4 ms·

Stupid question: why is the government even allowed to redact stuff? Isn’t the government keeping secrets from the people totally antithetical to democracy?

red75prime 10mo ago
It's not the government, it's the department of justice. To name two: protection of witnesses, protection of state secrets ("the people" is not a person who can keep secrets).
- MuffinFlavored 10mo ago
  Is the Department of Justice not a part of the government?
  - sigwinch 10mo ago
    It’s not the body which decides whether something is secret. It reactively redacts secrets and its own OIG is empowered to realign that logic. As of February, it’s sensible to ask if there’s an OIG.
- pfannkuchen 10mo ago
  Right, I’m aware of the excuses the government uses to keep secrets. But on principle, what right does the government have to keep secrets from its own people? I don’t believe we had that button at the founding, it was added somewhere along the way. I’m asking what is the justification for this, and whether in the grand scheme of things that outweighs the principle of the government not being a separate entity from the people. There are multiple ways to approach witness protection. For example if we have a problem with witnesses being harmed we could make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. We can probably think of other options besides the government being allowed to keep secrets from its own people.
  - rgblambda 10mo ago
    >I don’t believe we had that button at the founding Every government everywhere has and has always had state secrets e.g. names of spies. >make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. People still commit capital offenses. This just makes it much easier to get to that witness and get away. We also know from empirical evidence that the death penalty is not useful for deterring crime. Witness protection is also getting to start over without everyone in your neighborhood knowing you were a criminal. It's part of the deal.
    - pfannkuchen 10mo ago
      No you are confused. People commit capital offenses for one of two reasons: either because they lack impulse control, or because they don’t think they will be caught. If we fix the second one, we only have the first group. We can fix the second group, and the remaining first group, while it does apply to capital offenses in general, does not apply to violence against witnesses. It seems like killing witnesses (after the fact, since witness protection does not intervene during the initial crime being witnessed to protect the witness mere moments after their witnessing) actually requires impulse control, because to do it you need to a) anticipate an abstract threat b) formulate a plan in advance c) carry out the plan. This is why it is typically executed in organized crime by bosses, and not by people engaging in random violence. I’m not saying no one carries out capital offenses, I’m just saying that no one engages in witness directed violence due to lack of impulse control, they do it because they don’t think they will be caught, and more thorough rules enforcement does address that. On witness protection making one’s criminal record secret. Okay? One can easily be opposed to that practice. How about we don’t make deals to hide relevant safety information from the public? It seems pretty easy to oppose. Just because the government does it, doesn’t mean it is a good reason. Are you defending the reason, or just stating what is? If you are just stating what is, I don’t see how that’s relevant.
  - reed1234 10mo ago
    Should the military publish plans before the battle? Should witness protection programs be public record?
tequila_shot 10mo ago
Because the redaction was only supposed to protect the victims.
- drdaeman 10mo ago
  Competence and possibility of malicious compliance are interesting questions, but I think the more appropriate question is if DoJ will be sued for violating the law by redacting unrelated content?
Synaesthesia 10mo ago
It's up to us to keep the government accountable. Democracy does if we don't put pressure on the government and participate actively in politics.
moi2388 10mo ago
Because some are allegations without proof, and some are names of people who are victims. They have a right to privacy
- tor825gl 10mo ago
  It's not correct that there is a legal duty to redact names of people who might be accused of wrongdoing, but where the allegations haven't been proved. The only two reasons that redactions are allowed are a) to protect the privacy of victims and b) to protect the integrity on ongoing investigations.
TrackerFF 10mo ago
The TL;DR: - To protect victims - Redact people that are currently under investigation But here they are clearly blacking out potential co-conspirators, without them being under investigation or having been charged with anything. Seems like they are just backing out powerful people not to embarrass or implicate them.
sinuhe69 10mo ago
To protect innocent people for examples, or to not reveal some secrets.
- viccis 10mo ago
  Some of these don't feel like they fall into those. For example in [1], on page 41, I can't imagine how that redaction fits either. 1: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HFqpFLOJgYLiAgjTe7aqRGiZRRSNCRtf https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HFqpFLOJgYLiAgjT...

red75prime 10mo ago

It's not the government, it's the department of justice. To name two: protection of witnesses, protection of state secrets ("the people" is not a person who can keep secrets).

MuffinFlavored 10mo ago
Is the Department of Justice not a part of the government?
- sigwinch 10mo ago
  It’s not the body which decides whether something is secret. It reactively redacts secrets and its own OIG is empowered to realign that logic. As of February, it’s sensible to ask if there’s an OIG.
pfannkuchen 10mo ago
Right, I’m aware of the excuses the government uses to keep secrets. But on principle, what right does the government have to keep secrets from its own people? I don’t believe we had that button at the founding, it was added somewhere along the way. I’m asking what is the justification for this, and whether in the grand scheme of things that outweighs the principle of the government not being a separate entity from the people. There are multiple ways to approach witness protection. For example if we have a problem with witnesses being harmed we could make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. We can probably think of other options besides the government being allowed to keep secrets from its own people.
- rgblambda 10mo ago
  >I don’t believe we had that button at the founding Every government everywhere has and has always had state secrets e.g. names of spies. >make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. People still commit capital offenses. This just makes it much easier to get to that witness and get away. We also know from empirical evidence that the death penalty is not useful for deterring crime. Witness protection is also getting to start over without everyone in your neighborhood knowing you were a criminal. It's part of the deal.
  - pfannkuchen 10mo ago
    No you are confused. People commit capital offenses for one of two reasons: either because they lack impulse control, or because they don’t think they will be caught. If we fix the second one, we only have the first group. We can fix the second group, and the remaining first group, while it does apply to capital offenses in general, does not apply to violence against witnesses. It seems like killing witnesses (after the fact, since witness protection does not intervene during the initial crime being witnessed to protect the witness mere moments after their witnessing) actually requires impulse control, because to do it you need to a) anticipate an abstract threat b) formulate a plan in advance c) carry out the plan. This is why it is typically executed in organized crime by bosses, and not by people engaging in random violence. I’m not saying no one carries out capital offenses, I’m just saying that no one engages in witness directed violence due to lack of impulse control, they do it because they don’t think they will be caught, and more thorough rules enforcement does address that. On witness protection making one’s criminal record secret. Okay? One can easily be opposed to that practice. How about we don’t make deals to hide relevant safety information from the public? It seems pretty easy to oppose. Just because the government does it, doesn’t mean it is a good reason. Are you defending the reason, or just stating what is? If you are just stating what is, I don’t see how that’s relevant.
- reed1234 10mo ago
  Should the military publish plans before the battle? Should witness protection programs be public record?

tequila_shot 10mo ago

Because the redaction was only supposed to protect the victims.

drdaeman 10mo ago
Competence and possibility of malicious compliance are interesting questions, but I think the more appropriate question is if DoJ will be sued for violating the law by redacting unrelated content?

Synaesthesia 10mo ago

It's up to us to keep the government accountable. Democracy does if we don't put pressure on the government and participate actively in politics.

moi2388 10mo ago

Because some are allegations without proof, and some are names of people who are victims. They have a right to privacy

tor825gl 10mo ago
It's not correct that there is a legal duty to redact names of people who might be accused of wrongdoing, but where the allegations haven't been proved. The only two reasons that redactions are allowed are a) to protect the privacy of victims and b) to protect the integrity on ongoing investigations.

TrackerFF 10mo ago

The TL;DR: - To protect victims - Redact people that are currently under investigation But here they are clearly blacking out potential co-conspirators, without them being under investigation or having been charged with anything. Seems like they are just backing out powerful people not to embarrass or implicate them.

sinuhe69 10mo ago

To protect innocent people for examples, or to not reveal some secrets.

viccis 10mo ago
Some of these don't feel like they fall into those. For example in [1], on page 41, I can't imagine how that redaction fits either. 1: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HFqpFLOJgYLiAgjTe7aqRGiZRRSNCRtf https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HFqpFLOJgYLiAgjT...