Stupid question: why is the government even allowed to redact stuff? Isn’t the government keeping secrets from the people totally antithetical to democracy?

▲

red75prime 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not the government, it's the department of justice. To name two: protection of witnesses, protection of state secrets ("the people" is not a person who can keep secrets).

▲

pfannkuchen 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right, I’m aware of the excuses the government uses to keep secrets.

But on principle, what right does the government have to keep secrets from its own people? I don’t believe we had that button at the founding, it was added somewhere along the way. I’m asking what is the justification for this, and whether in the grand scheme of things that outweighs the principle of the government not being a separate entity from the people.

There are multiple ways to approach witness protection. For example if we have a problem with witnesses being harmed we could make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. We can probably think of other options besides the government being allowed to keep secrets from its own people.

	▲	rgblambda 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>I don’t believe we had that button at the founding Every government everywhere has and has always had state secrets e.g. names of spies. >make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. People still commit capital offenses. This just makes it much easier to get to that witness and get away. We also know from empirical evidence that the death penalty is not useful for deterring crime. Witness protection is also getting to start over without everyone in your neighborhood knowing you were a criminal. It's part of the deal.
	▲	reed1234 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Should the military publish plans before the battle? Should witness protection programs be public record?

▲

MuffinFlavored 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is the Department of Justice not a part of the government?

	▲	sigwinch 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s not the body which decides whether something is secret. It reactively redacts secrets and its own OIG is empowered to realign that logic. As of February, it’s sensible to ask if there’s an OIG.

▲

sinuhe69 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To protect innocent people for examples, or to not reveal some secrets.

▲

Synaesthesia 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's up to us to keep the government accountable. Democracy does if we don't put pressure on the government and participate actively in politics.

▲

TrackerFF 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The TL;DR:

- To protect victims

- Redact people that are currently under investigation

But here they are clearly blacking out potential co-conspirators, without them being under investigation or having been charged with anything.

Seems like they are just backing out powerful people not to embarrass or implicate them.

▲

moi2388 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because some are allegations without proof, and some are names of people who are victims. They have a right to privacy

	▲	tor825gl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not correct that there is a legal duty to redact names of people who might be accused of wrongdoing, but where the allegations haven't been proved. The only two reasons that redactions are allowed are a) to protect the privacy of victims and b) to protect the integrity on ongoing investigations.

▲

tequila_shot 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because the redaction was only supposed to protect the victims.

	▲	drdaeman 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Competence and possibility of malicious compliance are interesting questions, but I think the more appropriate question is if DoJ will be sued for violating the law by redacting unrelated content?