Transparency in Data Mining: From Theory to Practice - Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society - page 306

actually doing. Rather, it will lead to lead to a partial and in many instances biased
and wrong overall picture of governmental practices. For that reason, the
government would be foolish to disclose its entire array of activities, especially
given the various negative impacts of such disclosures on the effectiveness of
prediction schemes.
While I agree that indeed a distorted understanding of what government is
doing might follow from only selective transparency, I believe the
abovementioned assertion is yet another strong argument for broad transparency to
the entire public regarding the effects of the prediction schemes (and not an
argument against enhanced disclosure). Such broad disclosures are in the
governments interests. A distorted public opinion regarding the actual data mining
practices might have devastating outcomes. It might lead the public to believe that
the government is engaged in unfair or racial discrimination or even acting
arbitrarily. If the government is not doing so, it is within its interests to fully
reveal its strategies to the public. 22
17.5 Bringing It All Together: Towards a Policy Blueprint for
Transparency
Our short journey through the theoretical justifications to transparency in this
unique context is nearing its end. Let us return to the taxonomy of the flow of
information throughout the four segments drawn out above, and explain the
limited policy implications this study can provide. I do so by summarizing the
theoretical findings of the previous section.
Before proceeding, it is important to note the limits of the recommendations to
follow. Their main flaw is their general scope. When these issues are to be
examined in a specific context, several key elements must be rethought or
introduced. First, we must examine the feasibility of transparency in the specific
context - what it might entail in terms of costs and technical difficulties. Second,
the strength of the “general” pro-transparency arguments which are premised upon
democracy and basic human rights will vary as well. In some contexts (for
instance, when core democratic rights such as speech might be compromised) this
justification holds greater force than others. Third and perhaps most importantly,
are the arguments for opacity - a matter of central importance when deciding on
the extent of transparency in governmental schemes. Governments are often
concerned that transparency will lead to unintended consequences and even allow
for the circumvention of its efforts. Clearly these concerns must be examined on a
case-by-case basis.
Returning to our summary of transparency recommendations, I begin with
segment (A) . Strong transparency-based justifications exist for making public the
lists of datasets applied at this stage. Much weaker justifications exist for the
22 For those concerned with security issues, note that if policy considerations allow for
revealing the governmental strategies to those indicated as higher risks, it would be quite
difficult to argue that such publication of such information to the broader public would
harm government interests.