Liberty, secrecy, and the right of assessment

DANIELE SANTORO , MANOHAR KUMAR
LIBERTY, SECRECY, AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
(Accep ed 13 Ap il 2024)
ABSTRACT. In his a icle we a gue ha go e nmen al p ac ices o sec ecy
h ea en he epis emic dimension o igh s. We de end he iew ha possessing a
igh en i les i s holde o he la ges ex en o a ailable knowledge o he ci -
cums ances ha may impede he enjoymen o ha igh . We call his he ‘epis-
emic en i lemen ’ o igh s. Such an en i lemen holds in ideal condi ions once ull
anspa ency is assumed. Howe e , unde non-ideal condi ions sec ecy is a ac
ha should be accoun ed o . We a gue ha , unde such condi ions, in e e ence
due o sec ecy is legi ima e when he ci cums ances unde which i occu s a e
open o assessmen by he igh -holde . We call his he ‘ igh o assessmen ’. I
ensu es he ex-pos ul illmen o he epis emic en i lemen unde non-ideal con-
di ions o pa ial compliance whe e ull anspa ency is una ainable due o he ac
o sec ecy. The igh o assessmen shields agains a bi a y in e e ence by
imposing an obliga ion on he go e nmen o p o ide jus i ica ion o any in e -
e ence in he sphe e o undamen al igh s.
I. INTRODUCTION
A common iew among poli ical and legal heo is s holds ha
go e nmen sec ecy is jus i ied in libe al-democ a ic socie ies due o
conside a ions o sa e y o public in e es . Sec e se ices and go -
e nmen secu i y agencies, i is a gued, p o ide indispensable in el-
ligence o na ional secu i y and he p e en ion o e o ism, hus
p o ec ing democ a ic ins i u ions om exis en ial h ea s. Sec ecy
agencies gene ally espond o he democ a ic au ho i y since he
ga he ing and classi ica ion o in o ma ion a e subjec o independen
con ol unde he law, including o e sigh bodies o elec ed ep e-
sen a i es and Cons i u ional Cou s.
In ecen yea s, he gene al us in he democ a ic unc ion o
sec ecy has been subjec ed o in ense c i icism due o whis leblowing
Law and Philosophy The Au ho (s) 2024
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10982-024-09504-5
disclosu es o sec e su eillance p og ams, gene a ing an impassioned
dialec ic be ween ad oca es and c i ics o eme gency poli ics. Acco ding
o some au ho s,al hough sec ecy may impinge on cons i u ional igh s,
na ional secu i y is a pa amoun good ha jus i ies balancing be ween
secu i yandpe sonallibe iesin imeso eme gency
1
.AsRicha dPosne
pu i , he cons i u ion is no a ‘suicide pac ’
2
. On he opposi e on ,
ad oca es o democ a ic anspa ency a gue ha he balance model
au ho izes un es ained sec ecy, ha is, sec ecy
3
eschewing p ope
judicial and pa liamen a y o e sigh . Un es ained sec ecy limi s ci i-
zens’ igh o be in o med abou decisions and policies enac ed in hei
name and, consequen ly, hey a e dep i ed o hei abili y o assess
secu i ypolicies.Only he anspa ency o go e nmen ac s can ul ill he
ci izen’s igh o in o ma ion.
Democ a ic heo y seems o ely oo o en on a gene ic ideal o
anspa ency, neglec ing he complica ions a ising om implemen -
ing i . The ad oca es o he balance model a e mo e ealis ic in his
ega d. They main ain ha he e is no p incipled answe o how
much anspa ency is needed o p o ec igh s and democ a ic
1
Fo a de ense o his iew, see Richa d Posne , No a Suicide Pac : The Cons i u ion in a ime o
Na ional Eme gency (New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2006); E ic A. Posne and Ad ian Ve meule,
Te o in he Balance: Secu i y, Libe y, and he Cou s. (New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2007); E ic A.
Posne and Ad ian Ve meule, The Execu i e Unbound:A e he Madisonian Republic (New Yo k: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess, 2010); Rahul Saga Sec e s and Leaks: The Dilemma o S a e Sec ecy (P ince on: P ince on
Uni e si y P ess, 2013); Rahul Saga ‘Who Holds he Balance? A Missing De ail in he Deba e o e
Balancing Secu i y and Libe y’, Poli y 41(2) (2009): 166–188. Fo a c i icism o he balance, see Je emy
Wald on, ‘Secu i y and libe y: The image o balance’, Jou nal o Poli ical Philosophy 11(2) (2003): 191–
210. See also Cass R. Suns ein, ‘Go e nmen con ol o in o ma ion’, Cali o nia Law Re iew 74(3)
(1986): 889–892, and Daniel J. Solo e, ‘Da a mining and he secu i y-libe y deba e’, The Uni e si y o
Chicago Law Re iew 75(1) (2008): 343–362, o a c i ique o he p io i y assigned o he secu i y in e es .
B uce Acke man discusses he implica ion o he libe y-secu i y ade-o wi hin he con ex o a
no ma i e p oposal on B uce Acke man., ‘The eme gency cons i u ion’, Yale Law Jou nal (113) (2004):
1029–1091.
2
Posne , No a Suicide Pac (New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2006), ci ing a ema k o iginally
made by Jus ice Robe Jackson, la e aken up by Jus ice A hu Goldbe g and Ronald Dwo kin.
3
We con ine ou discussion o na ional secu i y sec ecy, speci ically ocusing on he managemen o
in o ma ion conce ning in elligence. This o m o ‘execu i e’ sec ecy is equi ed du ing he execu ion o
eme gency powe s, including he concealmen o speci ic ope a ional de ails, plans, s a egies, o ac ics
ha a e c ucial o e ec i ely espond o and manage he cons i u ional eme gency. I is dis inc om
con iden ial and closed-doo delibe a ions ha occu wi hin go e nmen s and legisla i e bodies du ing
discussions on which dec ees and o he eme gency measu es o implemen . We don’ discuss his o m
o ‘delibe a i e’ sec ecy in legisla i e delibe a ions. These deba es can be ound in Amy Gu mann and
Dennis F. Thompson, Democ acy and Disag eemen (Camb idge, Mass.: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1996),
chap e 3; Simone Chambe s, ‘Behind closed doo s: publici y, sec ecy and he quali y o delibe a ion’,
Jou nal o Poli ical Philosophy, 12 (2004), 389–410; Jon Els e , ‘Delibe a ion and cons i u ion making’,
Delibe a i e Democ acy, ed. Jon Els e (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1988), pp. 97–112; and
mo e ecen ly in B ian Kogelmann, Sec ecy Go e nmen . The Pa hologies o Publici y (Camb idge: Cam-
b idge Uni e si y P ess, 2022). Fo an o e iew o he deba e on sec ecy and anspa ency, see also
B ian Kogelmann, ‘Sec ecy and anspa ency in poli ical philosophy’, Philosophy Compass, 16(4) (2021):
1–10.
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
accoun abili y since any amoun o in o ma ion can be dange ous
when he ci cums ances a e unp opi ious. Since igh s ha e o be
balanced agains coun e ailing in e es s o na ional secu i y, he
indi idual igh o in o ma ion is also subjec o limi a ion when he
ci cums ances demand i . When he igh o in o ma ion is limi ed,
ins i u ional anspa ency is los , a leas wi hin he ime ame o
na ional eme gencies. The implausibili y o his iew es s on i s
no ma i e consequences. I s p ima y injunc ion s ems om a claim
o necessi y: democ acies should acco d high disc e iona y powe s o
he execu i e (who has access o sec e in o ma ion) o decide when
he ci cums ances equi e shi ing he balance owa ds mo e secu-
i y. Ye , once he go e nmen claims exclusi e con ol o in o -
ma ion, he egula o y sys em o checks and balances becomes
ine ec i e. No only a e o dina y ci izens dep i ed o in o ma ion,
bu also elec ed ep esen a i es and he judicial b anch may be asked
o de e hei powe o con ol. Consequen ly, he p e oga i es o
s a e sec ecy a e always p one o abuse.
4
In wha ollows, we explo e he ole o sec ecy in limi ing public
accoun abili y by paying a en ion o wha we call he ‘epis emic
dimension’ o igh s.
5
In Sec ion II, we a gue ha he limi a ions
imposed on igh s by wha we call ‘un es ained’ sec ecy can be
be e g asped by looking a how lack o knowledge impai s hei
exe cise. Decisions a go e nmen makes in he name o i s ci izens
may ep esen an unjus i ied in e e ence wi h hei igh s no less
han o he o ms o mo e di ec in e e ence. Fi s , we p esen he
in ui i e a gumen and hen show how he epis emic equi emen s
on ee ac ion p o ide a condi ion o he ull enjoymen o igh s.
We claim ha limi ing indi idual igh s is only jus i iable when
indi iduals possess an ‘epis emic en i lemen ’ o access all ele an
in o ma ion ega ding ci cums ances ha could hinde he exe cise
4
Al hough he ocus o ou pape is on execu i e sec ecy du ing na ional eme gencies, he a gu-
men holds o o he o ms o sec ecy, o ins ance hose in ol ed in igh ing o ganized c ime, whe e
he p e oga i es o secu i y may equi e he execu i e o main ain sec ecy h ough co e su eillance
ope a ions. Ou con en ion is ha any o m o sec ecy, in eme gency o non-eme gency ci cums ances,
gene a es an asymme y be ween hose who con ol he in o ma ion and hose who don’ . The main
a gumen holds ega dless o he ci cums ances o sec ecy and he easons o which i is p oclaimed.
Howe e , gi en he scope o his pape , he ocus is on he impac ha sec ecy has on igh s, mo e
exac ly ci il libe ies. We hank an anonymous e iewe o p essing us o cla i y he dis inc ion.
5
Fo a p elimina y o mula ion o he a gumen , see Daniele San o o and Manoha Kuma , Speaking
T u h o Powe . A Theo y o Whis leblowing (Sp inge , 2018), chap e 4 whe e we ou lined he gene al idea
o an epis emic amewo k o igh s. In his pape , we e ine he a gumen and p o ide a o mal
jus i ica ion o he epis emic ea u es o igh s as pa o a concep ion o ci il libe ies.
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
o hei igh s. Howe e , he epis emic en i lemen may con lic wi h
genuine secu i y equi emen s in eal-wo ld democ acies, whe e ull
anspa ency may expose c ucial in o ma ion o po en ial enemies o
in espionage ac i i ies and, in he p ocess, h ea ens na ional secu-
i y. When his is he case, he go e nmen ’s p e oga i e o classi y
in o ma ion is jus i ied on he g ounds o na ional secu i y and public
sa e y. In Sec ion III, we discuss he in ingemen o ci il libe ies as a
model o igh s in gene al. We de end he iew ha when non-ideal
ci cums ances equi e he enac men o sec ecy measu es, hose
measu es a e jus i ied p o ided he agen s a e en i led o an ex-pos
assessmen o he g ounds behind he limi a ion o hei libe ies. We
call such an en i lemen ‘ he igh o assessmen ’. When he igh o
assessmen is iola ed by abuse o sec ecy, ou libe ies a e a isk,
and he e y abili y o pe sons o ac and judge au onomously is
comp omised.
II. THE EPISTEMIC CONDITIONS OF RIGHTS
Th ea s o igh s come no only om ex e nal enemies bu also om
domes ic o ces, be i he go e nmen o agencies whose p e oga-
i es o en s e ch beyond he le e o he Cons i u ion. This is also
he case o sec ecy ope a ions. Edwa d Snowden’s disclosu es o he
NSA su eillance p og ams ha e e ealed he ex en o which
secu i y agencies nowadays can conduc mass su eillance by
accessing p i a e da a in bulk wi hou au ho iza ion.
6
In esponse o
he g owing public ou age, go e nmen s ha e in oked he need o
balance libe y and secu i y in he excep ional ci cums ances im-
posed by he h ea o public sa e y,
7
and law-abiding ci izens should
ha e no cause o conce n in being subjec ed o in es iga ions o
su eillance i hey ha e no hing o hide.
6
See he ansc ip s o Glenn G eenwald’s in e iew wi h Ed Snowden ha ma ked he ou b eak o
he NSA ga e: Glenn G eenwald, No Place o Hide: Edwa d Snowden, he NSA, and he US Su eillance S a e
(New Yo k: Me opoli an Books, 2014). On he same ma e , see also Luke Ha ding, The Snowden
Files. The Inside S o y o Wo ld’s Mos Wan ed Man (New Yo k: Vin age Books, 2014).
7
Acco ding o E ic Posne and Ad ian Ve meule, who epi omize his iew, he ole o he s a e and
ole o policymake s is o s ike a balance, especially when s a es o eme gency equi e ex ao dina y
measu es. See Posne and Ve meule, Te o in he Balance: Secu i y (New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess,
2007), pp. 15–130, Ad ian Ve meule, ‘Secu i y and Libe y: C i iques o he T adeo Thesis’, in The Long
Decade: How 9/11 Changed he Law, eds. Da id Jenkins, Amanda Jacobsen, and Ande s Hen iksen (New
Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2014), pp. 31–44. See also San o o & Kuma , Speaking T u h o Powe ,
chap e 4 o a c i ique o he model.
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
Howe e , he consequences o balancing libe y and secu i y a e
mo e a - eaching han an excep ional in e e ence wi h indi idual
igh s. Since a c ucial measu e o a sec ecy ope a ion’s success is i s
capaci y o keep in elligence con iden ial, i is exac ly when i is mos
success ul ha sec ecy can be easily abused. Sec ecy inhe en ly isks
becoming un es ained by dep i ing ci izens and o e sigh ins i u-
ions o he in o ma ion needed o exe cise he powe o public
supe ision.
8
The issue is no o legali y, o un es ained sec ecy is
o en legal: excep o co e ope a ions ha all ou side he chain o
command, sec e policies, mili a y ope a ions, and classi ica ion o
documen s a e all au ho ized by public o icials ac ing wi hin hei
powe . Wha dis inguishes un es ained sec ecy om o he o ms o
classi ied ac i i y is ha un es ained sec ecy ep esen s a dis inc i e
iola ion o igh s, i.e., i denies ci izens he en i lemen o assess
which es ic ions on hei igh s a e jus i ied by he ci cums ances in
which go e nmen s ope a e.
A. Th ee Fo ms o In e e ence
Un es ained sec ecy poses signi ican isks o he enjoymen o
igh s because i dep i es ci izens o hei en i lemen o assess he
es ic ion on hei igh s. The easoning in a o o his claim mo es
om he p emise ha a concep ion o igh s speci ies he eedoms
o which a igh -holde is en i led by i ue o possessing a igh .
9
We assume ha a igh is an en i lemen an agen has o eedom o
ac ion and choice wi hin he scope de ined by ha igh . Righ s, in
o he wo ds, p o ec he pe son’s capaci y o ac independen ly o
8
Un es ained sec ecy denies no only anspa ency, bu also he igh o ob ain a jus i ica ion o
why a pa icula documen o decision is sec e ed. No only does i iola e he du y o anspa ency, bu
i also spa es he go e nmen om being accoun able o i s ac s. Fo a classic, ye s ill ins uc i e
discussion o he isks inhe en o sec ecy and how sec ecy a ec s he public domain, see Sissela Bok,
Sec e s. On he E hics o Concealmen and Re ela ion (New Yo k: Pan heon, 1983), especially pp. 5–9.
9
See Wald on’s in oduc ion o Je emy Wald on, ed. Theo ies o igh s (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess, 1992), pp. 1–20, and Lei Wena , ‘Epis emic igh s and legal igh s’, Analysis 63(278) (2003): 142–146.
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT

ex e nal cons ain s, such as he es ic ion o ee mo emen .
10
Classic libe al heo is s ha e emphasized he absence o in e e ence
as a necessa y condi ion o p o ec ing poli ical eedom. Howe e ,
his iew seems oo na ow, o i neglec s o he kinds o in e e -
ence o e and beyond o e coe cion ha a ec eedom o ac ion.
Neo- epublicans, such as Philipp Pe i , ha e no ably insis ed on his
poin , a guing ha he e is a di e ence be ween conceding eedom
and gua an eeing eedom om a bi a y in e e ence.
11
A pe son
can ac wi hou being subjec o di ec in e e ence and s ill be no
ee i she lacks su icien legal and cons i u ional p o ec ions om
he powe a mas e can exe cise o e he eedom. When a pe son is
subjec ed o a bi a y in e e ence – he a gues – she lacks eedom ‘as
he social s a us o being ela i ely p oo agains a bi a y in e e -
ence by o he s, and o being able o enjoy a sense o secu i y and
s anding among hem’.
12
Non-domina ion is he condi ion o
enjoying pe sonal secu i y agains he con ingencies o a bi a y
in e e ence in all hose possible ci cums ances in which a dominium
may decide o exe cise his powe .
13
I is his obus eedom, ee-
dom om domina ion, ha libe als neglec .
Ano he sho coming o his na ow concep ion o non-in e e -
ence conce ns he ac o s ha in luence he o ma ion o he will. A
pe son may be subjec o cogni i e and epis emic limi s in he o -
ma ion o he will. She may also neglec o no be able o ecognize
he easons o ac in ways ha a e bes o he . These cons ain s,
howe e , do no unde mine poli ical eedom. An in e e ence is
10
I is common in he li e a u e o dis inguish be ween will heo ies and in e es heo ies o igh s.
Fo a gene al in oduc ion o he deba e o e he will s. in e es heo ies o igh s, see Hillel S eine , An
Essay on Righ s (Ox o d UK and Camb idge USA: Blackwell, 1994); Joseph Raz, The Mo ali y o F eedom
(Ox o d: Cla endon P ess, 1986); Pe e Jones, Righ s (London: MacMillan, 1994); and Lei Wena ,
‘Righ s’, The S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Sp ing 2021). Fo an engaged iew o he a gumen s
in a o and agains hese posi ions, see Ma hew K ame , N. E. Simmonds, H. S eine (eds), A Deba e
O e Righ s (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1998). Some imes he same dis inc ion is d awn in e ms
o ‘choice’ and ‘bene i s’. See S eine , An Essay on Righ s, (Blackwell, 1994): 57–73, and Jones, Righ s
(London: MacMillan, 1994): 26–35. Acco ding o will heo is s, igh s p o ec he igh holde ’s au ho i y
– o choice – o en o ce (o wai e) o he s’ du y o comply wi h he claim o he igh -holde p o ec ed
unde he scope o he igh in ques ion. On he o he hand, in e es heo ies concei e o igh s as
p o ec ing i al human in e es s, and hose in e es s cons i u e he g ound o he co ela i e du y o
espec ha igh . Ou cha ac e iza ion o igh s is impa ial be ween hese wo concep ions. We
assume ha a igh p o ec s he pe son’s capaci y o au onomous choice, which is also a undamen al
in e es o agen s. Such an in e es does no consis in a speci ic unc ional esou ce, bu in he
au ho i a i e capaci y o go e n one’s conduc ha de ines he concep o agency.
11
See Philip Pe i , Republicanism: A Theo y o F eedom and Go e nmen : A Theo y o F eedom and
Go e nmen (New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1997), pp. 51–79.
12
Ibid., p. ii.
13
Ibid., p. 25.
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
ele an o poli ical eedom only when i is in en ional. Decep ion
is such a case, o he agen ’s eedom is comp omised by inducing
alse o misleading belie s ha a ec he agen ’s choices. Simila ly,
manipula ion leads he agen o adop goals she would no o he wise
emb ace. When a pe son is manipula ed o decei ed, she hinks she
ac s ou o he own will when ins ead, she does no .
14
Domina ion,
manipula ion, and decep ion a e indi ec iola ions o poli ical ee-
dom. Domina ion exe cises a cons an h ea ha leads o unce -
ain y and sel -censo ship p omp ed by ea . Manipula ion and
decep ion al e he pe sonal app aisal o he op ions a ailable wi hin
an oppo uni y se by mis ep esen ing he agen ’s op ions, o by
misleading someone o choose op ions agains he bes in e es s.
15
A hi d and mo e sub le o m o indi ec in e e ence is due o
go e nmen su eillance, ha is, by all hose ins i u ional p ac ices o
con ol and classi ied s o age o in o ma ion conce ning he agen ’s
ac i i ies in manne s unbeknown o he agen . We may call i sec e
in e e ence since su eillance ac i i ies, such as wi e apping o
digi al acking o communica ions, do no coe ce o p e en an
agen om ac ing, no is he agen induced o o m belie s o adop
goals she would no usually pu sue.
16
Su eillance does no ei he
induce sel -censo ship. The pa adigm case is su eillance in ol ing
he iola ion o p i acy: con e sa ions o in e ne sea ches may be
sys ema ically moni o ed, wi hou p e en ing he agen om
engaging in hose ac i i ies, bu wi h he belie ha he ac i i y is
con iden ial. Bu , i an agen is unawa e ha he con e sa ions a e
14
How manipula ion and decep ion may a ec poli ical libe y is discussed a leng h in Philip Pe i ,
On People’s Own Te ms. A Republican Theo y and Model o Democ acy (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess. 2012), chap e 1. Pe i a gues ha we should dis inguish be ween wo o ms o hind ances o he
eedom o choice: hind ances ha a ec he sa is ac ion o one’s will by a ec ing he use o esou ces in
gene al and hose ha a ec he use o esou ces o speci ic pu poses (pp. 37–39). While gene ic
hind ances may i ia e he eedom o choice, only speci ic hind ances a e in asi e and inhe en ly
inimical o eedom o choice (p.38): ‘To su e in asion is o be denied he e y condi ion by which
eedom is iden i ied: o be hwa ed in making he choice acco ding o you will’. (p.43).
15
In Pe i ’s sense, hey a e in asi e hind ances because hey mis ep esen he op ions in he
oppo uni y se o a si ua ion o choice (On People’s Own Te ms, pp. 54–56). Fo a e iew o he deba e
on how manipula ion and decep ions a e in e wined, see Robe Noggle, ‘The E hics o Manipula ion’,
The S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Summe 2022 Edi ion).
16
See San o o & Kuma , Speaking T u h o Powe ,chap e 4 o a discussion o su eillance and
wi e apping as a case o indi ec in e e ence. A case in poin is he mass iola ion o cons i u ional
igh s exposed by Snowden’s iles on PRISM and he ‘Boundless In o man ’ p og am. See G eenwald,
No Place o Hide, (New Yo k: Me opoli an Books, 2014): Chap e 3.
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
being moni o ed, she lacks essen ial in o ma ion o choose whe he
o no o engage in ha ac i i y.
17
Sec e su eillance is dis inc om o he o ms o indi ec in e -
e ence such as manipula ion and decep ion. Admi edly, bo h hese
o ms o in e e ence may equi e a ce ain amoun o sec ecy, bu
no necessa ily so. Manipula ion can be o e , o ins ance, when a
pe son is induced o ac in ways ha a e de imen al o he in e es s
despi e being ad ised by o he s agains i . As o decep ion, i seems
o in ol e some deg ee o sec ecy abou he in en ions o decei e ,
and we can indeed hink o su eillance policies as decep i e o some
ex en , especially when hey a e p esen ed o he public as na owe
in scope han hey a e. Howe e , decep ion does no necessa ily
imply sec e su eillance. Decep ion is a o m o communica i e
in e ac ion in which he decei e su ep i iously leads he decei ed
o belie e some hing con a y o ac s o he in e es s. On he o he
hand, sec e su eillance is in isible o he su eilled subjec in ways
ha a e comple ely un aceable and whe e no communica ion is
equi ed.
When a igh is iola ed by sec e su eillance, he e is no
in e e ence wi h he ac ion bu wi h he in o ma ional esou ces
needed o enjoy hose igh s and eedom. Wi hou ha in o ma ion,
an agen is denied he eedom o decide whe he he in o ma ion is
ele an o he choice o ac .
B. The Epis emic En i lemen
To app ecia e he ole ha in o ma ion (o lack he eo ) plays in he
iola ion o igh s, we sugges speci ying a equi emen implici in
he concep o igh s: exe cising a igh en i les he igh -holde –
in e alia – o he la ges ex en o a ailable knowledge o he
17
In addi ion o he igh o p i acy, o he igh s may also be comp omised. Conside he ca ego y
o igh s called p i ileges, such as he p i ilege agains sel -inc imina ion. Since i is in he agen ’s igh
o e ain om an ac i i y ha could lead o he inc imina ion, he p i ilege- igh agains sel -inc im-
ina ion is po en ially a ec ed by mass su eillance p og ams. I is a ma e o con en ion whe he he
p i ilege agains sel -inc imina ion necessa ily holds in cases o law ul and mo e a ge ed su eillance,
such as co up ion o d ug- ela ed ope a ions. Bu law ul su eillance equi es judicial au ho iza ion
ha lacks in cases o un es ained sec ecy, whe e he agen exp esses no consen . Some imes, whe he
au ho ized o no , su eillance can also impinge on o he igh s, such as he a o ney-clien p i ilege.
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
in e e ence ha may a ec he choice. Such a equi emen we call
he ‘epis emic en i lemen ’ o igh s.
18
We can o mula e he epis-
emic en i lemen as ollows:
(E) Fo agen A o enjoy a igh R:
(i) Amus no be subjec ed o a bi a y in e e ence (di ec o indi ec ) wi hin he scope o R;
(ii) Amus be able o know ha (i) holds.
(E) speci ies a iadic ela ion be ween an agen , an ac ion, and a
cons ain . The i s condi ion is he classical concep ion o igh s as
p o ec ing eedom om a bi a y in e e ence.
19
The second con-
di ion es ablishes he epis emic en i lemen : since one canno p op-
e ly exe cise a igh unless one also knows he cons ain s o ha
choice, being ee om a bi a y cons ain s implies ha one knows
o be ee om hose cons ain s. O cou se, he e a e cases when he
agen is unconce ned abou he s a us as a igh -holde . Me ely
ailing o know ha she is no subjec ed o in e e ence when he
in o ma ion is accessible wi h easonable ime and e o does no
coun as a iola ion o igh s. I is he in en ional wi hholding o
in o ma ion, despi e he agen ’s e o , ha has no ma i e signi i-
cance. I ollows ha , since a igh p o ec s eedom o choice om
a bi a y in e e ence, an agen p ope ly enjoys a igh when she is
en i led o he knowledge o he condi ions o choice p o ec ed unde
ha igh .
Once he epis emic en i lemen is clea ly a icula ed, he h ea o
igh s posed by go e nmen al sec ecy becomes mani es . Sec ecy no
only in inges on ci izens’ igh s when i di ec ly o co e ly in e -
e es wi h he exe cise o hose igh s bu also when i hinde s hei
en i lemen o knowledge abou he ci cums ances in which igh s
a e exe cised. The e o e, al hough sec ecy may no seem o es ain
one’s eedom o ac , i does a ec he en i lemen o igh holde s o
18
Wena de ends a iew o igh s ha he calls ‘epis emic’, hough no in he con ex we explo e
he e (Wena , ‘Epis emic igh s and legal igh s’). Mo e ecen ly, Lani Wa son p esen ed a comp ehensi e
iew o epis emic igh s as ‘ igh s conce ning goods such as in o ma ion, knowledge and u h’ (Lani
Wa son, The Righ o Know. Epis emic Righ s and Why We Need Them. (London and New Yo k: Rou ledge,
2021), p. 5). Ou iew is dis inc om Wa son’s. Wa son is in e es ed in elucida ing he na u e o igh s
whose con en is an epis emic good. We a e in e es ed in elucida ing which epis emic equi emen s
a ec igh s in gene al, no jus epis emic igh s. In ou iew, also epis emic igh s in Wa son’s sense a e
subjec o epis emic equi emen s. Fo a ecen e iew o he li e a u e on his opic, see Rubén Ma ciel
‘On ci izens’ igh o in o ma ion: Jus i ica ion and analysis o he democ a ic igh o be well in o med’,
Jou nal o Poli ical Philosophy (31) (2023): 358– 384.
19
MacCallum o iginally de eloped he iadic ela ion wi h ega d o eedom (Ge ald MacCallum,
‘Nega i e and posi i e eedom’. The Philosophical Re iew 76(3) (1967): 312–334).
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
equi e access and e alua ion o he pa icula ci cums ances ha
p omp a gene al es ic ion in he sys em o libe ies. This is ypi-
cally he case when an eme gency policy o dec ee shi s in he
balance be ween libe y and secu i y leans owa ds inc eased secu-
i y. Absen p ope jus i ica ions o he applica ion o hese p o isos,
any in e e ence wi h he libe ies o a pe son would be a bi a y,
and a h ea indeed o he gene al sys em o igh s.
I is in he en o cemen o his p o iso ha he igh o assessmen
plays a pi o al ole agains he abuse o s a e sec ecy because i
sha es wi h he no ion o immuni y, in he Hoh eldian sense, he
unc ion o p o ec ing libe ies om he legal powe o he go -
e nmen . In his sense, he igh o assessmen can be desc ibed as a
second-o de igh in he wo-ply s uc u e o ci il libe ies. I is
‘second-o de ’ in he sense ha i depends on he en o cemen o
ci il libe ies, which a e subs an i e igh s. I is a ‘ igh ’ because i is a
claim co ela i e o he s a e du y o e ain om unduly al e ing
hose libe ies. Ye , i is a dis inc i e igh , because i imposes an
epis emic obliga ion on s a e au ho i ies o disclose in o ma ion on
he legal s anding o he igh -holde , when ha s anding is modi ied,
and a jus i ica ion o such in e e ence.
B. Scope and Applica ion o he Righ o Assessmen
We showed ha he igh o assessmen is pa o he s uc u e ci il
libe ies and ha i s p o ec i e unc ion is ele an o he sys em o
igh s in gene al. Howe e , a po en ial objec ion agains he igh o
assessmen is ha , when i comes o i s en o cemen , i s scope is
limi ed. In e e ing wi h he libe y o a pe son in a pa icula in-
s ance may a ec he ci il libe ies, bu does no appea o unde -
mine he gene al sys em o igh s, e en when he in e e ence is
unjus i ied and no due assessmen is p o ided. An example is he
case o Anwa al-Awlaki, an Ame ican bo n US-ci izen and alleged
Al-Qaeda membe , who was killed in 2011 by an Ame ican d one
s ike in Yemen o de ed by he P esiden . As he Al-Awlaki’s amily
and ci il libe ies g oups challenged he legi imacy o he o de on
he g ound ha he go e nmen had iola ed he ‘ undamen al igh s
unde he US cons i u ion o due p ocess and o be ee om
un easonable seizu e’, he Fede al Cou dismissed he cha ges
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR

decla ing ha he o icials in ol ed ac ed ‘in acco dance wi h he US
cons i u ion when hey in en ionally a ge a US ci izen ab oad a he
di ec ion o he p esiden and wi h he concu ence o Cong ess’.
29
While his case may cas se e e doub s o cons i u ionali y – he
a gumen goes – i does no seem o in ol e conce ns o he igh s
o law-abiding ci izens. This a gumen is sho -sigh ed, hough: he
iola ion o libe ies and due p ocess in one ins ance does a ec he
sys em o igh s in gene al o i unde mines he p o ec i e unc ion
o igh s agains in e e ence in possible u u e ci cums ances ha
may in ol e e en he law-abiding ci izen. Due jus i ica ion unde he
igh o assessmen is equi ed o p o ide a sa egua d agains he
a bi a y ex ension o hose in ingemen s beyond hei o iginal
scope. Equali y be o e he law, and he e y idea o he ule o law,
ha e his p o ec i e unc ion and do no admi case-based excep-
ions. The Al-Awlaki con o e sy is exempla y o his h ea o he
gene al sys em o igh s ha esul s om he judicial de e ence o
he execu i e powe : once he cons i u ional powe s o he p esiden
a e in e p e ed o dismiss he liabili y o o icials in he assassina ion,
he e y mechanism o ed ess is called in o ques ion, and along wi h
i he en o ceabili y o igh s in gene al. This is a conce n o e e y
ci izen, e en when hey ind ha a secu i y policy is o e all jus i ied.
The e o e, any excep ion o equal ci il libe ies unde he p o iso o
gene al secu i y men ioned abo e (i ) should only be allowed when
he pe son is g an ed he igh o assess he ci cums ances o hei
suspension o limi a ion. In o de o cla i y his poin , le ’s conside
h ee cases. They a e ela ed, espec i ely, o he limi a ion o he
igh s o due p ocess,habeas co pus, and judicial e iew.
The i s case is when su eillance o es ic ion on eedom o
mo emen a e adop ed as p ecau iona y measu es e en i no c ime
has been commi ed and hose subjec ed o in es iga ion a e no
in o med o hei legal s anding. Take, o ins ance, he no- ly lis
main ained by he US T anspo a ion Secu i y Adminis a ion. John
G aham, an ex-ope a i e o he s a e depa men o secu i y, was pu
on he lis wi hou p io knowledge.
30
No cha ges we e le eled
agains him, and he was denied he igh o due p ocess. This se-
e ely cu ailed no only his igh o mo emen bu –in his own
29
See ‘D one killings case h own ou in US’, The Gua dian, Ap il 5, 2014.
30
John G aham, ‘Who’s Wa ching he Wa ch Lis ?’, Al e Ne , July 6, 2005.
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
wo ds– his igh o ea n a li elihood ha is linked o his eedom o
a el. E en assuming he measu e was jus i ied, he e is no g ound
o judge i s legi imacy. Unlike su eillance, no- ly lis ing does no
equi e co e in usions in he p i a e sphe e o he indi iduals
(al hough we mus assume ha au ho i ies un backg ound checks).
Howe e , ope a ions o his so a e s ill qui e in usi e o people’s
igh s, o he e usal o o e a jus i ica ion, leas o all o p o ide a
no ice o in es iga ion, amoun s o a iola ion o he ex-an e en i-
lemen implici in he enjoymen o he eedom o mo emen .
A di e en case, in ol ing he iola ion o habeas co pus, is he
despicable p ac ice o endi ion adop ed by he US go e nmen pos
9/11 o dealing wi h suspec ed e o is s. The no o ious case o Abu
Oma , an Egyp ian ci izen g an ed asylum in I aly, who was illegally
abduc ed by CIA agen s om he s ee s o Milan wi h he com-
plici y o he I alian police and he conni ance o he local go e n-
men , p o ides e idence ha sec e p ac ices canno in p inciple
o e a wa an y o he p o ec ion o he igh o assessmen , hus
lea ing pe sons in a condi ion o unce ain y wi h ega d o hei
legal s anding. When he legal p o ec ion o he law is i ia ed by
sec ecy, ecognizing he o iginal en i lemen o pe sons o an
assessmen o hei legal s anding is he only g ound one can appeal
o.
The hi d case is when judicial e iew
31
is unde mined by he
execu i e b anch. Exempla y is he condi ion o he Guan ánamo
Bay p isone s: s ill in July 2023, 30 p isone s we e inca ce a ed in he
p ison, 3 o which as ‘inde ini e de ainees’, a pseudo-legal ca ego y
employing which se e al go e nmen s may de ain pe sons wi hou
ial.
32
Enac ed by he Bush Adminis a ion du ing he ‘wa on e -
o ’, jus i ica ion o his p ac ice was ound in he sel -asse ed
31
‘The powe o he judicia y… o de e mine whe he he ac s o o he b anches o he go e nmen
a e in acco dance wi h he Cons i u ion’ (John Pa ick, John J., Richa d M. Pious, and Donald A. Ri chie,
The Ox o d Guide o he Uni ed S a es Go e nmen . (New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2001), p. 348).
32
The lis o de ainees is a ailable on he New Yo k Times’ Guan ánamo Docke da abase. Ou o he
30 s ill in cus ody as o July 2023 ‘11 ha e been cha ged wi h wa c imes in he mili a y commissions
sys em – 10 a e awai ing ial and one has been con ic ed. In addi ion, h ee de ainees a e held in
inde ini e law-o -wa de en ion and a e nei he acing ibunal cha ges no being ecommended o
elease. And 16 a e held in law-o -wa de en ion bu ha e been ecommended o ans e wi h secu i y
a angemen s o ano he coun y’. New Yo k Times. h ps://www.ny imes.com/in e ac i e/p ojec s/
guan anamo ( e ie ed on July 5, 2023).Inde ini e de en ion is s ill en o ced in he Uni ed S a es unde
he Na ional De ense Au ho iza ion Ac (NDAA) o 2012, sec ions 1021–1022. Acco ding o ACLU and
some House Rep esen a i es, hese sec ions suspend habeas co pus and he igh o ial e en o
Ame ican ci izens. Inde ini e de en ion is s ill in o ce in he NDAA 2017 (Publ. L. 114–328 – Dec. 23,
2016).
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
assump ion ha cou s should de e o he mili a y in de e mining
ha an indi idual is an enemy comba an .
33
Al hough his p ac ice
has aised nume ous c i icisms and is now much less endo sed, he
p isone s cu en ly de ained in Guan anamo a e conside ed s ill oo
dange ous o be eleased and ye ineligible o ial due o insu icien
e idence.
34
C. Some Objec ions Conside ed
We a gued ha he scope o he igh o assessmen emb aces he
whole sys em o igh s, and we desc ibed h ee cases in which i can
ind conc e e applica ion. When p esen ed wi h hese cases, how-
e e , we should conside some objec ions.
To begin wi h, one migh wonde whe he he igh o assess-
men holds uncondi ionally o , ins ead, i is me ely a egula i e
p inciple ha democ acies need no adhe e o, especially when na-
ional secu i y o public sa e y is endange ed.
35
Once he suspension
o habeas co pus and due p ocess is conside ed pe missible, he igh
o a p ope jus i ica ion is de ac o o e idden, wi hou any u he
measu e o ed ess, including he appeal o judicial e iew. One
could ead he e usal o indic he o icials in ol ed in he assassi-
na ion o Al-Awlaki as a case o his so .
33
See Paus (2003: 504, 4) epo ing he Depa men o Jus ice’s decla a ions in he Hamdi .
Rums eld Cou o Appeal case (Hamdi . Rums eld 296 F.3d). The case led o he Sup eme Cou Ruling
Hamdi . Rums eld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), which es ablished ha he go e nmen had he powe o de ain
enemy comba an s, bu g an ed he igh s o due p ocess o US ci izens.
34
See Jo dan J. Paus , ‘Judicial Powe To De e mine he S a us and Righ s o Pe sons De ained
Wi hou T ial’ (Ha a d In e na ional Law Jou nal 44(2) (2003): 503–607), pp. 504–505 o a ho ough
c i icism. In a majo i y uling in 2004, he B i ish House o Lo ds sen enced ha he inde ini e de en ion
o suspec ed e o is s is incompa ible wi h he Human Righ s Ac and he Eu opean Con en ion on
Human Righ s. See: A(FC) and o he s (FC) (Appellan s) . Sec e a y o S a e o he Home Depa men
(Responden ), 16 Decembe 2004.
35
I is commonplace among go e nmen and secu i y expe s o ea na ional o public secu i y
ma e s as exemp ed om he du y o disclosu e, o ins ance when in elligence is equi ed o p e en
e o is a acks. Al hough he a gumen is a ely spelled ou in p ope de ail, he exemp ion seems o
de i e om he s a e’s du y o p o ec i s ci izens, which o e ides he epis emic en i lemen . Bu i
public secu i y is deemed necessa y o p o ec ci izens’ igh s – and i is as a ma e o ac – he e mus
be an app op ia e assessmen , pe haps de e ed in ime, o p o e he necessi y in ques ion. A ha d case
would be whe e only he igh s o some pe sons a e limi ed in o de o sa egua d he secu i y o a as
majo i y. This is a classic case o a con lic among igh s. We concede ha he con lic migh be
esol ed a he expense o a mino i y, p o ided ha a due jus i ica ion is p o ided o hose a he
ecei ing end o such policy. We do no ejec he legi imacy o balancing conside a ions among igh s
o be ween public secu i y and igh s, bu he idea ha such balancing exemp s he go e nmen om a
du y o jus i y shi s in he balance.
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
In esponse o his objec ion, i is impo an o ecall ha he igh
o assessmen is de i ed om he epis emic en i lemen o igh s and
inhe i s i s sa egua ding unc ion. In ideal condi ions, whe e ins i-
u ions ac anspa en ly, we assume ha he epis emic en i lemen is
ully hono ed; bu in non-ideal condi ions, whe e anspa ency does
no always (o e en a ely) ob ain, igh s a e indeed condi ional: hey
can be limi ed wi hou p ope no ice o ex-an e jus i ica ion. These
es ic ions apply, howe e , only inso a as hey a e open o sc u iny.
The pu pose o he e ised de ini ion o e ed abo e (see CL) is ex-
ac ly o encompass hose ci cums ances in which a ci il libe y can
be law ully limi ed. Since he igh o assessmen is a non-ideal
ansposi ion o he en i lemen o ull a ailable in o ma ion, i s
unc ion is p ese ed inso a as i wa an s he disclosu e o he
ci cums ances and p ocedu es leading o hose es ic ions. Al hough
he p o ision o his in o ma ion is emedial, i is none heless he
bes app oxima ion o he epis emic en i lemen unde non-ideal
condi ions. Thus, he igh o assessmen holds uncondi ionally be-
cause i gua an ees he law ul applica ion o he limi ing condi ions
o i s -o de igh s. This condi ion holds in bo h eme gency and
non-eme gency con ex s. I may be he case ha si ua ions exis
whe e o e a ching easons may ex end he ime ame a go e nmen
has o disclose in o ma ion ha allows a ci izen o p ope ly assess he
s a us o he igh s o ins ance in long e m co e ope a ions
agains o ganized c ime ca els. Bu , despi e he ac ha i may be
oppo une in some cases o ex end he due ime o disclosu e, i
doesn’ ollow ha he e is an o e a ching in e es agains he igh
o assessmen .
Conside a ions o concu en in e es s migh jus i y, on he bal-
ance o easons, he decision no o engage wi h eques s o disclo-
su es. Thus, he e may be excep ions ha limi he igh o
assessmen in ce ain ci cums ances. The excep ions ha apply o he
igh o assessmen a e he same ha apply o o he ci il libe ies, o
ins ance when hey a e aimed a p e en ing ( he inci emen o )
iolence o ac s o espionage. I is impo an o no e, howe e , ha
hese excep ions mus be empo a y in o de o all wi hin he
pu iew o he due- ime clause o he igh . Thus, he e migh be
easonable a gumen s no o p o ide a igh -on- he-spo disclosu e o
classi ied in o ma ion, bu only on he condi ion ha in due ime
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
in o ma ion will be disclosed. I is c ucial o cla i y his aspec in
o de o ea i m ha he igh o assessmen is pa o he e y
ins i u ion o he igh (i.e. o he s uc u e o ci il libe ies). While
he s a e may ha e a legi ima e in e es in keeping in o ma ion
con iden ial, no excep ions can in p inciple de ea he s a us o he
igh o assessmen as a igh claimable unde he law. Fo his
eason, we a gued ha he igh o assessmen is a second-o de igh
ha is claimable in all ins ances in which i s -o de ci il libe ies can
also be claimed. Excep ions and limi a ions, when jus i ied, a ec he
ime ame o ul illing he igh , no i s ‘claimabili y’.
36
Once his aspec has been cla i ied, i should be clea why he igh o
assessmen allows o an e alua ion o one’s legal s anding and o seek
he possibili y o ed ess agains a bi a y in e e ence. Since he igh o
assessmen c ea es an obliga ion o due jus i ica ion on hose who seek
o cu ail igh s, an ex-pos jus i ica ion ensu es ha when in e e ences
a e a bi a y, a cha ge o culpabili y is b ough agains he iola o .
Unde mining he igh o assessmen in one ins ance means ha he
igh -holde can ne e be su e whe he cons i u ional p ocedu es will be
ollowed when hey all on he w ong side o he law. And, when
accoun abili y and public sc u iny a e una ailable, ins i u ions canno be
en us ed wi h he p o ec ion o igh s in gene al. The igh o assess-
men enables public accoun abili y by ensu ing ins i u ional ans-
pa ency, ha is, p o iding he necessa y in o ma ion ha he
go e nmen does no exe cise a bi a y powe and ollows he cons i-
u ional p ocedu es ha ha e been publicly a i med and accep ed.
37
36
Ex-pos e e s, in a s ic sense, o any poin in ime when a legi ima e eques o disclosu e is
made wi h ega d o in o ma ion. F om a legal s andpoin , such a poin in ime is he deadline by which
a go e nmen has o comply wi h i s obliga ion o disclose in o ma ion. The legal de e mina ion o he
ex-pos clause a ies om s a u e o s a u e, p o ided ha a due ime limi is clea ly se by law.
F eedom o In o ma ion ac s o classi ied in o ma ion, as well as igh o a hea ing in c iminal and ci il
cou s, a e ins ances o such due ime equi emen . In a second, mo e abs ac unde s anding, ex-pos
deno es he ype o igh s ha in oke disco e y o ele an ac s. Ex-pos , in his sense, is opposed o ex-
an e equi emen s ( o ins ance, age limi o o ing igh s).
37
Ci izens a e o en unawa e o he complex adminis a i e machine y o mode n s a es and ha e
di icul y e ie ing su icien in o ma ion o hold o icials accoun able. I would be un easonable o
demand ull anspa ency om his in ica e machine. The igh o assessmen does no en ail he du y
o ull anspa ency a e e y s ep in he adminis a i e p ocess. I en ails he weake claim ha go -
e nmen agencies ha e a du y o jus i y in due ime ha hey canno discha ge hei du y when igh s
a e a ec ed. Rejec ions o disclosu e migh be jus i ied, o ins ance when in o ma ion is ime-sensi i e
o p e en a c ime. Howe e , go e nmen agencies canno appeal o sec ecy p i ileges o deny o
con i m he e y exis ence o a eques ed documen . Such a o m o me a-sec ecy, known in US law as a
Gloma esponse, is unjus i ied in ou iew because i elega es ci izens o he condi ion o igno ance
wi hou appeal. On Gloma esponses, see Phillippi . CIA, 546 F. 2d 1009, 1011 (D.C. Ci . 1976). See
also Axel Gosse ies, and Tom Pa , ‘Publici y’, The S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Summe 2022
Edi ion).
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT

Mo eo e , ensu ing a public sys em o accoun abili y ha is
consis en wi h he idea o equal enjoymen o igh s – unde he
p o iso (i ) men ioned abo e – should ecognize a igh no only o
he pe son whose igh has been in inged, bu also o e e ybody
subjec ed o he same laws, o he public sc u iny o he legal
s anding o ha pe son. Publici y o judgmen s g an s ha his
condi ion is me , and ha ed ess is p o ided o hose indi iduals in
no posi ion o seek i . This poin aises impo an conside a ions
conce ning he con lic o igh s. Shall we say ha whene e
someone’s igh s a e iola ed, e e yone should ha e access o he
assessmen p o ided o he igh holde ? Cases o p i acy appea o
un agains his idea. When he p i acy o an indi idual is iola ed,
o he pe son does no in end o di ulge sensi i e da a like medical
eco ds, hi d pa ies should no be en i led o seek an assessmen
agains he pe son’s will. How can such con lic be esol ed? A
p incipled answe o po en ial con lic s be ween claims o p i acy
and public assessmen can be ound in he unc ion o igh s. We
a gued ha such a unc ion p o ec s he igh holde s’ capaci y o
au onomous choice. When a con lic a ises, and he au onomy o he
igh -holde is unde mined, he igh -holde is he inal au ho i y in
deciding whe he in o ma ion ega ding he p i acy o o he wise
sensi i e da a should be di ulged.
A inal conside a ion. I can be a gued ha he p o ision gua -
an eed by he igh o assessmen is a poo emedy. A e all, once
igh s ha e been iola ed, limi ed, o suspended, wha would a
pe son gain om a p ope assessmen o he easons o such cu -
ailmen ? The di icul y a ises especially conce ning he sphe e o
au onomy ha we said is p o ec ed by igh s. Thus, he ques ion is:
does knowing why his has happened compensa e o he ha m once
au onomy has been unde mined? Now, i we ame he ques ion in
e ms o whe he assessmen is a compensa o y measu e o he loss
o au onomy, he answe is clea ly no. Ha ming he capaci y o
people o exe cise hei choice canno be compensa ed wi h he same
cu ency. While compensa o y p inciples may ec i y injus ice in he
acquisi ion o goods and esou ces, ha dly any emedy may ul ill he
loss o libe y. Some imes emedies o un ai dis ibu ion o oppo -
uni ies happen o be e ec i e, such as when pe sons a e eins a ed
in hei posi ion a e being unlaw ully i ed. Bu cases o his so a e
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
clea ly he second-bes o ms o compensa ion. Mos o he ime,
nei he means no ime can pay back unlaw ul es ic ions o ee-
dom. This is he case o he Guan anamo inde ini e de ainees ci ed
abo e. On such occasions, i is ha d o es ima e any compensa ion
ha would be su icien o hem. Ye , al hough he ecogni ion o
habeas co pus and due p ocess will indeed appea insu icien o
ed ess he i edeemable loss o au onomy hese de ainees ha e
su e ed, he en i lemen o judicial hea ing s ill holds o p o ec he
alue o au onomy. We should hen alue hose igh s because we
alue he au onomy p o ec ed by igh s. The e is a uni e sal sig-
ni icance in upholding he igh o assessmen no only o he ic-
ims o injus ice bu o e e ybody who simila ly alues hei sel -
de e mina ion.
IV. CONCLUSION
We ha e a gued ha un es ained go e nmen sec ecy h ea ens he
epis emic dimension o igh s. We ha e de ended he iew ha , in
i ue o i s epis emic ea u es, ha ing a igh implies ha i s pos-
sesso s a e en i led o he a ailable knowledge o he ci cums ances
o choice p o ec ed unde ha igh . This iew holds o he no ion
o igh s in ideal condi ions. In non-ideal condi ions, whe e ci il
libe ies a e a s ake, sec e in e e ence is legi ima e only when he
ci cums ances unde which i occu s a e open o assessmen by he
igh -holde . This we ha e called he igh o assessmen . I ensu es
he ex-pos ul illmen o he epis emic en i lemen unde non-ideal
condi ions o pa ial compliance whe e ull anspa ency is
una ainable and sec ecy is a ac . Sec ecy p ecludes he e y con-
di ions on which he enjoymen o igh s is gua an eed and exposes
ci izens o he a bi a iness o he go e nmen . I limi s he ci izens’
abili y o make meaning ul choices and p ecludes hei ealiza ion.
The igh o assessmen shields agains a bi a y in e e ence by
imposing an obliga ion on he go e nmen o jus i y any in e e ence
in he sphe e o igh s. Ci izens can use such a igh o ques ion he
s a e’s sec e policies, which h ea en no only indi idual igh s, bu
he enjoymen o igh s in gene al.
The pu pose o a guing o a igh o assessmen is o iden i y a
c i e ion o disce n when igh s a e iola ed unde condi ions o
sec ecy. Ou pu pose, hough, is no o o e a eady-made solu ion
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT
o sec ecy abuses. When p ac ices o sec ecy become sys ema ic
unde eme gency legisla ion, iola ions o igh s migh e en go
unno iced o disco e ed e ospec i ely, o en oo la e o ic ims o
demand jus ice. In such ins ances, one o he undamen al ene s o
democ acy, he possibili y o sel -co ec ion, is unde mined by p e-
cluding he possibili y o dissen and disobedience agains unjus
policies. I is ou con ic ion ha absen such co ec i e measu es,
whis leblowing ac s such as he NSA e ela ions by Edwa d Snow-
den should be acknowledged as democ a ic ac s o dissen , a leas
when hey a e ac s o las eso . Con en ious
38
as hey migh appea ,
hese a e exempla y mani es a ions o he new demands o
accoun abili y agains undemoc a ic p ac ices o sec ecy.
39
No wi hs anding he impac o sec ecy on undamen al libe ies,
pos -9/11 he ask o analyzing he impac o sec ecy measu es has
been le mainly o ci il libe y g oups, hink anks and legal schola s
whose e o s ha e b ough o he public limeligh he dilemmas
caused by he s a e p ac ices o sec ecy.
40
Poli ical philosophe s ha e
only ecen ly aken mo e cognizance o his issue. The g owing
a en ion owa ds he ole o sec ecy and he h ea i poses in a
democ acy calls o u he philosophical in es iga ion, since he
ques ions a s ake a ec he alue o cons i u ional eedoms in
gene al, e en unde no mal ci cums ances.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like o hank Ali Em e Benli, Sebas ian Rudas, João Rosas, and
ou colleagues a CEPS o hei aluable sugges ions and discussions on
38
See Rahul Saga , Sec e s and Leaks; Id. ‘On Comba ing he Abuse o S a e Sec ecy’, The Jou nal o
Poli ical Philosophy 15 (4) (2007): 404–427.
39
Adam Moo e sugges s ha e ela ions o his so seek o al e he accoun abili y mechanisms by
‘shining a spo ligh on he back oom ac i i ies o go e nmen agencies and co po a ions’. (Adam
Moo e, ‘P i acy, Secu i y, and Go e nmen Su eillance: Wikileaks and he New Accoun abili y’, Public
A ai s Qua e ly 25(2) (2011): 141–156, p. 141).
40
The NSA e ela ions we e ins umen al in bols e ing public demand o g ea e anspa ency.
One o he shi s owa ds enhanced anspa ency was he acknowledgmen o he need o a public
in e es ad oca e o asce ain he legi imacy o he equi emen o su eillance ope a ions in he
a e ma h o hose e ela ions. See Geo ey R. S one, Michael J. Cla ke, Richa d A. Mo ell, Cass R.
Suns ein, and Pe e Swi e. The NSA Repo : Libe y and Secu i y in a Changing Wo ld. Repo and Rec-
ommenda ions o The P esiden ’s Re iew G oup on In elligence and Communica ions Technologies (P ince on
Uni e si y P ess, 2014).
D.SANTORO,M.KUMAR
ea lie e sions o he pape . We a e also g a e ul o wo anonymous
e e ees om Law and Philosophy o hei insigh ul commen s.
FUNDING
Open access unding p o ided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). Funding o his
a icle was p o ided by Po uguese Founda ion o Science and Technol-
ogy (G an n. EXPL/FER-ETC/1226/2021).
OPEN ACCESS
This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e -
na ional License, which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and
ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as you gi e app op ia e
c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he
C ea i e Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images
o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle a e included in he a icle’s
C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o
he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons
licence and you in ended use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o
exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om
he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
Cen e o E hics, Poli ics, and Socie y & Depa men o Philosophy
ELACH - Uni e si y o Minho, Campus de Gual a , R. da Uni e sidade, 4710-057, B aga, Po ugal
E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
Depa men o Social Sciences and Humani ies
Ind ap as ha Ins i u e o In o ma ion Technology Delhi (IIIT-Delhi), Okhla Indus ial Es a e, Phase-III, New
Delhi, 110020, India
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional
claims in published maps and ins i u ional affilia ions.
LIBERTY,SECRECY,AND THE RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT