stem from their clashing ideals. Stone (2008) explains this concept, using Eightmaps.com as an example:

Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.

Is it possible that transparency can actually dissuade citizens from participating in democracy?

Is it possible to have a balance of transparency and privacy?

For more information:

Egelko, B. (2009, January 30). Prop 8 Campaign Can’t Hide Donor’s Names. The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved January 30, 2009.

Sanders, J. (2009, January 24). Prop 8 Donor Disclosure Dispute Heats Up. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved February 11, 2009.

Stone, B. (2009, February 8). Prop 8 Donor Website Shows Disclosure Law is a Two-Edged Sword. The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2009).

Wisckol, M. (2009, November 14). Prop. 8 leaders accuse foes of harassment, intimidation. OCRegister. Retrieved February 10, 2009.

Photo credit: Proposition 8 Protest in Sacramento from flickr member JoeandKelly. This image has a creative commons attribution 2.0 generic license