The Need to Know Basis

We are all familiar with this term "Need to know." Specifically, in the governmental sense, regarding the very topics we here at ATS like to discuss.

Well, with the amount of obvious interest and outcry about many of these things, would it be rash to consider that perhaps the public, need to know?

Looking forward to responses.

reply to post by 1Providence1


About what? Your OP is good but a bit vague. (S&F nonetheless).

There are things we need, to know, for instance if there's fluoride in our water. There are other things which I don't really classify as "life-threatening information", for instance, who had physical relations with who in some military bases, as if the government was some sort of a Hollywood gossip star. The World is not perfect, I know it is, I really don't feel the necessity to read scandal-porn, as if John Doe is gonna change something about it anyway. Savez?

reply to post by 1Providence1


Only those in the know, know if WE need to know. What you are describing is more of a want-to-know.

To me the questions is

a)
"Do they NEED us not to know?"
b)
"should we DEMAND to know?."

reply to post by DupontDeux


We shouldn't know, for instance, about the nuclear missile's codes. There are things which THEY don't want us to know but for good reason.

reply to post by 1Providence1


If you are referring to military black projects and such then I would have to say no, its like playing poker with your cards facing outward. We are in the age where everyone has internet, if one person knows, then everyone knows. Some stuff is just best left for other countries (and ATS members) to ponder and imagine.

However in regards to things that concern our daily life and personal health then yes.

I just go about my life assuming everything I am told is only 1/2 true at best. Gotta keep your wits about you!

reply to post by 1Providence1


My personal opinion, is that my government do not have the right to decide for me, what I do, and do not need to know. They might have, if I could trust my government to only hide the things that relate to national security, but I do not, cannot trust them, bearing in mind what I know. They hide everything which might embarrass them, which might see them kicked out of office, which might alter the way people vote in future... Everything.

With that in mind, I need to know EVERYTHING! I want to know what is being done in my name as a British citizen, I want to know about every dirty deal, every hidden secret, I want to know the what, the where, the how, the who, of every operation. I want to know where every round expended by our military ended up, I want to know where every agent of our intelligence services has been, what they have done, what international laws they broke on operations, whether or not they have broken the law in Britain, while operating in the name of the country, the Queen and the people of this isle.

I want to know everything, because the lies we have been told so far, indicate to me that to know less than everything means that I have to put my faith in people I KNOW to have lied already, making me just as responsible for the consequences of that faith, the behaviour of these people, as they are themselves. I cannot consider myself informed enough about the intentions and character of potential elected representatives, whether they will represent my interests, whether they will act with the same decency, respect for human life, respect for the people of this nation, as I have, unless I know everything that there IS to know about them, not just what I am told and expected to believe.

I find the entire idea of secrecy to be outmoded, and unhelpful. Personally speaking, if there are things being done in my name, by persons who would be placed in danger by my knowing of them, then the chances are I would not agree with what they are doing anyway, and that usually means that it should not be happening at all!

reply to post by 1Providence1


There are cases all the time that exclude even the President of the United States and other foreign leaders. All because they are temporary and not in that circle of "need-to-know".

We have a right to know more than we are told. For example, there is no reason that files in JFK's assassination should still be secret. 50 years is more than long enough.

On the other hand, there are many things that we shouldn't know. I struggle with this concept because I don't believe security through obscurity is true security, but at the same time there are military black projects which should remain hidden. Having an incomplete picture of our defensive capabilities is an important metric in keeping us safe. For example, the capabilities of our fighter jets or aircraft carriers should not be public information.

I think however that a lot of things are kept hidden these days because they're inherently insecure, and with a government preaching security over freedom (and more than half the population going along with such a proposition), it would be a huge embarrassment and outright intellectual defeat if that security were exposed for what it is. For example, the entirety of NSA operations.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by 1Providence1

 

There are cases all the time that exclude even the President of the United States and other foreign leaders. All because they are temporary and not in that circle of "need-to-know".

I'm not sure how true this is. Certainly in some cases you could make a case that the president does not have a need to know, but in the majority it's for political reasons. If the president truly doesn't know the details, then if things go wrong he can be said he isn't aware, and the blame/responsibility goes to a lower position. In some cases this is the only way to maintain government credibility.