People in power keep secrets.  This has been true of every government or hierarchical system of the modern era.  It is generally accepted that there are certain things that are better kept secrets.  It is logical for the American government to keep war plans and strategies confidential because exposure of these is a legitimate threat to national security and does not affect the general citizen.  On the other hand, covertly collecting cellphone data on her own citizens puts the government in a precarious situation.  The post 9/11 era has understandably heightened the security parameters of the American government and populace but at a certain point a line must be drawn.  The American government has been following a very secretive trend in recent years and requires balance from major news media, whistleblowers who are enabled by outlets such as WikiLeaks, and public support for changes in law to require open government.  While these exist, the Obama administration has been especially ruthless in hunting down whistleblowers and specifically trying to put a muzzle on WikiLeaks as well as founder and president Julian Assange.

Surveillance is a controversial topic and faces much opposition from the general public, but this opposition is misdirected.  Surveillance, as a general practice, is necessary for democracy to succeed.  "Surveillance is another version of citizenship instruction, being a distinctive duty as individuals to the state and as representatives of political society: it is the configuration of space and the undertakings of/in that space."(Petcu 2015).  In short, surveillance is necessary to both the government and her citizens.  It is up to debate how much a government should surveill her citizens, but it is undeniable that citizens need a sense of surveillance.  Surveillance may not directly affect the way a citizen of any country acts, but it creates a "bubble" of self-surveillance.  Actively monitoring an entire country is impossible simply due to proportions of government to general population.  It is not impossible, however, especially with modern technology, to create a sense that someone is always watching, with this someone colloquially known as "Big Brother."  

Self-surveillance is a topic that has been discussed at length, especially by French philosopher Michel Foucault.  His theory of panopticism describes a perfect contained environment where every individual is in their own vacuum and can be watched separately without their explicit knowledge.  The people know they are being watched, but do not know when or for how long they are being watched.  They must assume that they are always under surveillance and in theory will behave themselves as such, which will maximize the efficiency of the work they do in their bubble and demand absolute authority from those in power.  This perfect panopticon, however, is impossible to reproduce outside of theory.  A panopticon is a utopia, and utopias are theoretically perfect, but actually impossible to create to scale.  Which leads to the other major problem with panopticons, scale.  The original design for a panopticon was a brick tower with another smaller tower in the middle.  It is obviously impossible to fit the entire world into a brick tower, and even if modern technology were able to create a method to bubble off every human separately and make it possible for the feeling of surveillance it would not be practical. Surveillance does not happen in a bubble, and especially in the age of technology it is impossible to shut out communication.  It is possible, however, to instill a sense that this communication is being monitored, and thus limit this communication in a very indirect, and constitutional way, a specialty of the government of the United States.  The sense that one is always watched creates a necessity to act as if "big brother" is there, and creates the effects of constant surveillance without actually surveilling the general populace or violating any constitutional rights. 

There is a difference, however, between creating a sense of surveillance and actual unwarranted surveillance of a majority of the American citizenry.  Janssen and van den Hoven(2015) argue that "Privacy is a fundament of our democracy, because without privacy people might exercise power to influence others."  This ideal is important because it follows the structure of government.  Government is separated into sectors and information is stored accordingly.  This compartmentalization of government makes it possible to keep privacy relevant.  If government was not sectioned off, any government official could access any government data.  This data is stored in separate dumps that can be opened and closed piece by piece or in their entirety.  The pro of this is that data is kept secure and ensures the privacy of everyone who's data is stored in these dumps.  This can also be useful if agencies are collaborating on a certain project and can share this data with each other so everyone is on the same page.  The downside of this method is that the sharing of this data exposes people to more targeted surveillance and diminishes the relative privacy had by keeping this data under certain security constraints.

Not all data is the same, and the diversity of data types helps further the functionality of security and other government organizations.  Big and Open Linked Data(BOLD) refers to "the integration of three major developments that affect our society"(Janssen and van den Hoven 2015). Open data refers to data that requires no constraints on use and is completely open to anybody.  Big data refers to massive collections of data that have yet to be sorted and categorized.  Linked data refers to data that has been collected and categorized as well as the process of connecting this data along a network.  These three types of data serve a dual purpose.  This data is useful for sharing information and making system to system interaction extremely efficient.  The combination of these data makes a world of difference in ease of access, and allows for a much quicker and more detailed perspective on the topic at hand when people from different agencies collaborate on projects.  At the same time, open data can be used to help the government promote transparency.  By making data constraint free and literally open to anyone, the government removes much of the suspicion behind their doings as well as informs the public.  Making it known what the government does with BOLD informs citizens and allows them to feel secure in their privacy, furthering their involvement in government and removing any pressure they may feel on their constitutional rights.

Web 2.0 is a term that has come about in recent years to describe modern information and communication technologies(ICTs).  Modern ICTS have many categories including wikis, blogs, microblogs, and social networks.  These modern ICTs have extreme potential to further transparency more than any other form of media to come before.  Bertot, Jaeger, and Grimes(2010), explain the functionality behind these web 2.0 ICTs, specifically citing the protests in Tehran, Iran, after the 2009 Iranian election.  Although most of the people in Iran do not use Twitter, and although Twitter only allows the upload of small bits of information and media, this media completely took off and Twitter became the primary news source on these protests for two reasons.  The first reason is that Tweets are so small they can slip under much of the conventional censoring of the Iranian government and the other reason is that Twitter and all of these new ICTs promote a different type of interaction.  Information is now being shared through massive crowds following trends and sharing other's original content to their own networks, or more simply put, many-to-many interaction.

These advances in media and data, however, are not able to effectively demand transparency from the government.  Transparency is further promoted in the law.  Open meeting or "sunshine laws" require the government to disclose the goings on of any meeting held related to public issues as well as to disclose the fact that they are having this meeting.  "Sunshine laws are enacted with three main purposes: transparency, public participation, and efficiency" (Roeder 2014).  Roeder argues the point that it transparency is not a one sided affair.  Governments do not just become transparent to inform the citizen, there's a return expected.  By becoming transparent through laws such as this, the government expects that the properly informed citizen will then as a result become more involved in government.  This will, in theory, generally improve the relationship between government and citizen, improving efficient interaction between the two.  Efficiency will also improve due to the open sharing of information.  The more people that have the information, the more efficiently they will operate concerning this information.  

It is worth noting the connection between ICTs and open meeting laws.  The government faces a slight dilemma in some of the statutes of open meeting laws.  At some point the citizenry must be withheld from the general process of the government, but still has a right to be informed.  In order to maintain efficiency without shutting out citizens, many governments have turned to the internet.  Most departments not only have their own websites, but also have their own blogs and/or Twitter and Facebook accounts.  By making themselves readily available on popular platforms, especially among young adults, these agencies have removed the process of actively searching for information.  There is no need to go and google upcoming news from the TSA when one following them on twitter can just scroll down their feed.  Also if one is only truly interested in major notices or announcements they can simply scroll down the specific Facebook or Twitter page, and if the need to dig even deeper arises, each of these departments has a link to their website on the social media page.  To further accessibility even more, most of these websites have streamlined mobile versions so people can access these sites on their phones.  The government is using Web 2.0 as a form of media to further their efficiency, but things do not always work in their favor.

Look, for example, at WikiLeaks.  WikiLeaks is certainly considered an ICT of Web 2.0.  What sets WikiLeaks apart from the rest of modern media is that the website exists in order to create more open data.  WikiLeaks has been under an absolute hailstorm of criticism from major political figures and governments, and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a wanted man in many countries, including his home Australia.  Assange, in a 2013 interview with Australian, explains that he thinks WikiLeaks receives a lot of heat because it is a new media, saying that "We are the underdogs."  New media is foreign to most of the world, but the younger generations have grown up with it.  WikiLeaks does not have the same news pedigree as publications such as The New York Times, so even while releasing the same information they receive an assault from other media, organized government, and even most citizens.

In a video editorial from 2016, Bill Fine of WCVB 5 News breaks down a running trend of government secrecy in Massachusetts. Over half of the local governments in Massachusetts either had a late response or no response at all, and a handful of town governments and police departments denied requests to access public records, a direct violation of Massachusetts open meeting laws, which are meant to stop this exact problem from happening.  After identifying themselves as journalists, Fine and his crew finally received the records they were looking for.  Only after being put on the spot did the governments actually follow the law put in place to help promote the transparency so heavily touted as necessary for democracy.  While sites such as WikiLeaks receive criticism for sharing government secrets the government itself is hiding information that is legally public. 

WikiLeaks has received two major criticisms as a news source.  "The first is that it distributes information that shouldn't be spread; the second is that it distributes claims that aren't accurate" (Walker 2014).  WikiLeaks is being paradoxically criticized.  People are saying at the same time that there's too much truth behind what WikiLeaks spreads and that they aren't even spreading the truth.  This begs the question of which is right.  Many generally agree that WikiLeaks spreads the truth, people just refuse to accept it because most of what WikiLeaks spreads is usually kept secret for a reason.  The US Embassy wires that were leaked contained extremely controversial information, outlining secret NATO membership, requests to attack Iran, and much more.  Although some argue that WikiLeaks has gone too far simply for the sake of posting confidential information, they have been a leading figure in promoting transparency across the world.  

New media frightens the government.  Most of the people alive today did not grow up with cell phones, let alone apps and social media and blogs and wikis.  Grandparents, parents, and even older millennials grew up absorbing most of their news from the newspaper, the radio, or the occasional television news, but most commonly through word of mouth.  In today's day and age, one can see a video of events happening anywhere on the globe as soon as they happen, and they can share it to their connected network, and someone from their connected network will share it with another connected network.  It is becoming harder and harder for the government to keep secrets from the public, and aggressive, instant media outlets like WikiLeaks are leading the charge in putting a stranglehold on the secretive nature of modern government, hopefully bringing forth the transparency so essential to the proper function and furthering of democracy.

