public safety or public secrecy?

The Department of Transporatation just got authority to classify previously public documents as "security sensitive". This means restricting public access to information about roads, bridges, etc.

The article from the Scripps Howard News Service notes:

Mineta's directive went into effect when it was signed Jan. 5. But it was not publicized by the department until it was published in the Jan. 18 issue of the Federal Register. It says information that agency officials regard as being sensitive involving "all modes of transportation" will be exempted from release under the Freedom of Information Act, or during court proceedings on civil suits.

and further...

In response to a reporter's question, the department issued a statement saying "information previously available to the public, such as environmental impact statements and safety statistics, will continue to be accessible according to laws protecting public access."

I have to wonder just how broadly the Dept. of Transportation will interpret this new right to government secrecy. I can appreciate the need to protect some information from potential terrorists, but how exactly is it determined what info should be secret? And how will the public know the nature of what is being kept secret?

It seems like our government is creating more and more policies that require that we just trust that they are doing the right things for our benefit.

How has it come to be that the party for smaller government is actually the party advocating for more governmental controls over information? This hypocrisy is one of the reasons why I am not inclined to just trust the Bush administration and to allow them to secretize the workings of the government.