One of the points of contention in the state secrets bill being debated in the Diet is what constitutes a state secret. What kind of information (if any) do you think should be kept secret in the inte

BrainiacNov. 18, 2013 - 08:02AM JST The only information that I think needs to be kept secret would be the names of undercover agents overseas.

You mean spies and black ops teams? ... those are precisely the sort of practices I think should be stopped. Oh, and there's another name for those sort of people when they're playing for the other team, it is "terrorist". Think about that for a moment before you endorse these sort of secrets.

I think that only domestic criminal cases under investigation should be "secret", except for the defense lawyer who should have full access. The media shouldn't get anything though until DURING the trial.

Anything that needs to be classified for longer than 6 months should be automatically suspect, and at the end of each Prime Minister's period the books should be opened on all activities under his or her time so that a decision can be made about whether to bring charges.

*News that would cause the public into mass panic thereby creating anarchy and the destruction of the country

If the news is that bad, mass panics are likely to occur whether the government divulges it or not.

The Government should only keep secrets that included the following:

*Undercover agents names, profiles, and missions

*News that would cause the public into mass panic thereby creating anarchy and the destruction of the country

The point is that there are secrets that need to be kept from the public.

NONE. The recent spying scandals confirmed there is no kept secret. Governments may succeed in hiding their less savory antics to the most naive voters, meanwhile the president of country A knows in real time the bowel movements of the prime minister of country B, and vice versa.

Please unlock your front door and publish your medical, credit card info and other financial info on the web to share with everyone.

That's already the case. If you go to the police and say are my stalker, they will even give you a lift to my backstreet and lend you a ladder to climb to my balcony. Which is useless, since my name and address are online (business are registered and they publish everything). And I said it the door is not locked as I don't want burglars to savagely break the lock to get it (the door is the most expensive object to replace).

they still won't release all the files on JFK's assassination until 2030. Why? What is in the files that could jeopardize national security?

That would be a spoiler for movies and TV series if the audience was told. Then the Kennedy are from the mafia, not a secret, you can order the book on Amazon. And all those that were crooked by them know who they are so there is nothing to reveal. But people can't sue while the documents proving it are out of reach. The heirs that could be asked to give the money back want to wait for prescription. Similar situation for countless former heads of States and their classified archives. Also the Japanese businesses (Mr Aso's family ) that exploited war prisoners and such, they also made sure the archived were frozen till all potential claimers died.

The assumption should be that information should be public and only information which protects lives or privacy should be kept secret. Organisations have a tendency to secrecy, usually unwarranted. It is important to break down the culture of secrecy.

No secrets? Please unlock your front door and publish your medical, credit card info and other financial info on the web to share with everyone. Just as every individual person has things they wish to keep private, so do governments. Common sense, really.

Brainiac,

In the U.S., they still won't release all the files on JFK's assassination until 2030. Why? What is in the files that could jeopardize national security?

Probably nothing.

But there is probably quite a lot that would cause some red faces!

The biggest crime these days is embarrassing someone in the government.

Look what happened to Snowden, Manning and Hastings:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/08/three-weeks-later-details-about-reporter-michael-hastings-death-in-fiery-car-crash-remain-a-mystery/

The only information that I think needs to be kept secret would be the names of undercover agents overseas. But all this talk about sealing files for decades because it involves national security seems like nonsense to me. In the U.S., they still won't release all the files on JFK's assassination until 2030. Why? What is in the files that could jeopardize national security?

Why would the government of a people, which is supposed to represent its people keep anything secret from those people?

Government without transparency is, or is on the road to tyranny.