Why The Government Is Only Allowed Certain Secrets

NEW YORK Sept. 26th- In a 2014 TED talk response to Edward Snowden’s case, the NSA deputy director Richard Ledgett confessed that “there are things that we need to be transparent about: our authorities, our processes, our oversight, who we are”. This may be one of the only agreeable things he said in a long televised conference call, but it is key. When it comes to transparency, and especially of the government, the former should be fully transparent in terms of process. This almost seems like an evidence when considering the definition of democracy. The people need to know what they voted for and how those to whom they gave power to are exercising it. However, when it comes to information, the government has a need to keep some information secret. This being for the public interest, not against. Snowden showed us that the government collects huge amount of data, especially through internet. This process of collecting (even stealing) data, should have been transparent. However, knowing that the government collects all this information, do we really also want to demand for the government to have all information public? Beyond the security argument, it seems that complete transparency contradicts the “right to privacy” which Snowden defends in his TED Talk. There would be no more privacy if the government was completely transparent. Between internet and reality TV, the right to privacy is already long forgotten. Especially after the Snowden case, we simply assume, and almost accept that the government knows everything about us. But if we want to fight for our right for privacy, then we cannot also demand for the government to not hold any information secret. And how would we limit transparency to simply the US?

Acknowledging that the government should keep information secret does not entail being against whistleblowers.On the contrary, whistleblowers, when playing their role in an intelligent way with the right process, releases crucial information which works towards holding government accountable. With whistleblowers such as Snowden ( and not Assange) it is also a matter of making the process more transparent. In Snowden’s case, the information given to the Guardian served as proof of the government’s actions but it was not about making the collected data public. This is what we need to fight for, not complete transparency. 

---