On 15/12/2007, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David Goodman writes:
Yes, the board must have the discretion to
choose the appropriate
course, and in this instance it chose wrongly. It takes good
judgement to know how much to release, and the judgment proved not to
be good. The bias towards secrecy would be the apparent reason.
Apart from my disagreement about Goodman's evaluation of our
judgments, I am charmed to have been accused, for the first time in my
life, with a "bias towards secrecy." Anyone familiar with me or my
work would have presumed my bias had been in the opposite direction.
As Kant pointed out, acting against one's inclinations is often an
indicator of moral judgment.
I think the accusation was towards the board, not you. The board have,
on multiple occasions, chosen secrecy over transparency, and I don't
believe that they were all for legal reasons. I'm happy to believe
that you would only advise secrecy for legal reasons (it's not your
job to give advice for any other reasons, after all), but at the end
of the day, it isn't your decision, and your advise isn't the only
deciding factor.