3 ms·

If everyone knows, or can easily know, then you can't keep secrets. You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public. I t

If everyone knows, or can easily know, then you can't keep secrets. You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public. I think that's a worthy goal, but doesn't work in practice. If another state is competitive with you (and all states are competitive with each other to some extent), then I think you need the ability to keep some information confidential somehow.

eternalban 6y ago
That argument immediately slides down its own slippery slope to total control over information by government and corporations and their colleagues in the "news business". Responsible disclosure of "secrets" in service of public interest is, to me, one of the defining characteristic of a free and thoughtful society. [p.s.] It should be noted that your position is effectively arguing that 'Journalism is a component of state-craft and as such can only be practiced by official members of the governing class'.
- tomalpha 6y ago
  I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets. Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons). If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them. Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    A society can set the standard of "responsible disclosure" that is done to serve the "right to know" to the public. A jury of peers can judge if the two conditions above are met. [It should be also noted that the fact that state craft requires secrets is not a carte blanche to the state to commit illegal acts.] Nuclear launch codes can remain secret. It is difficult to see how the disclosure could possibly be both "respnsible" and "in the public interest". Disclosing that certain government agencies are running projects like "MK-Ultra" [1], "Mockingbird" [2], "Artichoke" [3] is in the public interest. (You know, one of the characters in one of John le Carré's Smiley books once said: "A nation's secret services are the true reflection of its soul"...) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  100% agree with you hear and made much the same point in another post (just not as eloquently). An analogue would be arguing that you have to be an official whistleblower in order to be protected by whistleblower laws, rather than simply being any citizen who meets the criteria necessary to be protected. It's just not a tenable way to serve the public good.
gjs278 6y ago
there is no difference between a journalist and me. if I find out the secret, am I committing a crime?

eternalban 6y ago

That argument immediately slides down its own slippery slope to total control over information by government and corporations and their colleagues in the "news business". Responsible disclosure of "secrets" in service of public interest is, to me, one of the defining characteristic of a free and thoughtful society. [p.s.] It should be noted that your position is effectively arguing that 'Journalism is a component of state-craft and as such can only be practiced by official members of the governing class'.

tomalpha 6y ago
I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets. Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons). If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them. Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
- eternalban 6y ago
  A society can set the standard of "responsible disclosure" that is done to serve the "right to know" to the public. A jury of peers can judge if the two conditions above are met. [It should be also noted that the fact that state craft requires secrets is not a carte blanche to the state to commit illegal acts.] Nuclear launch codes can remain secret. It is difficult to see how the disclosure could possibly be both "respnsible" and "in the public interest". Disclosing that certain government agencies are running projects like "MK-Ultra" [1], "Mockingbird" [2], "Artichoke" [3] is in the public interest. (You know, one of the characters in one of John le Carré's Smiley books once said: "A nation's secret services are the true reflection of its soul"...) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mockingbird [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE
RandoHolmes 6y ago
100% agree with you hear and made much the same point in another post (just not as eloquently). An analogue would be arguing that you have to be an official whistleblower in order to be protected by whistleblower laws, rather than simply being any citizen who meets the criteria necessary to be protected. It's just not a tenable way to serve the public good.

gjs278 6y ago

there is no difference between a journalist and me. if I find out the secret, am I committing a crime?