It's typical of mafia-like, criminal organizations. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due
I think most folks misunderstand the use of secrecy in initiatic orders. If someone joins an order to learn their secrets, they will be sorely disappointed. Signs, passwords, and grips can have symbolic meaning, but they convey nothing the initiate is unlikely to already know. Some of the secret legends can be entertaining, but they, by themselves, won't improve your life. Rather, all these things are tools that, when used in concert, can bring about a change in a person. Not everyone needs or wants that, and that's fine.
Some people try to be experts in theoretical conspiracy. I think he is just more into the experimental side of the field.
But has the signal worked for others?
Everyone here should be well aware by now that wanting privacy != nefarious behavior.
But it is very reasonable for the society to expect a basic degree of transparency from an NGO or a political party - insofar as the actions in question are meant to have public impact. It's a two-way street, to me.
Note that I'm not even entering the subject of legal obligations here. Whether or how to enforce this approach is a separate discussion (quite a few democratic constitutions do forbid political organizations of clandestine structures and membership). I'm only referring to common sense, and what feels justified.
Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?
> Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?
A judge has an obligation to recuse where there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the nature of that conflict. This is not a good argument against private societies, unless you want to start banning any situation that could at some point lead to a conflict of interest.