No. They can tell us exactly. And they can be accountable. We just don't get to see them with their clothes off.

It's odd because apparently citizens get to have no secrets. Laws protect government secrets, but as far as I know the law is just as confused about privacy and secrecy as we are when it comes to its people.

Then you misinterpreted the analogy. Bathroom door = privacy. Bathroom activities = secrets.

There are no secrets in the bathroom analogy. We all know what you're doing in there (or have a 50% chance at guessing). But you still want privacy.

Nobody gets it...

He said you can have privacy without secrets. But suppose there exists a room with a door where you don't know what someone is doing behind it. The activity behind the door is the secret. The door is still representing privacy (not secrecy). That was the point of the analogy.

You're adding an element of your own subjective knowledge/awareness. You could not know a secret or something kept private. The only thing that is the same is your not knowing. What you don't know could still be a secret, something private, or even public knowledge for that matter. The point is, you not knowing doesn't make anything anything.

A secret is an attribution to the contents of a description which are withheld for security reasons. Or at least, that's what it should be. And that's what it appears to be with the military.

Privacy is a right to withhold information based on a fair desire to not have that information be known.

Invasion of privacy is someone pulling the curtains when you're showering or opening the door when you're in the bathroom.

That should not be confused with invasion of secrecy.

Either way, the main point is that these two terms are confusing, and even the law confuses them. And yes, people would consider something they don't know a secret also, and your use of the word is intuitively correct. But a clearer distinction could and should exist, and we should all work towards that clearer distinction. I believe the words are already more than adequate, since we already see the correct (most practical and fitting) distinctions used where they are most needed in practice (military).

There are known-unknowns, and unknown-unknowns :-)

The point they are trying to prove is that there is no way of knowing what happens in the bathroom. It is theoretically equivalent to secrecy

In the real world, though, 99% of the time, we DO know. And even if we don't know exactly, we can narrow it very closely. We either shit, take a bath, masturebate or whatever. We still want privacy of any of those things.

We found scorched tinfoil in the wastebasket. Someone has secrets and is not covering up.

No. I corrected it. The analogy is wrong. (edit; to be more accurate, bathroom activities are no secret)

Only if you're standing above them and looking down.

Maybe this was meant to be a joke, but an officer's superiors would be the one's looking over the stalls. No secrets no privacy.

Privacy is a courtesy. And a right to courtesy. Secrecy should be all that is related to security. It's interesting because the military seems to know exactly what a secret is. It'd make more sense to have secrecy laws alongside privacy laws for citizens. Privacy laws are not secrecy laws. Hence the NSA get's to do what they did, and hence they trampled on everyone's privacy outright violating all courtesy. They then make it a security issue.

As it stands, citizens are entitled to no secrets. Hence it's the wild west and we're left encrypting ourselves and standing in direct conflict with the government that would do far better helping us than being rude and insecure. Insecure is what they are. They have no trust or confidence in the people.

It was being facetious of course. But as to your second point, I really believe we are entitled to secrets, at least from my own reading of the 4th amendment to our constitution:

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches

This, to me a layman citizen of our country, means we are emphatically and explicitly granted the right to privacy against our government. Then again, we live in a time where a secret court can grant an order that tramples on our constitution. Apparently our government believes on it is allowed privacy.

You ever hear about this secret court orders and ask yourself, "Are we both reading the same constitution??"