Some forms of secrecy are good, in certain contexts. A homosexual hiding his or her sexuality in Saudi Arabia, for instance. That is the sort of openness commensurate with the maturity of your society I was referring to.
Ideally, no one should have to hide anything about themselves. But we unfortunately aren't quite there yet.
> Some forms of secrecy are good, in certain contexts
I disagree. Because my ethic says that secrecy always benefits those of ill-intent. I must not make exceptions for those of goodwill, because exceptions disprove the rule. I am not wary of those of other intent.
An ethic doesn't need to be practical. Subscription is not required for it to be virtuous.
You may be aware (since you turned it around), but the phrase "the exception proves the rule" is meant to provoke thought about the rule in question, not announce it as broken. This is so because the meaning of "prove" in that phrase is "test", as noted in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove at 2.a.
No offense, but your deflection into another topic of debate (that you seem to care about) has no bearing on my ethics. You completely ignored the point, which was the issue of ethics vs practicality that you seem to misunderstand.
An ethic doesn't need to be practical (just to stay on the point I was trying to make). An ethic is a goal for some value of "preferred individual behavior", not a life choice. Subscription to an ethic is not required for the virtue of the ethic to exist, e.g. If I believe that secrecy is bad, I may still practice it for pragmatic reasons, but this does not change the ethic as an ideal model.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're justifying censorship, and I'm not sure why.