As open as it can be, as restricted as it must be

I generally prefer ‘as open as it can be, as restricted as it must be’ when thinking about access rights to knowledge content, knowledge-sharing/practice groups and events. A bias for ‘need to share’ over ‘need to know’.

Interestingly, the very same words, the very same phrase, can be heard and interpreted quite differently by different people or in different contexts. I guess that pragmatics over semantics right there!

I worked a long time in the security sector, both cyber security and national security, where (and this is curious, really) the cultural bias was very strongly for ‘need to know’. People would need to have a strong reason for having access, because, by default, you wouldn’t. I say this is curious – and you might be thinking “no, it’s natural” – because the concept of security fundamentally includes the concept of access being allowed and protected for the right people. It’s not all about locked doors.

Conversely, working in sustainability now, it’s vital that the good ideas get out there and implemented – they have little value if kept to ourselves, and what we care about is positive impact.

And so some other people might over-hear the second part of the phrase – “as restricted as it must be”.

Of course, all depends on the interpretation of “can be” vs “must be” but fortunately we have some guidance here, so it’s not all left to judgement. We know we have certain privacy requirements to restrict access. Organisations will usually agree confidentiality arrangements when they trade or collaborate. We know what information is ‘public domain’ vs someone’s IP.

There is still judgement, but we have a framework, and a guiding principle: ‘as open as it can be, as restricted as it must be’.