freedom of information.

    In recent days and weeks the news has been buzzing with discussion about the controversial whistle-blower sight WikiLeaks and its spokesperson and editor in chief Julian Assange. The public has been bombarded with opinions, speculation, and a fare share of angry rants on the subject, but there seems to have been a curious lack of pure fact or substantiated information being shared at this time. That fact is rather troublesome seeing as the free flow of information is the base subject behind this whole controversy. That being said, there is an interesting and somewhat unique conflict existing between the two viewpoints that have risen out of the quasi-debate surrounding the WikiLeaks fiasco. On one side exists those who generally support freedom of speech, press, and the general distribution of information, even if there is the possibility of an unpleasant outcome, usually this faction will make it a point to gather information on the subject either for the purpose of being able to form an informed opinion on the subject at hand, or simply for the principal of the thing. On the other side there are those who see WikiLeaks as hotbed of dangerous government secrets, and Julian Assange as an enemy combatant or high-tech terrorist, therefore many people of this opinion think of it as un-American or illegal to research the contents of the leaked information. Although there are both positive and negative aspects that can be found on both sides of this argument, there is one incontestable truth which must be observed. In the United States of America the people are obligated to take part in the electoral process by formulating opinions on the issues at hand and applying those opinions by voting for a governing body who they think will best handle the decisions needing to be made for the good of the collective populace. For this system to work properly, the populace requires information, for without information one cannot formulate in informed opinion, without an informed opinion one cannot make an informed decision, and without informed decisions the electoral process becomes moot. In any democratic republic the government has an obligation to the people to keep them informed about the decisions and actions that are being taken on their behalf and if the people are unsatisfied with those actions they are then obligated to replace the decision makers.

>>1
Freedom of information is not going to solve this issue.  Creating a system of secret-protection that can't be abused by indiscriminately hiding every dirty secret in it is a more elegant approach to solve the problem.

Even if you wanted to give absolute information to every one of its citizens, how do you then keep information that could be harmful away from those who would use it as harmful?  Though the dynamics of this issue are on the hotplate, people are forgetting a "secret" is a necessary concern and what we are viewing is, as usual, the abuse of what otherwise would exist as a benevolent system.  No, "benevolent" isn't the word.  The requirement is as necessary as the concern that it is being abused.  Some things must be kept unspoken.  Completely opening hearts and minds tends to cause even more blood spill.  How can you propose anything, express even the silliest sort of doubt, or develop a competent contingency, if the every thing you're trying to do is laid bare?  If the goal is to accomplish something, piling up all our failures will just make us want to quit before we've even accomplished anything.  Even for all the good it will do ...

So, how do you reconcile these issues, and create a system that only hides enough but not too much?  or do you contest my premise - that secrets and tact are trivial things?