I fear for Julian Assange. I fear for Bradley Manning. I fear for us all.

[toby jo]

91. You're taking the simple way out on transparency: "It's us v. them", and "them" is bad.

What happens to the political unit that is "us", when it can be completely destabilized by a hacker?

We have to take responsibility for being empowered with the ability to keep secrets. You really don't want that type of destabilization to take place. You're seeing this through the eyes of one with no power, and assuming govt. will kick in and protect you if there is an issue due to the release of state secrets. The govt. is seeing this in terms of their NOT being able to protect you due to the release of state secrets.

Not a black/white issue:

I ran a citizen's group for years on radio-frequency weapons. Our govt has people in psyche wards, prisons, and hiding out in their basements with blankets over the windows to keep the noise, the voices, the target-beam weaponry out of their consciousness. Victims have committed suicide, infanticide, and murder under the stress of these weapons. Using people's minds as vehicles to carrier frequencies that can bend brainwaves is evil stuff, no doubt.

But yet I understand the blanket reasoning of a govt to keep secrets safe from undue hacking.

We need more transparency. We're in over our heads with greed, and have our fingers where they don't belong. But I don't want anybody to have the ability to hack into my country's data bank. Who is the next 'anybody', and is their agenda yours?
There are better ways.