Open government and conspiracy theory

There has been a tremendous emphasis over the last decade or so from senior politicians in the UK on Government being open and transparent, such that the general public can see clearly how and why decisions are taken. This has been in response to a series of questionable political decisions starting with the poll tax legislation which led to riots and coming right through to the parliamentary expenses scandal and the current inquiry into press intrusion and links with police and politicians, but there are still an awful lot of questions about just what open Government means. I think there can be little doubt that within any political system there are some things which, by their nature, need to remain secret, at least whilst they are still current. I am thinking here of the fine details of current military operations, ongoing intelligence operations and police investigations. These are areas where free and open access to information could conceivably endanger the lives of service personnel and jeopardise the effectiveness of current operations. The case can also be made that release of information on military and police tactics whilst they are still in use can have serious implications for operational efficiency.

Having demonstrated that there needs to be a degree of secrecy within some aspects of political decision making, we arrive at the core of the problem of open Government as a concept. That problem is where exactly the lines are drawn as to where openness is acceptable and where it is not. Let us take an example of a contract for military equipment. You can argue that the process of awarding a contract to supply military equipment requires an element of secrecy to prevent the possibility of industrial espionage revealing details of weapons or defensive capabilities. Of course if you allow commercial decisions of this nature to be secret, what else do you have to keep secret? How about arms sales to international customers? Can it be argued that these should also be protected? How about in the field of energy production? Particularly where this relates to the development of nuclear power the case could be made perhaps.

You begin to see the issues I'm sure, but lets take it a step further into the realms of data collection and analysis. In order for police operations against organised crime to be effective, it is argued, there has to be secrecy in the way in which data is collected, the techniques involved and the way that that data is analysed. If this information is available then there is every chance that criminals will find ways to circumvent those data collection techniques and thereby reduce their effectiveness. Of course, having established methods and techniques of data gathering, and having demonstrated that these need to be kept secret, what are the chances that these might be extended to data collected on other targets? Isn't it possible that those same techniques, lets say the interception of mobile phone conversations or e-mails could be used to investigate perfectly legal campaign or protest groups, or worse still, might they not be used to leak information to the press in order to exert influence over high profile figures? It appears that this might be the case, but I'm sure the Leveson enquiry might reveal more on this subject.

So we have an ideal of open government, but this has to be balanced by the interests of national security. As long as the lines are being set by Government as they currently are there will always be questions about what exactly is being concealed, and what value can be placed on the information that is revealed. This is one of the fundamental reasons that conspiracy theories exist, and why investigative journalists and conspiracy researchers have to be taken at least slightly seriously. For every thousand nonsense stories of UFO's that turn out to be Chinese lanterns there is one story of how, for example, a British Prime Minister lied to Parliament and the electorate to engage British troops in a military action of questionable legality. I guess we will just have to keep asking questions and hoping that we can sort the wheat from the chaff.