Quoth The Vector: Openness For Thee, But Not For Me

Here is how also one may know that our officialdom, and its well-suborned professoriate, grossly favor freedom-FOR-aggression over freedom properly so called. The policies regarding openness of public records would have the agencies which alone can systematically provide freedom-FROM-aggression, be subject to opening their records, unless this would endanger the 'privacy' of an aggressor or vector of disease. Just look at whose 'privacy' is thus exalted, and which agencies of counter-aggression are to be disabled with a compromising openness, to determine the actual values and preferences involved in the extremely differential commands of openness and closedness regarding records.
Also, from an earlier post:
Is there more out there, in the way of species and strains of pathogens which are yet to come?Yes, and lethal ones, of both easy and difficult transmission.XDR-TB means extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis, and it is one which can kill within months.It is out there waiting for us to become open to its spread.There are several sub-types of HIV, including a fast-killing one, which haven't yet got here.Leprosy can become endemic in many cities here where it is today unknown. Malaria can get established in several urbanized regions on the Gulf Coast; it only needs enough immigrants, but especially poor ones. There are HTLV's which are either not present, or merely sporadic here, as yet. Is this a value of which one can ever have too much, or is more openness to more damage from overseas always better? If there is an intermediate and ideal range of openness to such transmission across national boundaries, what would determine this? Why this or that upper and lower bound for best openness of this kind? Certainly no one will ever dare to state openness to such transmission as value-in-itself, unless it were to win notoriety through giving voice to evil motivations. At the same time, it is also clear that valuing closedness to international transmission of infectious agents and parasites, can be excessive. The limitations should acknowledge that we want the least volume of such transmissions that is practicable, though. Valuing openness in a general way, as if it were capable of being decently made an ideal of, when it includes openness to such transmission, is shown to be highly questionable.