3 ms·
I rather think quinoa is a more effecient method of delivering protein through a population, but that's neither here nor there. I do not suggest any avarice or
by troutwine 16y ago
I rather think quinoa is a more effecient method of delivering protein through a population, but that's neither here nor there.
I do not suggest any avarice or corruption on the part of my or any government. Please do not read my questions in that light. Consider them, instead, as a matter of political philosophy.
Now, while the Pentagon has certainly insisted that--and a definite case can be made that the data WikiLeaks delivers is novel often only in its source--the sources with leaked data do seem to view it as harmful a priori. I may simply be ignorant, but I know of publicly available source of the various data related to the day-to-day internal functioning of any world government. That which is released is done so after decades, the bones of a system to be picked over by historians; hardly within the window of opportunity for a populace make informed voting decisions.
Now, I do not disagree with your assessment of the data WikiLeaks provides. That is granted without objection. I question, merely, the assumption that providing unfiltered information is a bad thing. I might filter my communication, but I am not a public official accountable to the collected process of a voting public who are supposed to be able to make an informed vote based on my actions. For example--and here again I may simply be ignorant--but I have no idea how I might go about discovering how the Treasury Department makes its choices. What data does it have access to? What people make which choices that affect the lives of every US citizen?
Clearly, I don't need this data in everyday life. However, why do I not have the possibility of having it? I'm sure if I called the Treasury Department they would simply laugh at me. The communications of elected officials are now collected and archived, but I know first-hand that the communication of thousands of bureaucrat--every bit as essential to the functioning of the government as the elected official--are not. Technology makes this possible. Why is it not done?
Note. Please excuse any spelling mistakes or grammar errors. I have a nasty cold and thought it best to prioritize promptness over polish.