Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist

[James T]

I saw this in Randall McNally description and immediately thought of the Reith lectures 2002 where Onora O'Neill describes trust. The reason I thought of this was a section in one of her lectures where she describes the problem with transparency. Not strictly in disagreement with Randall McNally but not really in agreement with it either.

An analogy she gave was the idea that a plant suffers badly through repeatedly being pulled from the ground to have it's roots examined. The lack of trust that goes with an attempt to remove secrecy by enforcing transparency on professional services changes their focus from, healing, teaching, policing, etc. Into a focus on recording in detail every action and only taking actions on the basis of how they will be seen in a report. Self-censoring in advance of the investigation.

My own view is that this can only do harm. That it is far better to permit some professional secrecy while at the same time providing authority and a requirement to report according to ones professional judgement and to be judged by someone competent to comment.

Far too many important and good actions appear wrong to the ignorant masses .

 

[MuAndNu]

I saw this in Randall McNally description and immediately thought of the Reith lectures 2002 where Onora O'Neill describes trust. The reason I thought of this was a section in one of her lectures where she describes the problem with transparency. Not strictly in disagreement with Randall McNally but not really in agreement with it either.

An analogy she gave was the idea that a plant suffers badly through repeatedly being pulled from the ground to have it's roots examined. The lack of trust that goes with an attempt to remove secrecy by enforcing transparency on professional services changes their focus from, healing, teaching, policing, etc. Into a focus on recording in detail every action and only taking actions on the basis of how they will be seen in a report. Self-censoring in advance of the investigation.

My own view is that this can only do harm. That it is far better to permit some professional secrecy while at the same time providing authority and a requirement to report according to ones professional judgement and to be judged by someone competent to comment.

Far too many important and good actions appear wrong to the ignorant masses .

I'd be interested in how you mean to apply this. Granted, secrecy implies a lack of trust. Sometimes it engenders a lack of trust. But there are times when the need for secrecy trumps other considerations.

 

[CaDan]

I think she makes the case well that transparency is not sufficient for trust. She seems to flounder a bit on whether it is necessary. It seems to me she makes a hasty generalization from certain confidential relationships to power relationships in general. I'm not sure if I buy that analysis.

 

[Spherical Time]

I'd be interested in how you mean to apply this. Granted, secrecy implies a lack of trust. Sometimes it engenders a lack of trust. But there are times when the need for secrecy trumps other considerations.

True, but even when the need for secrecy is great, wouldn't you agree that accountability is lost? Sometimes, that is even the point of secrecy in the first place. What someone doesn't know about, they can't either react to or hold you responsible for.

 

[MuAndNu]

True, but even when the need for secrecy is great, wouldn't you agree that accountability is lost? Sometimes, that is even the point of secrecy in the first place. What someone doesn't know about, they can't either react to or hold you responsible for.

But my only point is that there are times when secrecy is more important than even accountability. For instance, there are those who would allow no national secrets. That's just hopelessly naive.

 

[Spherical Time]

But my only point is that there are times when secrecy is more important than even accountability. For instance, there are those who would allow no national secrets. That's just hopelessly naive.

Sorry, I meant to say that I agree, and I do. National Secrets are important. Heck, I think that sometimes just standard secrets are important. But would you agree that even when the secrets are important, that removes accountability?

 

[MuAndNu]

Sorry, I meant to say that I agree, and I do. National Secrets are important. Heck, I think that sometimes just standard secrets are important. But would you agree that even when the secrets are important, that removes accountability?

I would agree. And that makes for problems sometimes. Even on the national level, when we allow the government to keep secrets we are also allowing some lapse of accountability. There are some attempts at checks, such as Congressional oversight committees and so forth, but nobody believes that really solves the problem. The truth is, I don't see a good solution. We'll probably have to live with some degree of unaccountability.

But I'm not even sure we're barking up the tree James T wants. Maybe he needs to come back and clarify before we get off on this tangent.

 

[CaDan]

This is the formulation that makes sense to me: The general rule should be openness and transparency, subject to exceptions, which are judged pragmatically.

Far too often, however, those enmeshed in power and dominance structures make the general rule secrecy, subject to exceptions that will further enhance their power and dominance.

 

[Bevlina]

Far too often, however, those enmeshed in power and dominance structures make the general rule secrecy, subject to exceptions that will further enhance their power and dominance.

Please get to the point as to what you are referring to here.

 

[MuAndNu]

Far too often, however, those enmeshed in power and dominance structures make the general rule secrecy, subject to exceptions that will further enhance their power and dominance.

As long as you don't go overboard and suggest that personal power is the only, or even the main, reason, I'll agree. I was in the Air Force and spent over 4 years at the Pentagon. There and elsewhere, I had access to a lot of classified information. I can attest to the fact that very little of it could possibly have been used for personal aggrandizement. National security was the issue.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

This is the formulation that makes sense to me: The general rule should be openness and transparency, subject to exceptions, which are judged pragmatically.

Far too often, however, those enmeshed in power and dominance structures make the general rule secrecy, subject to exceptions that will further enhance their power and dominance.

Very Well stated indeed. I got it immediately.

 

[CaDan]

Please get to the point as to what you are referring to here.

It appears MuandNu has provided an interesting concrete example in the post immediately following yours.

We are calmly discussing a proposition, albeit one that is inelegantly worded. We are also discussing Dr. O'Neill's rather interesting analysis provided in TFA linked to by James T.

 

[CaDan]

As long as you don't go overboard and suggest that personal power is the only, or even the main, reason, I'll agree. I was in the Air Force and spent over 4 years at the Pentagon. There and elsewhere, I had access to a lot of classified information. I can attest to the fact that very little of it could possibly have been used for personal aggrandizement. National security was the issue.

Then why was it kept secret?

 

[MuAndNu]

Then why was it kept secret?

I told you. National security. There are people and governments that would use the information against us. The point is to protect the American populace, not enhance an individual's power.

 

[CaDan]

I told you. National security. There are people and governments that would use the information against us. The point is to protect the American populace, not enhance an individual's power.

I'm sorry; I misread your original post.

Would it be fair to say that at least some of the information that was marked as classified was really of no use to enemies of the United States?

 

[MuAndNu]

I'm sorry; I misread your original post.

Would it be fair to say that at least some of the information that was marked as classified was really of no use to enemies of the United States?

Well, you could guess it was, but I'd wonder to what end. The reason it was classified was because the classifying authority saw it at least potentially risky to let it out. Are mistakes along those lines ever made? It's people making the decisions, so it almost certainly happens. Don't see any way around that.

 

[RAP]

Interesting thread. As I read through the conversation, it became clear, as with so many other issues, this is not that dichotomous. It is a matter of - what is the "integrity of your intent?" This question to be asked in all situations where information is being withheld, secrecy, or shared, disclosure. I can think of many instances where sharing information will result in only harm, no accountability will result. We have to clearly think through each situation when considering disclosure. Sometimes, it is a matter of patience and strategy, which include prayer and guidance.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Rap! Welcome to CF. So Glad you could join us here!

 

[James T]

I would agree. And that makes for problems sometimes. Even on the national level, when we allow the government to keep secrets we are also allowing some lapse of accountability. There are some attempts at checks, such as Congressional oversight committees and so forth, but nobody believes that really solves the problem. The truth is, I don't see a good solution. We'll probably have to live with some degree of unaccountability.

Interesting, security requirements are real. I think it is possible that secrecy and accountability are compatible with care. It requires a separate (not the same paymaster) oversight group whose expertise is sufficient but whose motivation is the overall benefit of the service provided.

But I'm not even sure we're barking up the tree James T wants. Maybe he needs to come back and clarify before we get off on this tangent.

Whatever people are interested in .

What I was thinking of was that many professionals have no particular desire to have every action, every choice they make open to scrutiny. At least not to the scrutiny of an incompetent (in a professional sense) public.

A saying I have not heard for a while, you choose the person for the role and then support them, to open all their decisions to question negates the benefit of having chosen the person in the first instance. Add to this the effect that this demonstrated lack of trust has on the individual you initially chose to place trust in.

Perhaps I am simply reacting against a common interpretation of the word secrecy, that the opposite of secrecy is transparency. This - I believe - is an error. Transparency is not universally good. Secrecy, in the sense that if two people know it it's not a secret, I also consider bad. However managing information flow so that a competent independent and trustworthy observer can report back in simple terms, avoiding the detailed reporting of metrics that measure anything but what you want to achieve, would be a better compromise.

 

[Farouche Exegete]

I saw this in Randall McNally description and immediately thought of the Reith lectures 2002 where Onora O'Neill describes trust. The reason I thought of this was a section in one of her lectures where she describes the problem with transparency. Not strictly in disagreement with Randall McNally but not really in agreement with it either.

An analogy she gave was the idea that a plant suffers badly through repeatedly being pulled from the ground to have it's roots examined. The lack of trust that goes with an attempt to remove secrecy by enforcing transparency on professional services changes their focus from, healing, teaching, policing, etc. Into a focus on recording in detail every action and only taking actions on the basis of how they will be seen in a report. Self-censoring in advance of the investigation.

While this can devolve to a 'bad thing' it's not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing, and it implies the person has begun to take the time to analyze their behavior beyond their own desires and into how it will impact others--if they ascertain their behavior will not be seen as, say, benevolent, they will modify the behaivor, or seek reasons to persuade others that the action is indeed needed. This self-censoring is a good thing--it prevents but does not prohibit hasty, poorly thought out actions.

My own view is that this can only do harm. That it is far better to permit some professional secrecy while at the same time providing authority and a requirement to report according to ones professional judgement and to be judged by someone competent to comment.

I do not believe demands for accountability can only do harm. I think that they cannot coexist _in full_ with demands for secrecy. It is inherent in the terms themselves that if there is secrecy, accountability cannot function.

Perhaps the present revolution in accountability will make us all trustworthier. Perhaps we shall be trusted once again. But I think that this is a vain hope -- not because accountability is undesirable or unnecessary, but because currently fashionable methods of accountability damage rather than repair trust. If we want greater accountability without damaging professional performance we need intelligent accountability. What might this include?

Accountability is desireable, even O'Neill grants that. What needs be struck is a balance.

Far too many important and good actions appear wrong to the ignorant masses .

I wonder what those actions would look like to masses that were not ignorant.