3 ms·

I think that the ability for those organizations to stone-wall is important and needs to be preserved - especially prior to the fact being released there may be

by munk-a 7y ago

I think that the ability for those organizations to stone-wall is important and needs to be preserved - especially prior to the fact being released there may be very valid reasons for withholding facts... but if the stonewalling is without a just cause (which we can examine at lengths after the release of information) then there should be more severe penalties. We're getting to a point where claiming it's "a matter of National Security" is pretty much a meme and it erodes legitimate uses of this privilege - and that erosion will cause a lot of harm over time as legitimately sensitive material is forced out early... but, at the same time, being overly aggressive with punishment over borderline cases of withholding information may also have a chilling effect over properly exercising those rights. So maybe we need to leave a pretty wide grey zone.

sneak 7y ago
Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Consent cannot be meaningfully granted from ignorance—it’s called informed consent for a reason. The thing that damages national security is keeping secrets.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I, personally, want to know if the US is assassinating people with drones, illegally detaining people overseas or snooping in on conversations... But I don't need to personally know who is working in such-and-such embassy, nor do I want to know (or want the public to know) which routes they commonly take to drive to the embassy, what their favorite foods are or where their family members reside. National secrets are a thing, there are legitimate details about government employees that are good to keep secret - so I don't think your blanket statement is really all that valid.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    They should be approved or denied. Stonewalling is undemocratic. There is no due process because there is no process. It is effectively a dribble or slowloris attack against the requestor.

by munk-a 7y ago

sneak 7y ago

Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Consent cannot be meaningfully granted from ignorance—it’s called informed consent for a reason. The thing that damages national security is keeping secrets.

munk-a 7y ago
I, personally, want to know if the US is assassinating people with drones, illegally detaining people overseas or snooping in on conversations... But I don't need to personally know who is working in such-and-such embassy, nor do I want to know (or want the public to know) which routes they commonly take to drive to the embassy, what their favorite foods are or where their family members reside. National secrets are a thing, there are legitimate details about government employees that are good to keep secret - so I don't think your blanket statement is really all that valid.
- sitkack 7y ago
  They should be approved or denied. Stonewalling is undemocratic. There is no due process because there is no process. It is effectively a dribble or slowloris attack against the requestor.