## 4 Analysis and Findings
### Politics and Privacy
Studies have since shown that not only is there little online take-up in terms of accessing details of the information presented, but that such advertising is generally viewed as propaganda and thus deepens cynicism and distrust [40]. It also bears underscoring that the amounts spent on the promotion and marketing of the action plan considerably dwarf the financial resources invested into the promotion of the open governance framework. Lastly, the Canadian approach to promoting awareness pertaining to economic stimulus fares poorly in comparison to that of the US--and its flagship development of \"recovery.gov\", a comparison that arguably underscores the traditionalism and proprietary nature of Canadian political culture at the federal level both generally and with respect to information management and technological initiatives specifically [3]. This wide cleavage between traditionalism and openness is thus central to not only the conduct of open data initiatives directly but if and how they are catalysts for wider institutional reforms of the sort sought by those, inside and outside of government, seeking more novel and participatory approaches to open and innovative governance. In order to evolve along such a path (toward ubiquitous engagement), a precondition for doing so is a cultural reorientation of both the information management culture internally (seemingly underway but also highly contested) and the political culture externally. The latter dimension is central to shaping the expectations and willingness of citizens to partake in more open and participatory governance, not only with respect to apps development but more broadly in making use of public information holdings in new \"and unanticipated ways\" (to quote from the Government of Canada's open data definition). At the heart of these cultural tensions are fluid and evolving notions of privacy--impacting whether and how governments gather and share information on the one hand and whether and how citizens share information and partake in both private and public venues and interactions online on the other hand. The relationship between open data, open and innovative governance, and privacy is complex and tenuous. On the one hand, one data efforts by government focus on non-personal information and conform to ongoing and strict privacy provisions--a point communicated by governments at all times. On the other hand, as open data is tied to open government and open dialogue, a culture of information sharing and data openness is encouraged, particularly online. This latter orientation is consistent with the ethos of Gov 2.0 and an information eco-system predicated upon public value management--and it raises important questions re how open data and likeminded initiatives on the part of government will shape personal behavior online and also impact civic culture. In other words, how governments seek to address and ultimately resolve the contradictory forces of privacy and data sharing will impact not only the pursuit of open data but the larger ability to drive innovative and open governance. This is so since the necessity of more active forms of public awareness, vigilance and involvement (and by extension the escalating risks of passive acceptance and ignorance) can only augment going forward, in what [PERSON] describes as the \"data-driven life\" emerging from the interplay of four fundamental alterations to the relationship between people, data and technology:  
_First, electronic sensors got smaller and better. Second, people started carrying powerful computing devices, typically disguised as mobile phones. Third, social media made it normal to share everything. And fourth, we begin to get an inkling of the rise of a global super-intelligence known as the cloud [14] (p.11)._[PERSON] underlines how current approaches to managing data are poorly suited to this new environment, as current systems of consent and rights are stem from an analog era rather than present digital realities [14].