@bdiamand @renderwonk I am anti-secret. I don't believe democracy is effective if the people don't know what the government does.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Is there no argument whatever there are *some* things which may belong non-public *temporarily*? If so, what things?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk What, specifically, do you mean by "temporarily"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk not sure about all boundary conditions, but while within them, aren't spilling beans laws reasonable in the abstract?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk Government can't really be about the abstract. It has to be about what actually happens.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk Just trying to understand limits of "no secrets = good" proposition. If some are good, govt. leak looking !always bad2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@cmuratori@renderwonk Which leads me to really ask, in article referenced do we know conditions of secret keeping in reporter case invalid?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk If they want to indict someone at AP, they are free to do so. What they are not free to do is browse their phone recs.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@renderwonk but if judge signed off, and part of police investigation, well this is (at present) how law enforcement works, no?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk I am saying that _if_ a judge signed off, then _it is the judge and/or law_ that is broken.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@bdiamand @renderwonk We will have to see what happens if the AP sues, it may be that the law is fine and it's just the judge that is bad.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.