Additional Literature

Bill Allison, My Data Can’t Tell You That, in Open Government: Collaboration, is important, yet problems with accuracy, sources and information structure render much of the data useless. For open data to be successful, we need to know why is being reported and why. Auditing federal data should be a priority for investigative journalists and academics.

Solon Barocas & Andrew Selbst, Big Data’s Disparate Impact (Sept. 14, 2013) (unpublished manuscript)(see full summary on essential texts page.

Solon Barocas and Helen Nissenbaum, Big Data’s End Run around Anonymity and Consent, in Privacy Big Data, and the Public Good, 44-75 (Julia Lane et al. ds., 2014)(Intractable problems surrounding anonymity and informed consent make these ineffective tools for addressing the privacy issues in big data.)

Jo Bates, This is what modern deregulation looks like”: co-optation and contestation in the shaping of the UK’s Open Government Data Initiative, 8(2) Journal of Community Informatics (2012)(Based on interviews with participants in the open government data movement, the author discusses how OGD initiatives allow appropriation of public sector data in the garb of a transparency agenda.)

Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (1999)(Classification is a powerful, value and political-laden process. The authors examine the dynamics of classification in nursing and in apartheid South Africa, demonstrating that classifications often represent political and social agendas, but once formalized, they become both invisible and entrenched. “Torque” is described as the tension where people are forced into an ill-fitting classification, often with great consequences for the individual.)

Jerry Brito, All Your Data Are Belong to Us: Liberating Government Data, in Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 241-249 (O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2010)(Examining how government data has progressively become available online, and how hackers played an important role in this process.)

Vasily Bunakov and Keith Jeffrey, Licence management for Public Sector Information: Analysis and modeling of PSI re-use regulation, in CeDEM13: Conference for E-Democracy an Open Government 277-288 (Donau-Universitat Krems ed., 2013)(Surveying regulations for access to Public Sector Information and recommending that PSI access regulations be standardized and follow common models in order to facilitate the integrated use of data from different countries.)

Toon Calders and Indrė Žliobaitė, Why Unbiased Computational Processes Can Lead to Discriminative Decision Procedures, in Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society (2013)(Summarizing the reasons why analysis of historical data can product discriminatory results and suggesting methods to reduce discrimination and error in automated data analysis.)

Ryan Calo, Digital Market Manipulation, 82 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 995 (2014)(As companies collect more data on online behavior, they will be able to target advertisements in manipulative ways that shape the time when the company bargains with the consumer, perhaps when the consumer is most suggestible; and find ways to appeal to consumers psychologically to send messages about quality without actually changing the product’s attributes. Calo theorizes that such activities could constitute a concrete harm to consumers requiring notice of profiling, and other alternatives to protect individuals’ autonomy.)

Agustí Cerrillo-I-Martínez, Fundamental Interests and Open Data for Re-Use, 20 Int’l J.L. & Info. Tech. 203 (2012)(Under the EU legal framework, the access, dissemination, and reuse mechanisms of public sector information provide inadequate protection to the various interests at play. Recent developments in technology and new uses of public sector information require revisions to current regulations, and/or new mechanisms).

Amanda Conley, Anupam Datta, Helen Nissenbaum & Divya Sharma, Sustaining Privacy and Open Justice in the Transition to Online Court Records: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry, 71 Maryland L.R. 772 (2012) (see full summary on essential texts page)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Fostering Innovation, Creating Jobs, Driving Better Decisions: The Value of Government Data, July 2014 (Discussing the value of government data and finding that, such data guides trillions of dollars of investments; that the costs of providing such data are small; and that based on business models that government data is worth between $24 billion and $221 billion.)

Isabell Egger-Peitler & Tobias Polzer, Open Data: European Ambitions and Local Efforts. Experiences from Austria, in Open Government 137 (M. Gascó-Hernandéz ed., Springer 2014)(While the European Commission is a strong advocate of the release of public sector data and the harmonization towards coherent national policies, open data implementation activities at the national and local levels, as illustrated through Austria and the city of Vienna, are decoupled from supranational strategies.)

Gregor Eibl & Brigitte Lutz, Money for nothing – data for free: Hard facts about the economic power of Open Government Data, in CeDEM13: Conference for E-Democracy an Open Government 289-302 (Donau-Universitat Krems ed., 2013)(Analyzing the benefits of open government data and discussing different methods for measuring such benefits. The authors conclude that there is no consensus on how to measure these benefits precisely, and that the data are currently inadequate to conduct a proper analysis.)

Directive 2003/98, of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 November 2003 on the Re-use of Public Sector Information, 2003 O.J. (L 345), 90-96 (The Directive on the re-use of public sector information (PSI) provides a common legal framework to govern the re-use of PSI by the European market.  It encourages governments to release PSI, limits charges for use of PSI, and limits discriminatory conditions and exclusive arrangements with respect to PSI release.) 

David H. Flaherty, Edward H. Hanis & S. Paula Mitchell, Privacy and Access to Government Data for Research: An International Bibliography (1979)(This book is a detailed bibliography of materials related to privacy of and access to government data for research purposes. The work includes references to material concerning Canada, the Federal Republic of German, Great Britain, Sweden and the United States. The authors classified citations into six topics: privacy, computers and data banks: general issues and public concern; government statistical data banks; uses of government microdata for research and statistical purposes; legal aspects of privacy and data protection; data security measures in computer systems; and selected bibliographic materials.)

David H. Flaherty, Privacy and Government Banks: An International Perspective (1979)(This book is a series of extensive case studies of how microdata are treated in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Federal Republic of Germany, Canada, and United States. Microdata are defined as, “comprehensive sets of individual records of personal data collected by government agencies from individuals and households in censuses, surveys, administrative activities, and vital statistics.” Flaherty finds that microdata are held too tightly by government agencies and proposes principles for more liberal public release of such datasets, albeit with a series of ex ante and ex post protections for privacy.) 

Fed. Trade Comm’n, Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability (May 2014)(This government study of data brokers concludes that they operate in a fundamentally opaque way and calls for legislation to address privacy problems with data brokers. It also recommends that data brokers adopt several best practices, including implementing privacy-by-design, refraining from collecting information from minors, and adopting reasonable precautions to ensure that downstream users of their data do not use it for unlawful discriminatory purposes.) 

Archon Fung & David Weil, Open Government and Open Society, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 107 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010)(The current open government movement focuses too strongly on government mistakes and waste, threatening public confidence in the government and overlooking similar risks in the private sector. The first risk can be ameliorated by allowing citizens to rate government projects holistically as they would a private product, thus accounting for government successes; and the second by redirecting energy toward pressuring private actors toward greater transparency.)

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-01-126SP, Record Linkage and Privacy: Issues in Creating New Federal Research and Statistical Information (2001)(Record linkage, the practice of combining identifiable data in various contexts, has many potential benefits, such as informing policy debates, tracking program outcomes, helping local government or business planning, or contributing knowledge that, in some cases, might benefit millions of people. There are also major privacy protection concerns associated with record linkage, such as whether consent to linkage was obtained; whether linkages required sharing identifiable data with other organizations; and whether “de-identified” linked data are subject to re-identification risks when released for research or other uses. Various techniques are discussed to resolve these concerns, including consent, tools for masked data sharing, and secure data centers where researchers analyze linked data under controlled conditions.)

Hans Graux, Open government data: reconciling PSI re-use rights and privacy concerns, European Public Sector Information Platform, Topic Report No. 2011 / 3 (Describing the relationship of the PSI Directive and the Data Protection Directive, and conflicts between the two in the context of crime maps and a database concerning individuals competing for public tender offers.)

Michael Gurstein, Open Data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?, 16(2) First Monday (Feb. 2011)(Arguing that the open data movement  seems to be mostly benefitting the people who have the resources to access the data and make effective use of it. Proposes a seven-layer model for effective, just use of open data.)

Natali Helberger, Form matters: informing consumers effectively, IVIR, 1-51 (2013)(Consumer law frequently employs transparency to protect consumers, but not enough attention is paid to its costs, and whether or when it is effective. For it to be effective, transparency has to be engaging, the information digestible, and presented in a streamlined manner.)

Dennis Hilgers & Christoph Ihl, Citizensourcing: Applying the Concept of Open Innovation to the Public Sector, 4(1) The International Journal of Public Participation 67 (Jan 2010) (The practice of government calling upon the citizenry to solve a problem is dubbed “citizensourcing.)

Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Big Brother’s Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other Commercial Data Brokers Collect and Package Your Data for Law Enforcement, 29 N.C.J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 595 (2003)(Leaving the private sector data brokers unregulated enabled them to use public records to amass detailed dossiers on citizens and sell them back to the government, which is restrained in creating these same dossiers by the Privacy Act of 1974. Arguing that libertarian policy approaches create worst-case-scenario privacy outcomes because it leaves the private sector’s hands unbound to collect data for the public sector. Arguing for the extension of the Privacy Act to data brokers.)

Katleen Janssen & Sara Hugelier, Open Data: A New Battle in an Old War Between Access and Privacy, in Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2013, 190 – 201 (M. Hildebrant et. al eds., 2013)(Addressing the relationship between freedom of information and privacy and using the analysis of EU legislations to argue that the balancing exercise performed between FOI and privacy can contribute to the discussion of possible conflicts between open data and privacy/data protection.  The discussion on potential damages of open data is not an entire new debate; in fact, “it is part of a broader and older discussion” about the balancing of transparency on one hand and privacy on the other.)

Katleen Janssen & Sara Hugelier, Open Data as the Standard for Europe? A Critical Analysis of The European Commission’s Proposal to Amend the PSI Directive, 4, No. 3 European Journal of Law and Technology (2013)(Possible changes to the PSI Directive will allow a broader re-use of public sector information and will bring the European Union a step further in the process of implementing an open data strategy. However, their impact will be limited if they are not supported by soft law measures.) 

Deborah G. Johnson, Priscilla M. Regan, Kent Wayland, Campaign Disclosure, Privacy and Transparency, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 959 (2011)(The authors apply a “house of mirrors” metaphor to the publicity given to campaign finance records. These records selectively reflect, and reduce reality; the reflections “bounce” in surprising ways that the individual cannot control; the reflections are highlighted and shaded, meaning that they emphasize or hide aspects of individuals in unanticipated, shallow, or unfair ways.)

Jeffrey Alan Johnson, From Open Data to Information Justice, Ethics and Information Technology(Oct. 2014)(Arguing for the inclusion of open data in a larger debate aboutinformation justice. The author indicates three consequences of providing public access to data: “the embedding of social privilege in datasets as thedata is constructed, the differential capabilities of data users” and the “norms that data systems impose through their function as disciplinary systems.” The author calls for a theory of information justice to combat the consequences of open data related to injustices in society.)

Jeff Jonas & Jim Harper, Open Government: The Privacy Imperative, in Privacy-Enhancing Practices, 321-330 (2010)(Arguing that eight privacy enhancing practices could increase trust and protection of individual in open government databases.)

Maxat Kassen, A Promising Phenomenon of Open Data: A Case Study of the Chicago Open Data Project, Gov’t Info. Q. 508 (2013) (Open data at the local level, as explored through a case study of Chicago, can successfully promote civic engagement: transparency, participation, and collaboration. It can promote a more democratic government and society). 

Thomas P. Keenan, Are They Making Our Privates Public? – Emerging Risks of Governmental Open Data
in Privacy and Identity 2011, 375 IFIP AICT 1 (Jan Camenisch, et al. eds. 2012) (
NGOs, privacy commissioners and the general public should play a larger role in monitoring these open government initiatives and combat any potential abuses).

Rob Kitchin, Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences (2014)(see full summary on essential texts page). 

Heather MacNeil, Without Consent: The Ethics of Disclosing Personal Information in Public Archives (1992) (see full summary on essential texts page). 

Alessandro Mantelero, Social Control, Transparency, and Participation in the Big Data World, 17 No. 10 J. Internet L. 23 (2014) (Big Data in the current digital world is controlled by a limited amount of people, namely private and public entities, thereby limiting the participatory and transformative potential of information. To mitigate the asymmetric distribution of information, a mandatory notification system should put in place to inform international independent authorities when a new database has been implemented. Additionally, the international community should cooperate and create independent international authorities, which would supervise access to such databases) 

Albert Meijer, et al., Understanding the Dynamics of Open Data: From Sweeping Statements to Complex Contextual Interactions, in Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance 101 (Mila Gascó-Hernández, ed., 2014) (Calls for an understanding open data through the lens of theories of complex decision-making in which multiple actors with divergent interests compete, respond to, and collaborate with each other).

Ronald Meijer, et al., Reconciling Contradictions of Open Data Regarding Transparency, Privacy, Security and Trust, 9 J. Theoretical and Applied Elec. Com. Res. 32 (2014) (Preemptively placing restrictions on use and access to open data would foster trustworthiness and reconcile contradictions between open data initiatives and public values, such as transparency, privacy and security). 

Thomas S. Mayer, U.S. Census Bureau, Privacy and Confidentiality Research and the U.S. Census Bureau: Recommendations Based on Review of the Literature, 1-50 (2002) (Focuses on how public attitudes and
perceptions especially regarding issues associated with privacy and confidentiality might affect cooperation with the censuses and surveys that the Census Bureau conducts.  The author proposes that the Census Bureau should monitor, document and understand the “why” behind public perceptions and attitudes towards privacy and confidentiality).

Gianluca Misuraca, et al., Policy-Making 2.0: Unleashing the Power of Big Data for Public Governance, in Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance (Mila Gascó-Hernandez ed., 2014) (Identifies the characteristics and benefits resulting from the application of open and big data techniques and methodologies to governance and policymaking).

Francesco Molinari & Jesse Marsh, Does Privacy Have to Do with Open Data? Some Preliminary Reflections – and Answers, in Proceedings of the CeDEM13 Conference 303-318 (Peter Parycek and Noella Edelmann eds., 2013) (This paper analyzes the prospective effect of changes to EU privacy legislation, claiming that despite good intentions, the changes raise potential risks of overprotecting certain personal rights and excessively increasing the costs of publishing and maintaining open datasets by the EU public sector authorities).

Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism (2013) (see full summary on essential texts page)

Arvind Narayanan & Vitaly Shmatikov, Privacy and Security: Myths and Fallacies of “Personally Identifiable Information”, 53 Communications of the ACM 24 (June 2010) (The existing privacy protection paradigm, which is based on “de-identifying” personally identifiable information data, is an increasingly inadequate privacy safeguard as the amount of publicly available information about individuals grows).

Daniel Newman, Case Study:, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 225 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010) (Case study on, which seeks to provide users with more transparency about where campaign donations are going. This and similar tools continue to face an uphill battle to gain more access to this information so public organizing and outcry is needed in order to effect change and improve transparency of government records). 

Kieron O’Hara, Are They Making Transparent Government, Not Transparent Citizens: A Report on Privacy And Transparency for the Cabinet Office, Review of Privacy and Transparency (2011)(listing twelve recommendations for the UK transparency program and arguing that privacy and transparency are compatible if they are treated together as a same issue).

Onora O’Neill, A Question of Trust (The BBC Reith Lectures 2002)(Arguing that trust is a fundamental value that must be secured to foster a full democracy and active citizenry. A focus on rights–human rights and transparency–is empty if we do not take duties seriously, and can trust others to respect rights. Transparency as a right does not address the underlying issue of deception; a duty of the powerful not to deceive would be more powerful than a right to know. Why has increased transparency failed to address mistrust, and why is mistrust met with even more calls for transparency? A society desiring to increase trust should avoid deception rather than secrecy.)

Tim O’Reilly, Government As a Platform, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 11 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010) (The government should adopt the spirit of creativity and collaboration embodied in the culture of Web 2.0. The analogous Government 2.0 would be “the use of technology — especially the collaborative technologies of Web 2.0 — to better solve collective problems at a city, state, national, and international level.”)

Paul Ohm, Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1701 (2010) (Regulators must use factors provided to assess the risks of re-identification and carefully balance risks to privacy and benefits of information flow).

Ugo Pagallo & Eleonora Bassi, Open Data Protection: Challenges, Perspective and Tools for the Reuse of PSI, in Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 179 (Mireille Hildebrandt et al. eds., 2013) (This article aims to reconcile the apparent tension between the Public Sector Information Directive which aims to harmonize the conditions for re-use the PSI, and the Data Protection Directive, which regulates the processing of personal data within the European Union. The authors examine the current legal framework and the tools that would allow a “win-win” scenario in which the reuse of PSI (that has a great economic potential) would not endanger the right to privacy and the protection of personal data).

Tiago Peixoto, The Uncertain Relationship Between Open Data and Accountability: A Response to Yu and Robinson’s The New Ambiguity of “Open Government,” 60 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 200 (2013) (Focuses on expanding the applicability of Yu and Robinson’s paper by emphasizing the importance of “participatory mechanisms” for public participation in government and by broadening the analytical scope included in the original paper by focusing on international open data rather than just US open data. The participatory mechanisms are used to instigate public discourse in government because without it, open data concerning government is useless.).

Alon Peled, Re-Designing Open Data 2.0, in Proceedings of the CEDEM13 Conference 243-257 (Peter Parycek and Noella Edelmann eds., 2013) (Examines the flaws that led to the failure of the first Government-initiated Open Data (OD) program, describes the shortcomings that persist in OD2.0, and recommends strategies for transforming OD2.0 into a more orderly and efficient openness program).

Alon Peled, When Transparency and Collaboration Collide: The USA Open Data Program, 61 J. Am. Soc’y Sci. & Tech. 2085, 2085-2094 (2011) (President Obama’s federal transparency campaign directly collided with the interests of the federal agencies in using their data as bargaining power, and so the federal agencies adopted a passive-aggressive attitude towards the program, appearing to cooperate, but really giving very little information.  Federal data sharing could be improved by developing an alternative Federal Information Marketplace that incentivizes data sharing among federal agencies).

Bhuvaneswari Raman, The Rhetoric and Reality of Transparency: Transparent Information, Opaque City Spaces and the Empowerment Question, 8(2) Journal of Community Informatics (2012)(Describing the conflict over land by different groups and the influence of digitization of records in disadvantaging poor groups’ claims against other groups tied to developers and e-governance companies. The author, “suggests that a techno-managerial approach [to open data] overlooks the underlying political issues with respect to the construction of different types of information archives and the State’s decisions to open information. This may, contrary to the intention of a progressive OGD project, disadvantage relatively weaker groups in protecting their land claims rather than strengthening their power.”)

Neil M. Richards & Jonathan H. King, Big Data Ethics, 46 Wake Forest L. Rev393 (2014)

David G. Robinson et al., Enabling Innovation for Civic Engagement, in Open Government:
Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 85 (
Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma eds., 2010) (Posting governmental data online will enable users to use the information creatively and bring all kinds of information closer to the public.
In order for the public to be able to use and interact with the information, it must be free over the Internet in open, structured, machine-readable formats for anyone to download in bulk, meaning all at once).

David Robinson et al., Government Data and the Invisible Hand, 11 Yale J.L. & Tech. 160 (2009)(Arguing that the government hould stop focusing on publishing web sites to access public data and instead focus on creating a simple, reliable nfrastructure that provides data the a reusable format).

Andrea Romei and Salvatore Ruggieri, Discrimination Data Analysis: A Multidisciplinary Bibliography, in Discrimination & Privacy in the Information Society 109 (Bart Custers, et al. eds., 2013) (Provides a multi-disciplinary annotated bibliography of the literature on discrimination data analysis, including legal, sociological, economic and computer science references). 

Teresa Scassa, Privacy and Open Government, 6 Future Internet 397 (2014)(Calling on open model governments to reassess whether it is appropriate or necessary to disclose certain public records given the danger that anonymized public records could be re-matched with other mined data and used for privacy invasive purposes, especially in today’s increasingly digital and networked environment). 

Sarah Schacht, Democracy, Under Everything, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 155 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010)(Explaining that the incompetence of communication process of legislative information is the only gap between full citizenry engagement in the legislative process).

Bill Schrier, Toads on the Road to Open Government Data, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 311 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010) (Explaining seven factors that complicate the open government data process: legal impediments, inherent secrecy in bureaucracies, accessibility of information stored on old media, storing data on old databases, potential for privacy violations, threat of re-identification from government data, and the cost of maintaining and releasing government data).

William Seltzer and Margo Anderson, The Dark Side of Numbers: The Role of Population Data Systems in Human Rights Abuses, 68-2 Social Research 481 (2001)(Suggesting that governments and statisticians can implement a number of substantive, methodological, and ethical safeguards to ensure that population data is not used in abusive ways in the future).

Micah L. Sifry, “You can be the Eyes and Ears”: Barack Obama and the Wisdom of Crowds, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 117 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010)(Considering the limitations in implementing different websites the Obama administration has used to encourage transparency in government).

Tom Slee, Seeing Like A Geek, Crooked Timber, Jun. 25, 2012 (Arguing that open data may not be a public good in light of the  “open data doppelgänger,” the “shadow of commercial interests that follow civic hackers wherever they go.” Proponents, “tend to use the language of entrepreneurship and innovation when discussing companies who work with open data, and who contrast the new firms with the aging business models they seek to replace, and they often present commercial use as a complement to civic use.” However new digital gatekeepers end up being fewer and bigger than the old ones.)

Joshua Tauberer, Case Study:, in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice 203 (Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma, eds., 2010) (Describing how, which applies the latest technology to gather and analyze publically available legislative information; will help the public have a deeper understanding of how their government works).

Barbara Ubaldi, Open Government Data: Towards Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives (OECD Publishing, Working Paper on Public Governance No. 22, 2013)(Providing background on open government data, why it is important, who it benefits, how it provides value, who is involved, the prerequisites, the challenges, and the next steps in the analysis).

Glenn Vancauwenberghe, Ezra Dessers, Joep Crompvoets, & Danny Vandenbroucke, Realizing Data Sharing: The Role of Spatial Data Infrastructures, in Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance 155 (Mila Gasco-Hernandez, ed., 2014)(Explaining that different degrees of data sharing in zoning plans, traffic accidents, addresses, and flood mapping is generally due to the various levels of coordination within those processes).

Bart van der Sloot, On the fabrication of sausages, or of Open Government and Private Data, 3 Journal of eDemocracy 136 (2011)(Noting the conflicts between open government policies and the protection of personal information in Europe and advocating for specific personal privacy settings concerning the re-use of citizens’ personal data by third parties).

Jörn von Lucke & Katharina Große, Open Government Collaboration: Opportunities and Challenges of Open Collaboration With and Within Government, in Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance 189 (Mila Gasco-Hernandez, ed., 2014)(Analyzing the potential of an Open Government Collaboration (OGC) in opening the latter stages of the policy cycle (implementation, monitoring, and evaluation) through ten areas of application).

Donald P. Warwick, Types of Harm in Social Research, in Ethical Issues in Social Science Research 101 (Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. Jay Wallace, Jr. and LeRoy Waters, eds.)(1982)(Providing a detailed taxonomy of potential harms from social science research, while being careful to note that not all research has these risks and that benefits may outweigh some risks identified).

Anne L. Washington, Government Information Policy in the Era of Big Data, 31 Rev. Pol’y Research 319 (2014)(Encouraging concern about the secondary use of government and public sector information in big data projects because of the threat to confidentiality). 

K. Krasnow Waterman & Paula J. Bruening, Big Data Analytics: Risks and Responsibilities, 4 Int’l Data Privacy Law 89 (2014)(Suggesting that to mitigate the risks of bid data analytics, institutions not only take the time to understand and choose carefully the methods of using data and analytical tools, but also ensure that there are safeguards in place against using or producing faulty, inaccurate data that will negatively affect individuals).

Jeremy Weinstein & Joshua Goldstein, The Benefits of a Big Tent: Opening Up Government in Developing Countries, 60 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 38 (2012)(Responding to Yu & Robinson and suggesting that bringing open data and open government under a single banner need not lead to detrimental conceptual muddling).

William E. Winkler, Views on the Production and Use of Confidential Microdata, U.S. Census Bureau, Research Report No. RR97/01 (1997)(Predicting that new record linkage methods will probably be used for legitimate reasons to perform analyses that were not previously feasible, but they might also be used in reidentification experiments). 

Peter A. Winn, Online Court Records: Balancing Judicial Accountability and Privacy in an Age of Electronic Information, 79 Washington L. Rev. 307 (2004)(Asserting that courts should restrict access to online court records in situations where access conflicts with “the administration of justice, when it unnecessarily causes invasions of privacy, or when it exposes litigants, witnesses, and other innocent third parties to threats from the potential misuse of their personal information”).

Harlan Yu, David G. Robinson, The New Ambiguity of “Open Government,” 59 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 178 (2012)(see full summary on essential texts page).

Tal Z. Zarsky, Governmental Data Mining and its Alternatives, 116 Penn St. L. Rev. 285 (2011)(Summarizing the many fears and challenges associated with data mining, including privacy violations and potential for discrimination).

Anneke Zuiderwijk and Marijn Janssen, Barriers and Development Directions for the Publication and Usage of
Open Data: A Socio-Technical View
, in
Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance 115 (Mila Gasco-Hernandez, ed., 2014)(Addressing the various social and technical barriers that need to be surpassed to expand the use of open data from a socio-technical capacity).

Anneke Zuiderwijk, Marijn Janssen & Keith Jeffery, Toward an E-Infrastructure to Support the Provision and Use of Open Data, Proceedings of the CeDEM13 Conference 259-275 (Peter Parycek and Noella Edelmann eds., 2013)(Presenting a methodology for designing an e-infrastructure that enables the provision and reuse of open data).

Joseph Steinberg, Government Records: The Census Bureau and the Social Security Administration, in On Record: Files and Dossiers in American Life (Stanton Wheeler, Ed.) (Russell Sage Foundation 1969)(Describing Census Bureau procedures for information collection decisions and access procedures).