@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 If this was insider trading case & govt had good cause to think AP involved in sharing secrets, still same outrage?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bdiamand
@bdiamand@renderwonk Probably not the same outrage, no, because as a citizen I am not necessarily supposed to know what Wall Street does.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@bdiamand @renderwonk I _am_ supposed to know what my government does, because otherwise, how am I supposed to vote properly?
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.