Then he explains by saying that having less secrecy will make it harder for criminals to plot harmful deeds.
Later on, he gives examples of groups of people who have been better off once theyve revealed their secrets to society- naming homosexuals and HIV-AIDS sufferers. His view is contrasted to another which claims that “more information,
rather than less, is our best protection against misjudgment” (Rosen, 2000, as cited in Austin, 2006).
To conclude his article, the author compares the right for secrecy with Santa Claus and unicorns, claiming that it is unreal. He admits, however, that everyone needs their solitude and space, but claims that ignoring both the benefits of not having secrecy as well as the potential risks involved would be the wrong thing to do. that accepting our being flawed and being united by our common information will save us.
He says that the term “privacy” has many different interpretations to other people and groups of people, as the media has a very different notion of it than the common citizen. He quotes people who have said that some masquerade as reformers, while actually taking care of their own interests and that patriotism is used by scoundrels to further their own agendas (2008, p.13). Regardless of his opinion, even presidents have been known to be against secrecy, claiming that “the very word secrecy in a free and open society is repugnant” (Kennedy, as cited in Blumner, 2005).
In spite of this, Ackland may have a point. It is well known that the federal government of the United States “has a massive amount of secrets”, which is estimated in the millions each year (“Government Secrecy”, 2005). And there is no shortage of opponents of this secrecy: “we live in an open society where secrecy should be banished from the workings of the government” (Hamilton, 2006).