<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"In the wake of the Watergate scandals, nearly four decades ago, Congress overwhelmingly supported the expansion of the Freedom of Information Act. Today, the legislative branch is again faced with an administration keeping too many secrets, and it necessitates a similar counterweight.\nAlthough Watergate involved outright criminality, the PRISM program and collection of mobile telephony data are legal, approved by acts of Congress and overseen by judges on a FISA court. The larger issue here is the lack of public knowledge regarding the extent of electronic surveillance. \nSEE ALSO: 6 Ways to De-Cloud and Avoid Tracking\n\nThe balance has tipped too far toward secrecy and over-classification. Changes in technology, particularly mobile telephony, have permanently altered the context for the Fourth Amendment. The meta data our daily activities generate matters: With enough information, anyone with a knack for computing and access to processing capacity can find and identify individuals around the world.  \nThe Bill of Rights should apply everywhere: online, on our phones, in our public spaces and in the privacy of our homes.\nIf we accept that Congress must be briefed on top-secret programs and policies in closed hearings to act as a check and balance to the executive branch, we should also demand that those who testify to our elected representatives do so with veracity and attention. \nThe public has the right to know how the federal government can exert its immense powers \u2014 from the use of drones, to the conditions under which a given set of data acquired from citizens or corporations can be queried. \nThe federal court that oversees Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requests has determined its rules do not prevent the executive branch from disclosing court opinions and orders. The Department of Justice and the White House should do so as well. Congress might also reconsider changes to the FISA court that have effectively left it  defanged.\nAccess to such knowledge is a pillar of \"open government\" \u2014 an expression that has shifted significantly with changes in technology and the proliferation of social media.\nHowever, the next horizon for data rights is outside of government. Much of the immense amount of data flowing through the world's networks is generated and collected by corporations and contractors. \nIf private entities -\u2013 from contractors to tech companies \u2014 perform public services or government functions, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) should be extended. Without more transparency into what personal data is collected and how it is being used, consumers and citizens are left in the dark.\nDisclosing personal data isn't a new idea, although technology has vastly increased the potential for its uses. If Americans are entitled to a free credit report from the credit bureaus, why shouldn't citizens be able to request their consumer profiles and scores from data brokers? If bank customers can download their financial records, why shouldn't they be able to access a child's health record online?\nBoth the privacy framework published by the FTC and consumer data bill of rights from the White House include the principle of transparency. Those documents state that consumers, customers and citizens can gain equal access to information that has been collected about them. Personal data ownership drives market transparency and empowers people, enabling consumers to make smarter choices.\nImage via Win McNamee/Getty Images"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2013/06/26/feds-deserve-to-know/>