On Transparency

[Defiant47]

Obviously this is in regards to the Wikileaks developments.

What do you think? Are there things that a government ought to keep secret from its populace? And I don't mean classified things - such as troop movements, locations and communiques of informants/spies, or any such information that obviously cannot be divulged (i.e. if you divulge your battle plan, you then instantly have to change it; if you divulge your spies, you might as well tell them to take a cyanide pill). But I mean even more mundane things, such as diplomatic overtures or general communiques.

- Yes, I have made the wording fairly vague
- First and fifth options are there for completeness (I don't think many people will vote these)

 

[JohnRM]

The greatest protection any abusive power-wielding entity has is the ability to operate in secrecy. Once the veil is pulled back, all the people have to do is pay attention. If they refrain from averting their eyes, then the power-brokers have to act with more restraint and ethics, otherwise the people become outraged and obstinate in their determination to see them burn for every trespass. I just wish we had six or seven WikiLeaks, instead of just the one.


EDIT: Answering the poll, I do believe that are a few exceptions to transparency, but they are extremely few and far between.

 

[Defiant47]

EDIT: Answering the poll, I do believe that are a few exceptions to transparency, but they are extremely few and far between.

I have included the obvious exceptions into an answer that still is a resounding "no" and "complete transparency".

By all means, though, discuss the issues - the poll is there as an appendage, not as a body.

I like the way you put it.

 

[Camikaze]

It's hard to choose between the second and third option, but I went for the third on the basis that there are perhaps more than 'obvious exceptions'. The second seems to indicate that a hell of a lot of information should be available to the public. This is the case, but it makes sense for some information to be held back.

 

[Defiant47]

It's hard to choose between the second and third option, but I went for the third on the basis that there are perhaps more than 'obvious exceptions'. The second seems to indicate that a hell of a lot of information should be available to the public. This is the case, but it makes sense for some information to be held back.

In my opinion, not every damn communication between government ministers or foreign ministers and other countries needs to be put on the spotlight for the whole world to see. -> I'm more of a third option person

 

[JohnRM]

^I didn't realize we were discussing trivial government communications. I certainly don't need to know about that stuff. It was my assumption that we were discussing the important matters.

 

[civver_764]

I picked:

No, the government should be completely transparent (save for obvious exceptions)

 

[Camikaze]

In my opinion, not every damn communication between government ministers or foreign ministers and other countries needs to be put on the spotlight for the whole world to see. -> I'm more of a third option person

There's a difference between there being a need to publish such communications and having a right to. It's completely understandable for governments not to publicise their internal communications, but at the same time, it's understandable for an interested party to want to find out.

 

[Defiant47]

^I didn't realize we were discussing trivial government communications. I certainly don't need to know about that stuff. It was my assumption that we were discussing the important matters.

Well WikiLeaks has given up "cables" that outline our relations with other countries too. While it might be nice to know exactly what's going on, knowing it might actually end up hurting our foreign relations (as it already has).

 

[JohnRM]

If we deal honestly and ethically with all our international partners, then we ought to have nothing to fear from transparency.

 

[Defiant47]

There's a difference between there being a need to publish such communications and having a right to. It's completely understandable for governments not to publicise their internal communications, but at the same time, it's understandable for an interested party to want to find out.

Ah, so you then believe that while such information need not be publicized, it still needs to be seen by someone to ensure nothing bad's going on? That might be a bit difficult with the volatility of the media - a sensationalist story that need not be released might be just for the profits.

 

[Defiant47]

If we deal honestly and ethically with all our international partners, then we ought to have nothing to fear from transparency.

Perhaps, but there's still something to be said about showing your "partners" your entire (poker) hand.

Not to mention the fact that good and honest dealings aren't necessarily applicable to nations that aren't exactly amicable.

 

[Cutlass]

Information needed to make an ongoing criminal investigation and trial fair and accurate should be kept secret. But only until the investigation and trial are complete.

Information that would reveal military technology should be secret, but only until it is common knowledge among rival militaries. Or is a danger in the hands of third parties.

Information about current and future military deployments, operations, and communications should be secret.

Information that would compromise the safety or ability of government information sources should be secret.

Very, very, little else.

 

[Camikaze]

Ah, so you then believe that while such information need not be publicized, it still needs to be seen by someone to ensure nothing bad's going on? That might be a bit difficult with the volatility of the media - a sensationalist story that need not be released might be just for the profits.

Well I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be seen by anyone, media included. But I don't necessarily think it does all that much harm if it is put into the public eye either. Where it actually does do harm, however, is another matter. I guess that's why I went for the third option.

 

[Defiant47]

The game of diplomacy is a very fickle one... I don't think it could stand public scrutiny.

 

[BasketCase]

I picked:

No, the government should be completely transparent (save for obvious exceptions)

Valerie Plame?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

There's a difference between there being a need to publish such communications and having a right to. It's completely understandable for governments not to publicise their internal communications, but at the same time, it's understandable for an interested party to want to find out.

I suppose if you wanted to publicize those you could stick them in some computer in a back room and offer them on request.