Radical Disclosure.

Radical disclosure: The ongoing active process toward removing all barriers to free and open public access to corporate, political and personal information and the laws, rules, social convivance and processes that facilitate and protect the individuals & corporations who freely join, construct and embellish the process. The goal of radical disclosure is unsimulated and complete personal, political and corporate transparency. Radical disclosure by definition requires subjection to:

1. the health, safety, and wellbeing of individuals, neighborhoods, communities and social support systems,
   
2. the protection of the natural environment, and
   
3. the dynamic development of the social assumptions, laws, and conviviance that construct the radical transparency paradigm.

Privacy:
Privacy practitioners fail in their attempts to protect individuals from those individuals who operate on behalf of institutions historically proven to be the most effective in abusing the individual - governmental law enforcement agencies.
But radical disclosure is diametrically opposite - not opposed - and often synched to the ultimate goals of those of privacy advocates. Central is the idea of free access to "personal" information. But melded to that element is the redemptive idea of private ownership of that publicly accessible information. The information is free. The use of that information is limited.

Liability:
Radical disclosure requires that moot be made of personal, political and corporate legal liability, taking remediation out of the legal realm and into the social one.
The information can not be used freely to enhance private economic or political profit or to legally harm or unfairly use the participant.

For examples:

1. John Smith lives at 555 Main Street, Anytown, USA and his phone # is 555 - 1234. He is also diabetic.
   If you wanted to use that information to advertise your business or service, John Smith has the right to charge you for the right to solicit him. You do not have the right to send him mail, or phone him or in other ways use that information for profit freely.
2. John Smith is also an undocumented British Citizen who distributes cocaine in his neighborhood and generated $44.000,00 in income for himself last year.
   INS, IRS, and law enforcement could not use that public accessible information to prosecute him, collect taxes, deport him, interrogate him, or in any way diminish his quality of life.

To imagine how this might work:

suppose all claimed public accessible information were considered both "creative works of fiction" and "intellectual property" upon which those making it available, either the individual (hence "radical") or corporation ("traditional") had full copywrite/trademark/patent/intellectual property protection and ownership.

In this way radical disclosure would extend to individuals some of the current legal protections enjoyed by corporations and their officers.