Whistleblowers are heroes.

[Blind groper]

Just reading the latest New Scientist (16 November, page 22) which has an article on giving power to ordinary people through information. With sufficient information, ordinary people can hold their politicians to task. Leaders can be held to account. Secrecy is the enemy of true democracy, and the supporter of political corruption. Where politicians and diplomats and military people can keep secrets (not counting secrets of immediate strategic importance), then corruption thrives.

In my opinion, those who burst the bubble of political secrecy, and reveal to the world what corrupt politicians and their servants are doing, are heroes.

[JimC]

I agree, but with some reservations. Their motives are often mixed, and the consequences of their revelations can include some important downsides.

But in balance, they are valuable.

[cronus]

Everything is being done to keep the world the way it was in the twentieth century but like a pressure cooker the more control from the top the more the pressure from below builds up. It isn't we need whistleblowers what is needed today is to take off the lid and leave it useless and bereft on the floor.

[Tyrannical]

Whistleblowers sure are important, the government and media conspires surprisingly often to hide uncomfortable facts.

[Jason]

In my opinion, those who burst the bubble of political secrecy, and reveal to the world what corrupt politicians and their servants are doing, are heroes.

More often corpsickles than heroes. I think. Therefore it is true.

[Jason]

Cogito ergo veritas.

[Blind groper]

The New Scientist article referred to a situation in Nigeria, where people suffering from lead poisoning failed to get treatment. A group of local people uncovered what the government was doing with the money, and action came quickly, with the sick people treated.

I read an article a few years back that ascribed the defeat of the Soviet empire to Glassnost, when Gorbachev decided to remove government secrecy . OK, there were undoubtedly other factors. But the point is that destroying government secrets was important in bringing down a large, unwieldy and corrupt edifice of a government, leading to more democracy.

However, I suspect that the good people on this forum could come up with local examples of how destroying a government secret results in productive action.

I also have a comment for Seth. You and your allies believe you have to be armed to the teeth in case your government goes totalitarian. I suggest to you that is is much better to prevent that move by keeping everything open. Totalitarianism requires secrecy. Openness is the enemy of the tyrant. Keep government secrets from being secret and you keep the government honest, and all those guns are not needed.

This makes the whistleblower who reveals government secrets into the true patriot.

[Audley Strange]

The New Scientist article referred to a situation in Nigeria, where people suffering from lead poisoning failed to get treatment. A group of local people uncovered what the government was doing with the money, and action came quickly, with the sick people treated.

I read an article a few years back that ascribed the defeat of the Soviet empire to Glassnost, when Gorbachev decided to remove government secrecy . OK, there were undoubtedly other factors. But the point is that destroying government secrets was important in bringing down a large, unwieldy and corrupt edifice of a government, leading to more democracy.

However, I suspect that the good people on this forum could come up with local examples of how destroying a government secret results in productive action.

I also have a comment for Seth. You and your allies believe you have to be armed to the teeth in case your government goes totalitarian. I suggest to you that is is much better to prevent that move by keeping everything open. Totalitarianism requires secrecy. Openness is the enemy of the tyrant. Keep government secrets from being secret and you keep the government honest, and all those guns are not needed.

This makes the whistleblower who reveals government secrets into the true patriot.

I don't have much to disagree with other that Totalitarianism does not require secrecy, all it requires is the means and will to crush any and all who oppose it. Secrecy is required by criminal governments and organisations, not all of whom are totalitarian.

[Blind groper]

Audley

That may be correct, but it is a lot easier for a government to become totalitarian if it is able to cover up its nefarious activities. Revealing what it is up to, makes the change to a totalitarian system a lot less likely.

[Blind groper]

Let me add to that, we are seeing a move towards openness in non government fields which are proving extremely valuable. For example : there are now hundreds (thousands?) of open access scientific journals on the internet. People can access scientific data easily and for free. This is a boost to the growth of human knowledge.

There are those who are pushing for openness in business and all forms of public information. For example : a group called OpenCorporates (google it) has an open data base of 49 million companies with information on such things as credit worthiness, which is valuable to investors and lenders.

[Seth]

I also have a comment for Seth. You and your allies believe you have to be armed to the teeth in case your government goes totalitarian. I suggest to you that is is much better to prevent that move by keeping everything open. Totalitarianism requires secrecy. Openness is the enemy of the tyrant. Keep government secrets from being secret and you keep the government honest, and all those guns are not needed.

...until they are. I completely agree with open government, but protecting liberty through open government and protecting liberty by remaining able to put down a tyrant with force are not mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other, it's BOTH...because sometimes fulminating for government openness doesn't work and the use of force is necessary. I just saw "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" last night, and you would do well to do so and think about the premise of the series and whether "whistleblowing" in that sort of society is an effective bar to tyranny, or whether naked force is required to restore liberty.

This makes the whistleblower who reveals government secrets into the true patriot.

Depends on the secret and why it's being revealed. It's one thing to blow the whistle on corrupt practices, malfeasance, nonfeasance and lawbreaking. It's quite another to reveal government secrets that serve to protect the people's safety against their enemies, foreign and domestic. It also matters how you go about blowing the whistle, and AFAIAC bulk release of government secrets without regard to some actual corrupt or illegal practice doesn't make the leaker a hero or a patriot, it makes him a traitor and a clear and present danger to national security.

Just because government keeps secrets from the hoi polloi doesn't mean that every such secret is a brick in the wall of tyranny.

[Audley Strange]

Audley

That may be correct, but it is a lot easier for a government to become totalitarian if it is able to cover up its nefarious activities. Revealing what it is up to, makes the change to a totalitarian system a lot less likely.

Granted.

[Seth]

Audley

That may be correct, but it is a lot easier for a government to become totalitarian if it is able to cover up its nefarious activities. Revealing what it is up to, makes the change to a totalitarian system a lot less likely.

Granted.

Then again just because something might potentially make it easier for a government to become totalitarian doesn't mean it will inevitably become totalitarian or that there are not other perfectly reasonable and rational justifications for keeping secrets.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Depends on the secret and why it's being revealed. It's one thing to blow the whistle on corrupt practices, malfeasance, nonfeasance and lawbreaking. It's quite another to reveal government secrets that serve to protect the people's safety against their enemies, foreign and domestic. It also matters how you go about blowing the whistle, and AFAIAC bulk release of government secrets without regard to some actual corrupt or illegal practice doesn't make the leaker a hero or a patriot, it makes him a traitor and a clear and present danger to national security.

Just because government keeps secrets from the hoi polloi doesn't mean that every such secret is a brick in the wall of tyranny.

There's some truth in this, in the sense that governments can be said to have national interests to protect. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder. Many of us would not be dreadfully upset if some of the military and security apparatus secrets of, lets say, Russia, China and Iran were revealed, but might have a certain concern about our own countries' secrets being revealed.

And, even given a core of national interests secrets that a majority would concede should ideally be kept secret, I'm sure you would agree that it is the nature of any government to add more and more additional material to that core, under the spurious cover of "national interest"

[Blind groper]

The secrets that are in the national interest are mostly temporary. There are large numbers of military secrets which are still stored in files labelled "top secret" 50 or more years after the need for such secrecy has disappeared.

My view is that anything that is so classified needs to be reviewed every 12 months by an independent group, and released if it is no longer necessary to keep it secret. Too many long term secrets are kept secret to preserve the corrupt practices of corrupt politicians.

Nor do I have any sympathy for a secret that hides the fact that diplomat A described foreign president B as a shithead. Diplomats need to keep such descriptions in between their ears, and not reveal them in any record that may be and should be made public.