![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2kig1kt:
notbecauseofvictories:
Not to keep harping on this, but when it comes to privacy versus freedom of information the US is absolutely freedom first. And that is useful in some cases and disastrously harmful in others but I honestly don’t think we can do without it at this point.
In the US, we expect every presidential candidate to release their taxes as part of their campaign. (Compare with the UK, where David Cameron was the first ever PM to release his taxes, because he was implicated in the Panama Papers.) We require by law that nominees to Cabinet- and sub-Cabinet-level positions in the Treasury Department, Social Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies submit their tax returns to the Senate, where they are reviewed by the relevant Senate committee.
We assume that if they aren’t willing to be open with the American people, they must be lying or concealing something. And that mindset replicated throughout our whole culture. America still struggles with responding to the threats of data mining and state surveillance because we associate “privacy” with “hiding”. “The innocent have nothing to fear,” runs like a major artery through our justice system and through our national psyche, and it makes it hard to move the needle on a lot of issues.
But it also means we can can say those goddamn words really well.
(Of common law countries, the discovery stage of American litigation is the longest and most permissive in what documents/information you can request from the opposing party. Because if you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the harm in looking! Our defamation laws are very friendly to newspapers and media, since “Truth” is an absolute defense against slander or libel—however harmful to someone’s reputation, no one can be punished for sharing what is factual.
The innocent have nothing to fear, we say, as statutes are passed to protect whistleblowers about everything from employee safety to government fraud to banking and corporate malfeasance. Do everything right and you’ll be fine.)
But if you take away our means of demanding truth, when free press goes away, there’s nothing left. We have “the innocent have nothing to fear” in our heads, but no means of ordering those in power to produce the truth.
It’s not infallible and it’s not a guarantee, but barring a major shift in our culture, the robust American defense of the free press is the only defense we’ve got.
notbecauseofvictories:
Not to keep harping on this, but when it comes to privacy versus freedom of information the US is absolutely freedom first. And that is useful in some cases and disastrously harmful in others but I honestly don’t think we can do without it at this point.
In the US, we expect every presidential candidate to release their taxes as part of their campaign. (Compare with the UK, where David Cameron was the first ever PM to release his taxes, because he was implicated in the Panama Papers.) We require by law that nominees to Cabinet- and sub-Cabinet-level positions in the Treasury Department, Social Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies submit their tax returns to the Senate, where they are reviewed by the relevant Senate committee.
We assume that if they aren’t willing to be open with the American people, they must be lying or concealing something. And that mindset replicated throughout our whole culture. America still struggles with responding to the threats of data mining and state surveillance because we associate “privacy” with “hiding”. “The innocent have nothing to fear,” runs like a major artery through our justice system and through our national psyche, and it makes it hard to move the needle on a lot of issues.
But it also means we can can say those goddamn words really well.
(Of common law countries, the discovery stage of American litigation is the longest and most permissive in what documents/information you can request from the opposing party. Because if you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the harm in looking! Our defamation laws are very friendly to newspapers and media, since “Truth” is an absolute defense against slander or libel—however harmful to someone’s reputation, no one can be punished for sharing what is factual.
The innocent have nothing to fear, we say, as statutes are passed to protect whistleblowers about everything from employee safety to government fraud to banking and corporate malfeasance. Do everything right and you’ll be fine.)
But if you take away our means of demanding truth, when free press goes away, there’s nothing left. We have “the innocent have nothing to fear” in our heads, but no means of ordering those in power to produce the truth.
It’s not infallible and it’s not a guarantee, but barring a major shift in our culture, the robust American defense of the free press is the only defense we’ve got.
