Right to truth

[Melchior]

Do you think that a "total transparency" clause would be beneficial if inserted in a generic first-world democracy's costitution?
To clarify, such state government could not have any secret with the citizens, so no secret services, or secret documents or anything similar.
There would be obvious advantages, but some problems too, especially in the event of military invasions.

[Firefox]

Do you think that a "total transparency" clause would be beneficial if inserted in a generic first-world democracy's costitution?
To clarify, such state government could not have any secret with the citizens, so no secret services, or secret documents or anything similar.
There would be obvious advantages, but some problems too, especially in the event of military invasions.

I'm not sure that total transparency is even possible. Even the U.S. doesn't have such a system in place. Wouldn't there be some things the government would have to keep secret in the interest of national security?

[Melchior]

I'm not sure that total transparency is even possible. Even the U.S. doesn't have such a system in place. Wouldn't there be some things the government would have to keep secret in the interest of national security?

The U.S have the patriot act too.
Then again, there could be things that it's better to keep secret and things that are kept secret because it suits the government.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would say... fuck no. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy in order to be remain functional. SHould shit like trials be secret? Never, but the locations of a military base or hidden nuclear silo, or the progress of a secret research project etc etc etc... keep those just that, secret. Because if they are available to the public, they are available to our enemies as well.

[Melchior]

I would say... fuck no. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy in order to be remain functional. SHould shit like trials be secret? Never, but the locations of a military base or hidden nuclear silo, or the progress of a secret research project etc etc etc... keep those just that, secret. Because if they are available to the public, they are available to our enemies as well.

And, exactly, where do you draw the line?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would say... fuck no. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy in order to be remain functional. SHould shit like trials be secret? Never, but the locations of a military base or hidden nuclear silo, or the progress of a secret research project etc etc etc... keep those just that, secret. Because if they are available to the public, they are available to our enemies as well.

And, exactly, where do you draw the line?

Generally military operations and research. Having submarines is a bit pointless when everyone knows their location.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There will always be secrecy, the Official Secrets Act or DORA have proved invaluable in the past, and so the gov't will always have a shroud over the most vital information. In this age, information is worth more than any single soldier, army or war machine and keeping it safe is priority.

[Zoink]

Does that mean I get the ICBM launch codes?

[Lagmonster]

The argument generally is, information which needs to be kept secret in order to protect the safety and security of the citizenry should be kept as secret as possible.

[Melchior]

Does that mean I get the ICBM launch codes?

Technically yes, but you couldn't enter the launch facility.
A state with this law would probably have to avoid having nuclear weapons, it seems.

[Lord Zentei]

Undercover police? Impossible with total transparency.
Witness protection programs? Impossible with total transparency.
Privacy protection? Impossible with total transparency.

Even without the millitary angles, total transparency is a bad idea. Sometimes, "the People" don't need to know, since it is none of their fucking business. Moreover, sometimes citizens whose business it is might get hurt if everyone knew.

[Melchior]

Privacy protection? Impossible with total transparency.

Total goverment trasparency, not "all your personal informations are freely avaliable on the internet".
The other points are valid.

[Chmee]

Basically, everything should be transparent *eventually*, just not necessarily *soon* ....

More importantly, the penalty for a government official trying to cover up personally embarassing information on 'National Security' grounds should be more severe than dealing crack to Girl Scouts ....

[Haminal10]

One thing that I feel that needs to be kept secret is intelligence that our government is getting, before it can be filtered/verified.

For instance: say the government receives word that terrorists want to attack shopping malls in the Pacific Northwest. Because the government "knows" this (if I am understanding the OP) now every single citizen knows too. There would be a general panic! What if this tip then turned out to be wrong/a hoax/an honest mistake. Large areas of the country would have been paralized with fear over nothing. In addition, groups who wanted to harm said generic country could just make a bunch of bogus threats, knowing that they would be passed along to the general public.

Despite this, I feel that more transparancy in government could be a good thing. Just so long as it doesn't become harmful to society (as described above).

[UCBooties]

Does that mean I get the ICBM launch codes?

Technically yes, but you couldn't enter the launch facility.
A state with this law would probably have to avoid having nuclear weapons, it seems.

Ah, so you want total transparency, and you justify it by saying it wouldn't work in the real world. How many other little changes would we need for this to not turn into a gigantic screw all?

Sometimes the people don't need to know. Or else, they don't need to know after the fact. I agree that officials shouldn't be able to cover their asses by trying to pretend they're doing it in the national interest, but total transparency is just naive.

[Lord Zentei]

Privacy protection? Impossible with total transparency.

Total goverment trasparency, not "all your personal informations are freely avaliable on the internet".
The other points are valid.

There has in fact been such a case in Iceland: a national medical database, installed in order to help doctors (who would then have access to their new patients' medical history and be able to do their job better). Unfortunately, it's transparency led to privacy violations and accompanying brouhaha.

So this wasn't a slippery slope after all.

[Guardsman Bass]

I certainly wouldn't object to some of the governmental proceedings now censored being available. But overall, it seems like a bad idea (or there should be a 5-10 grace period before document release); do you really want all the politicians in a Senate Intelligence Meeting to address the situation or do PR grandstanding?

[wolveraptor]

With total transparancy, gov officials would act like they always do when making public announcements: spout thousands of metric tons of bullshit without saying anything, topping it all with a thick layer of "US rocks" and "patriotism".

Nobody likes to hear politicians very much, with all their catering to the public view. Total transparancy would make them act that way all the time, knowing they're going to be examined closely by the public.

[General Brock]

Total transparancy would be ideal, but too many people couldn't function, let alone profit, without the cover-ass option for it to ever become law. It's like pure meritocracy; a great idea, that everybody supports in theory, but nobody really wants to live it. There are constant attempts to cheat the meritocratic systems we do have, and there would be attempts to cheat total transparancy as well.

Still, if there are no secrets, people can better act as a democratic nation. The efficiency and level of true accountability would balance off any external security risk that might come from others knowing reasearch projects and locations of military installations. It would be harder to cover up the abuses of power some prefer to view as perks.

[Jarl Sven]

To paraphrase Bismark “The making of laws and sausages is something the public really doesn’t need to see.”



Transparency would be fine if it were simply a matter of measurable facts and figures....but in politics there are issues of perception. And feelings and other intangibles

How would you be able to negociate anything if the opposition knew your entire hand?

[Civil War Man]

Plus there's the problem of dealing with non-transparent nations. (Taking "Total Transparency" to its logical conclusion)

Usland: *breaks Themistan's codes, due to transparency has a press conference saying "We've broken Themistan's codes"*
Themistan: *sees Usland's press conference. Changes codes*

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I would say... fuck no. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy in order to be remain functional. SHould shit like trials be secret?

Do you know how the FICA courts are legal?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

EDIT: I mean FISA, I think.

[tharkûn]

There are legitimate secrets to be held even outside the military. For instance most of the details around mob informants are better left under some cloak of secrecy until the trial.

On a more mundane note think about government contracting and aquisition. Do we really want the bulk suppliers of government toilet paper to know to the penny how much the government is really willing to pay for it? Should we not let the government negotiate without having to disclose its bargaining position? Same thing for negotiations with the government unions, do we really want to leave no room for negotiation when the inevitable teachers strike comes?

A certain amount of secrecy is also vital for the proper functioning of government officials. We don't want officials to be afraid from asking questions in private because they fear being revealed as morons when the idioacy inherent to the question is revealed. If a politician doesn't know what the hell he's voting on, I want him to feel free to get private advice without always having to play for the camera.

Like most things in life there is a balance to be struck. Some secrecy is downright vital, some is essential, and some is merely helpful on the flip side some is unhelpful, some hurtful, and some deadly.

[salm]

Total transparency wouldn´t work but it would be great thing to achieve a maximum transparency coupled with what Chmee suggested.