Should Governments Keep Secrets?

[Silurian]

People, generally. "Democracy" and all that.

How will people generally decide? Are you going to have focus groups and some such thing discussing theoreticals or something else? There is likely to be a large range of views which will change over time and can change quickly. What do you mean by democracy, there is some government organisation that decides?

Nah.

So if you were the manager of part of a business that had had a government inspection you would be happy to be named in any circumstances. If the report states that they are happy but that Mr Traitorfish appears to be disorganised. Would you be happy to be named and your employer etc to read that. What the inspector does not know is that you have just moved you office, your wife is in hospital and you were late to work because you had to take the children to school.

What do you mean by "commercial information".

A company is having a safety inspection. They are in the final stages of developing a process that will make things safer which they are about to appy for a patent for. Should that be made public before they can get their patent.

 

[Traitorfish]

How will people generally decide? Are you going to have focus groups and some such thing discussing theoreticals or something else? There is likely to be a large range of views which will change over time and can change quickly. What do you mean by democracy, there is some government organisation that decides?

Firstly, I'm dealing with basic principles, making a critique, not offering an alternative schematic.
Secondly, I've already said that I don't view the reconciliation of these principles with the modern state as possible, so you're asking the wrong person for schematic sin the first place.

So if you were the manager of part of a business that had had a government inspection you would be happy to be named in any circumstances. If the report states that they are happy but that Mr Traitorfish appears to be disorganised. Would you be happy to be named and your employer etc to read that. What the inspector does not know is that you have just moved you office, your wife is in hospital and you were late to work because you had to take the children to school.

What your example details is faulty methodology on the part of the inspector. I would object to such a report whether or not it was public, simply because it is inaccurate.
If it was a fair report, though, I don't see what objections I could possibly raise. The shareholders in a private company are entitled to know the details of their employees, the executive management don't get to decide what information they are and are not permitted to see; what's different about this?

A company is having a safety inspection. They are in the final stages of developing a process that will make things safer which they are about to appy for a patent for. Should that be made public before they can get their patent.

What has that got to do with the question in the OP?

 

[Silurian]

Firstly, I'm dealing with basic principles, making a critique, not offering an alternative schematic.
Secondly, I've already said that I don't view the reconciliation of these principles with the modern state as possible, so you're asking the wrong person for schematic sin the first place.

Ok

What your example details is faulty methodology on the part of the inspector. I would object to such a report whether or not it was public, simply because it is inaccurate.
If it was a fair report, though, I don't see what objections I could possibly raise. The shareholders in a private company are entitled to know the details of their employees, the executive management don't get to decide what information they are and are not permitted to see; what's different about this?

I’m sure others could come up with a better example.

The report would be accurate but is only a snap shot view due to one off circumstances that you may not wish to discuss with a government inspector. Your boss who asked you to move your office yesterday may be very happy with your work and be aware that your wife is in hospital. The people it head office will not know anything about the circumstances.

What has that got to do with the question in the OP?

From OP

If so, what things do you think the government should keep from the people? Or do you feel it is completely unacceptable for a government to keep any secrets from the people?

 

[Traitorfish]

I’m sure others could come up with a better example.

The report would be accurate but is only a snap shot view due to one off circumstances that you may not wish to discuss with a government inspector. Your boss who asked you to move your office yesterday may be very happy with your work and be aware that your wife is in hospital. The people it head office will not know anything about the circumstances.

But, again, that's a methodological question, not a political one.

From OP

If so, what things do you think the government should keep from the people? Or do you feel it is completely unacceptable for a government to keep any secrets from the people?

Well, yeah, "the government". Private businesses aren't the government.

 

[Silurian]

But, again, that's a methodological question, not a political one.

It is a political action if you decide to name people no matter what.

Well, yeah, "the government". Private businesses aren't the government.

So do you think that the commercial secret of a private business that the government has learnt should be made public.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is a political action if you decide to name people no matter what.

Not one that has any implications as to the question posed in the OP, as far as I can see.

So do you think that the commercial secret of a private business that the government has learnt should be made public.

That's a very vague question. What business, what secret, what section of the government, and how did they obtain the information? There's a difference between the Department of Work publishing details of criminal employment practices, another for a tollbooth attendant on the Forth Bridge to steal the secret recipe for Irn Bru and post it on Facebook.

 

[Silurian]

That's a very vague question. What business, what secret, what section of the government, and how did they obtain the information? There's a difference between the Department of Work publishing details of criminal employment practices, another for a tollbooth attendant on the Forth Bridge to steal the secret recipe for Irn Bru and post it on Facebook.

Well everyone knows that Irn Bru is made from Girders.

I gave an example above

A company is having a safety inspection. They are in the final stages of developing a process that will make things safer which they are about to appy for a patent for. Should that be made public before they can get their patent.

 

[Verbose]

No. Simple as that.

That is to say, the default setting should always be a resounding: "No!"

Then one can discuss reasonable exemptions under special conditions, none of which should be part of the default setting.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well everyone knows that Irn Bru is made from Girders.

I gave an example above

The patenting process involves an agreement between the applicant and the patent office not to do so, so it would be dishonest of the patent office to make it public.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

No. Simple as that.

That is to say, the default setting should always be a resounding: "No!"

Then one can discuss reasonable exemptions under special conditions, none of which should be part of the default setting.

Understandable, but difficult to do since the term "special conditions" is completely relative.

@Silurian & Traitorfish - I've definitely have been interested in your back-and-forth, but you two drifted entirely almost into corporate secrets. Should that idea be treated entirely differently than government secrets? I would think so, but could be wrong.

 

[galdre]

I agree with Traitorfish - the government can't govern by consent if we don't know what it's doing

 

[Silurian]

The patenting process involves an agreement between the applicant and the patent office not to do so, so it would be dishonest of the patent office to make it public.

But I stated that it had not yet been submitted to the patent office. It is just a commercial secret that the government has learnt about in the course of a safety inspection.

 

[galdre]

But I stated that it had not yet been submitted to the patent office. It is just a commercial secret that the government has learnt about in the course of a safety inspection.

Anything that would normally be private information would not get shared by the govt if it learned about it. Criminal records of juveniles or information on adoptions are good examples.

 

[Verbose]

Understandable, but difficult to do since the term "special conditions" is completely relative.

The principle is quite clear. What it depends on is what kind of system is put in place to make the calls on whether there is a reason not to release some info or not. Start by making sure the system has no general "secret" label govt. can slap on things, and all rulings about secrecy of not need to be made on a case by case basis.