6 ms·

There's a flip side to this as well: as a voter, I don't know what information my elected leaders have when making decisions. In theory, with a small amount of

There's a flip side to this as well: as a voter, I don't know what information my elected leaders have when making decisions. In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense. The problem is that it's not actually working in practice. There are so many un-elected people who have jobs for life and also the ability to classify broad swaths of information that the incentives are all set to increasing amounts of classified data. There's no correction mechanism. In theory, you'd have Congressmen aggressively using their oversight powers to correct the system. In practice, elected officials are mostly in for life (or as long as they choose) and are easily manipulated by the system. In fact, they don't want anything to do with making tough decisions. The more things are secret, the less they have to worry with those nagging voters giving their opinions about things. I read about intelligence oversight committees being told they don't have clearance to see things and it just blows my mind: our entire system of using force rests on civilian oversight. Thousands have died because civilians have made mistakes with information they've be given -- and that's the way it is supposed to work. Somehow we've forgotten all about this critical principle. As an example, I'll pick a topic where you guys can all call me fuzzy-headed: UFOs. I pick this topic because of its ludicrous nature. Heaven help me if I were to pick something that was diplomatically sensitive and start hammering on it. I've been studying sightings and evidence as a hobby for many years, and based on credible eye-witness testimony I'm comfortably convinced that the United States government knows a lot more about intermittent atmospheric phenomenon than they are letting on. Why? I don't know. Why not a little more openness? I don't know. What part of this information is being used by my elected officials to make decisions? Again, I don't know. This leaves the door open for all kinds of crazy speculation. It's an insane way for a democracy to treat its citizens. Yet this is just par for the course. All I did was pick a way-out example. Laugh off my UFO example if you wish, but for every thing like that there is a thousand other things that drive public policy -- and you and I will never know about them. Taken to this level, it is a very unstable way to maintain consent of the governed. Not only does it make it impossible for an elected official to take advice, it makes it impossible for voters to make reasoned and educated judgments about the actions of officials. Secrecy corrupts everything it touches. That's why it must be aggressively minimized.

anigbrowl 15y ago
Not only does it make it impossible for an elected official to take advice, it makes it impossible for voters to make reasoned and educated judgments about the actions of officials. You know, here in San Francisco they put out a thick pamphlet every election with the full legal text of all statewide and city ballot initiatives, using typography to also show how the existing legislative language would changed or deleted if the ballot initiative were to pass. I am the only person I know who sits down and reads them all every election cycle. I'm sure there must be others, but most people vote based on soundbites - and they might be making a more efficient use of their time than I do. economists refer to this as 'rational ignorance,' where the cost of educating oneself on a topic exceeds the value of the knowledge gained as a result. Some people favor minarchy or isocracy; I used to, but have changed my mind. Call me paternalist, but I'd rather have a technocratic government, or maybe even a gnostocracy.
- SapphireSun 15y ago
  Even with that information, you still have nowhere near enough information to understand how the new laws will impact you. You have to understand who the major players are and how it will impact them. How have courts interpreted similar statements? Is this law being used as a wedge to affect other laws or voting patterns? I'm not saying don't read them, but you'll only catch really obvious or frivolous stuff that way unless you understand the ecosystem. Code ain't written in a vacuum either.
sneak 15y ago
> In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense. It does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain to me how you reached this conclusion?
- nimblegorilla 15y ago
  What part doesn't make sense? An example from WWII was when the Allies cracked the enigma code. Obviously the intelligence value goes down if the British brag about it to all the voters and the Germans stop using it.

anigbrowl 15y ago

Not only does it make it impossible for an elected official to take advice, it makes it impossible for voters to make reasoned and educated judgments about the actions of officials. You know, here in San Francisco they put out a thick pamphlet every election with the full legal text of all statewide and city ballot initiatives, using typography to also show how the existing legislative language would changed or deleted if the ballot initiative were to pass. I am the only person I know who sits down and reads them all every election cycle. I'm sure there must be others, but most people vote based on soundbites - and they might be making a more efficient use of their time than I do. economists refer to this as 'rational ignorance,' where the cost of educating oneself on a topic exceeds the value of the knowledge gained as a result. Some people favor minarchy or isocracy; I used to, but have changed my mind. Call me paternalist, but I'd rather have a technocratic government, or maybe even a gnostocracy.

SapphireSun 15y ago
Even with that information, you still have nowhere near enough information to understand how the new laws will impact you. You have to understand who the major players are and how it will impact them. How have courts interpreted similar statements? Is this law being used as a wedge to affect other laws or voting patterns? I'm not saying don't read them, but you'll only catch really obvious or frivolous stuff that way unless you understand the ecosystem. Code ain't written in a vacuum either.

sneak 15y ago

> In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense. It does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain to me how you reached this conclusion?

nimblegorilla 15y ago
What part doesn't make sense? An example from WWII was when the Allies cracked the enigma code. Obviously the intelligence value goes down if the British brag about it to all the voters and the Germans stop using it.