Quote
If you’re a private organization, unless somebody complains, you can be as secretive as you want, especially with policies and trade secrets; but, if you’re fully or partly funded by taxpayers’ money, you have a social obligation to answer to public inquiries.
Tax-exempted religious organizations are considered partly funded by taxpayers' money. In an open society, inquiry is king.
I was assuming there is a limit so such openness, such as what assets are being moved. As opposed to being open about all activities.
But of course that would happen to the extent that is required by the law (which I don't know).
Quote
Privacy is negotiated in a context of fair dealing and mutual respect. Privacy is
consensual and all parties know all of the background information.
Secrecy is done in the context of a power imbalance and in which the underlings
are not given all information needed to give un coerced consent.
My point is about information control, we can use secrecy or another word:
If a person or group has some information, they would naturally exert control over what and to whom is being disclosed. And it would be their decision to negotiate.
Calling that "power imbalance" is too dramatic. It's quite simply an issue that I know something that you don't.
I can object to somebody being untruthful, but I see no objection to information control.
I guess that I'm saying that information control is the default and limited openness could be negotiated, while you're saying that openness is the default and privacy is to be negotiated.