Someone wrote an interesting letter to the editor today. It was talking about doing research on candidates. A quote: "Most politicians are transparent, some are translucent and some are even dishonest."
Okay, ignore the lack of a comma that should be there. Now, let's think about the progression going on here. When I was reading it, I was expecting something like this:
Transparent---->Translucent---->Opaque
Remember that progression from some science class? Yes. Instead, what I find is this:
Now, what they are suggesting is that , for politicians, the best way to ensure that they are honest is to study how much they disclose, that is, how little privacy they allow for themselves in public life. Except... openness has nothing to do with honesty.
A person who maintains the privacy of their tax records and other things is not wrong for doing so, and doesn't have anything to hide. Such an argument holds for anyone who chooses to withhold information without a warrant. They are not obligated to give it, and their refusal to give it is not any sort of incrimination. Maybe they don't see why it is any business of the taxpayer. Maybe they are guilty of something. There is no way to derive possible guilt from a refusal, and if we are to assume they are innocent and profess an American love for privacy, we cannot force records from them without probable cause.
To be a cynic for a moment, it is entirely possible for a person to fake being open and still cheat the system. Of course, that most often happens in totalitarian places where we call that an exercise of liberty and intellectual honesty (Václav Havel).
But I point out that statement because it strikes a common thread with the argument that, as we have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, we should hide nothing. Wiretapping, ISP monitoring, spying, bugging, credit records, crime records, tax records, travel records, phone records, camera surveillance, library records, all able to be violated as part of keeping us that little bit safer. When privacy is granted, it comes with the trust of the people granting it. The parents trust that the kid behind closed doors isn't concocting a bomb. When people are allowed to buy a house with opaque walls, those walls are inviolable except for when others are invited in, or when sufficient evidence of wrongdoing comes to light. We trust people in their other houses. When we walk amongst other people, we trust that the person wearing a long skirt isn't about to pull a gun from there or doesn't have shoplifted goods taped up the thighs. Society, at least the one we live in and tend to enjoy, requires trust, and that trust requires privacy, or the space for a person to act without being spied upon.
Don't we say that true honesty is doing the right thing when no one else is around? Can we be honest when we know someone is always watching? For politicians, perhaps they should be more open because so many people put their trust in them to go with the convictions for which they were elected. But in return, we should trust them when they choose not to disclose certain things, and recognize that openness and honesty are not the same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment