Defending a Limited Right to Know

Abstract This chapter takes stock of what has been argued, proposes a limited right to know, defends this against lingering objections, and considers the broader implications. The objections relate to concerns about my actual proposals rather than my diagnosis of the problem, specifically their potential side-effects and their arguable lack of ambition. They include uneasiness with the provision of such a central role to the state in controlling access to criminal records, and arguments that alternative proposals for social reform, rehabilitation certificates, and a ‘right to rebiography’ would be superior to my proposals. Broader implications of my proposal for the #MeToo movement, the empowerment of victims, and the informal exposure of systemic wrongdoing, for example through social media, are also considered.