FEELING LIKE you know less and less about what your federal government is up to while at the same time your own privacy is being violated?

You should.

The Bush administration is cloaking its own activities ever tighter even as it devises new ways to collect and share information about private citizens. And a federal judge this week advanced the process.

A lawsuit seeking information from the White House - filed on behalf of two Democratic congressmen by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress - was tossed out of court. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that the watchdog agency didn't have standing to file the suit because it was not harmed by the denial of the information.

The decision has all the earmarks of a Bush judicial appointee trying to avoid ruling on the larger issue at hand: whether the White House has the right to withhold from Congress - and thus the American people - information about meetings with energy company executives in the preparation last year of the administration's energy policy.

As Comptroller General David M. Walker, head of the GAO, put it, "The judge punted."

In doing so, Judge Bates gravely undermined the agency's ability to perform its mission. What good is a watchdog with no teeth? Why should any federal agency answer future GAO requests for information if there is no penalty for stonewalling?

Now there are two critical principles at stake: the public's right to information about government activities and the GAO's ability to collect it.

The specific information sought in this case has paled in significance. Did executives from companies like Enron that contributed to the Bush campaign have more access than environmentalists to Vice President Dick Cheney and the task force that prepared the energy legislation? Probably. But the bill died in the last Congress, and the issue will be joined anew next year.

More important is Mr. Cheney's decision to withhold the list of outsiders he met with specifically to test his assertion that the White House is under no obligation to reveal even such mundane details. He described it as part of a Bush administration crusade to strengthen the prerogatives of the executive that he says have eroded since the Nixon years.

Judge Bates, who, incidentally, helped Ken Starr investigate the Clinton White House, didn't rule on that point. But the White House declared victory anyway, saying the decision supported the president's right to receive "unvarnished advice."

Mr. Walker, who owes his job to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, says he needs to consult with congressional leaders before he decides whether to appeal this decision.

There should be no hesitation. The principles at stake are much larger than one party or one administration.

If the GAO - and thus Congress - is disarmed, who's going to find out what the Justice Department and the Pentagon are doing with all that information they are trying to collect on us?