Set a time limit on government secrets, and let an independent body, not the agency holding them, decide on extensions
In short
- The law sets a clear maximum number of years that a government record can be kept secret.
- Records that reach their deadline are released automatically, without waiting for any procedure.
- The agency that holds a record is not allowed to decide whether its secrecy is extended.
- An extension needs permission from an independent body, and the reasons are kept on record.
- Hiding things by not making records, or by throwing them out early, is also punished.
If this comes true
A grandfather has always said, "The government is hiding the truth about that accident." Now the records have reached their deadline and been released, and his college-student grandchild brings home a copy of the original and reads it beside him after dinner.
Perhaps
Officials who fear release might stop writing down important discussions, and the more important something is, the less anyone may be able to check it later.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal sets a legal maximum on how long records designated secret by the government, the military, or intelligence agencies can stay secret, so that they are released automatically when the deadline arrives. The maximum is set for each type of record, shorter for records of diplomatic and policy decisions and longer for records of national security and criminal investigations, but no record can be kept secret forever. An agency that wants to extend a deadline must, before it arrives, apply to a review body that is appointed by the legislature and independent of the government, and show why releasing the record would still cause specific harm today. The review body limits any extension to part of a record, grants it for a fixed number of years each time, and keeps the number of extensions and a summary of the reasons in a register that anyone can see. If the deadline arrives and the agency has not applied, the record is released as it is. The names of people whose lives are at risk, such as informants and witnesses, and technical details of how to make weapons, may be blacked out before release. Acts done to protect a secret, such as not making a record, throwing one away before the set period, or moving it into a record under another label, are punished as violations of official duty. Members of the review body serve fixed terms, and people from the agencies themselves are kept from making up a majority. Released records are kept as copies of the originals, in a form that anyone can read.
BenefitsIt removes the foundation of the suspicion that "they are hiding it"
If it is settled that every secret must end, the premise of conspiracy theories, that the truth will be hidden forever, falls apart. When people know what will become clear and by when, they can wait before believing a rumor, and anyone can check the released originals with their own eyes. Instead of asking whether to believe the government's explanation, people can read the records themselves, and those who doubt and those who trust can talk with the same material in front of them. Officials who know that everything will be released someday also find it harder to make decisions or hide things that they could not explain later, so real wrongdoing itself decreases. If a wrong that was truly hidden is found, it comes out as a record, not a rumor, and responsibility can be taken in the proper way. Taking the extension decision away from the agency that holds the secret also prevents only the inconvenient records from staying closed. Trust in government grows not from saying the right things but from being checkable, so over the long run this becomes a foundation for a society where lies spread less easily.
DrawbacksFearing release, people may record the most important things least
If officials and politicians know that everything will be released someday, they may handle truly delicate discussions by word of mouth, leaving no paper or electronic record. Even if not making records is punished, it is hard for outsiders to prove what should have been recorded, so the facts that later generations can check might actually decrease. Also, even when an informant's name is blacked out, the person can be identified from a combination of dates and places, and their life can be put in danger. Foreign governments, once they know that secrets they share will be released at a deadline, may stop sharing information, and security cooperation would weaken. Reviewing and releasing large numbers of records at each deadline takes many people and a lot of money. Moreover, released records do not necessarily calm conspiracy theories. Some people will always pick out a single convenient sentence from a huge pile of material and use it as new grounds for suspicion, and the blacked-out parts will create a new rumor that "the real truth is there." The review body itself may also be suspected of being on the government's side.
Learn the background
Conspiracy theories usually do not come from pure invention. They spread on the feeling that "the government must be hiding something." And that feeling is not without basis. In every society there are cases where something the government hid, and denied at the time, became clear from the records decades later, and people remember them. The problem is that the power to decide how long something stays secret is held by the very agency that holds the secret. For an agency, releasing a record brings little benefit and only the risk of exposing past mistakes, so it is natural to find reasons to keep extending the secrecy. As a result, even records that are really not important stay closed, and the most dramatic explanations flow into the empty space left behind. Even if correct information is put out to counter a lie, when the original records are closed it does not get through, because people doubt it as "just the government's version." Rebutting conspiracy theories one by one leaves the foundation of the suspicion untouched.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes