er. Kay ultimately attempted toclose his own ontological circle and find object-computers recursively defining eachother and infinitively deferring any concrete representation. It is striking how much thisvision anticipated the current world of networked computers with large cloud-basedtasks spread across multiple individual machin

cts. There isan important difference, except in trivial cases, between:the inside view of an object,understood in terms of local variables, possibly initialising operations establishingan invariant, and implemented proceduresoperating on the variables maintainingthe invariant, andthe outside view,as presented by the remotely accessible proce-dures, including some generatingmechanism, dealing with moreBabstract^entities

Una serie de ‘Laboratorios Cali’ destinada a determinar el rango de respuestas a la pregunta ‘¿qué quiere que sea Cali?’, seguida por la construcción de escenarios en donde las diversas visiones se puedan exponer, junto con la transición potencial y los imaginarios de diseño especulativo desarrollados por el equipo de co-diseño —para que cada vez más gente juegue con la idea de Cali como un espacio verdaderamente acogedor para vivir y no como una máquina de insostenibilidad—.

EvgenyMorozov,forexample,arguesthatopennessisconfiguredbypoliticalchoicesandinrelationtospecific‘digitaltechnologies’andthatthosechoicesshouldbebothresistedandpoliticallydebated.Butlikethemisfiresofcriticswenotedattheendofchapter4,controlisgivenovertohowdigitaltechnologiesareconfiguredwithoutaccountingforhowpeopleactthroughtheInternet,theconventionstheyrepeat,iterate,cite,orresignify,andtheperformativeforceoftheirengagements

Soifopennessisanimaginarythatcallsuponcitizensubjectstoparticipate,thenclosingsseektofurtherconfiguretheactionsthroughwhichparticipationisdone.Butthisisneversettled.Thetworemainintension.

Opennessinrelationtosharingthushasmultiplemeaningsandisamatterofpoliticalcontestationthatbeliesthepositiveformulationsofitasafoundingimaginaryofcyberspace.Ontheonehand,itmeansmakinggovernmentstransparent,democratizingknowledge,collaboratingandco-producing,andimprovingwell-beingbutontheother,exposing,makingvisible,andopeningupsubjectstovariousknownandunknownpracticesandinterventions.[76]Alongwithparticipatingandconnecting,sharinggeneratesthesetensions,especiallyinrelationtowhatisoftenreducedtoasquestionsofprivacy.Thistensionthatopennessgeneratesincreasinglycreatesadditionaldemandsthatcitizenssecurethemselvesfromandberesponsibleforthepotentialandevenunknowableconsequencesoftheirdigitalconduct.

Actsofconnectingrespondtoacallingthatpersistseveninlightofthetraceabilityofdigitalactionsandconcernsaboutprivacy.Thosewhoaremakingrightsclaimstoprivacyanddataownershiparebyfaroutnumberedbythosewhocontinuetosharedatawithoutconcern.Thatadatatraceisamaterialthatcanbemined,shared,analysed,andacteduponbynumerouspeoplemakestheimaginaryofopennessvulnerabletooftenunknownorunforeseeableacts.Butdigitaltracesalsointroduceanothertension.Anothercalling,thatofsharingdigitalcontentandtraces,isademandthatevokestheimaginaryofopennessfundamentaltotheveryarchitectureofsharedresourcesandgifteconomythatformedtheonce-dominantlogicofcyberspace

WeagreewithCohenontheseeminglyparadoxicalrelationbetweenimaginariesofopenness(copyleft,commons)andclosedness(copyright,privacy)andtheirconnectiontoinformationfreedomandcontrol.Sheisrighttoarguethatthisparadoxcannotberesolvedinlegaltheoryfortwomainreasons.First,freedomandcontrolarenotseparatebutrequireeachother,andhowthisplaysoutinvolvescalibrationwithinspecificsituatedpractices.[6]Second,andrelatedly,legaltheorydependsonaconceptionofabstractliberalautonomousselvesratherthansubjectsthatemergefromthecreative,embodied,andmaterialpracticesofsituatedandnetworkedindividuals

Today,beingopenhasbecomeademandonorganizationsandindividualstoshareeverythingfromsoftwareandpublicationstodataaboutthemselves.Fromopendata,opengovernment,opensociety

His stance was not cyberlibertarian (Barbrook and Cameron, 1996). As his successive refutation of transparency in this shift toward open data indicates (Lessig, 2009), he was quite concerned about efforts with software becoming distanced from tangible outcomes. Lessig might regarded as a hacker in the mold of Tim Jordan (2008), taking a progressive perspective on how we might regulate technologies—alongside laws, norms, and markets—that affect behavior.

In 1902’s What is Publicity? political professor Henry Adams described publicity as “an essential agency for the control of trusts” (p. 895).

Open government data therefore provides a specific lineage to compare and contrast with the multitude of “open” concepts in circulation, including open standards (Russell, 2014), open source (Coleman, 2012a), and open systems (Kelty, 2008: Chapter 5). While the open government data movement in the United States is kin to these other lineages, it is conceptually and historically distinct. It also bears mention that this history is con-fined to the United States. Practices with openness have been differently interpreted by grassroots participants across the world, from Asia (Lindtner, 2012) to the global South (Chan, 2013).