This is a simple case of the negatives of transparency in government. You gotta take the bad with the good when the good outweighs the bad. A public's right to

This is a simple case of the negatives of transparency in government. You gotta take the bad with the good when the good outweighs the bad. A public's right to hear police chatter outweighs their potential to misuse it. It's always sad to see misuse as an excuse for government opacity as if that's the only concern to be taken into account. And you can't really have it both ways with loosely defined terms, because given the ability to hide only sensitive items, more items will become "sensitive". In the absence of a reasonably defined line of transparency, you have to just deal with the costs of total transparency. Then you may go to the legislature and attempt to define extreme opt outs, but when you heavy-handedly dismiss all concerns by outright hiding everything, you've basically given the middle finger to discussions.