DeletedUser
Basically, I believe that a total transparency is not a good thing; because there will always be things that stay behind the curtains. A total transparency is something fictional, it never exists.
The only fact that Wikileaks put the life of a lof of people at risk, this makes me wonder whether he really wants "transparency for democracy".
I just think he wanted to get famous, he wanted to have the light on him, and why not get rich by writing his autobiography.
This is just too much; transparency is good; but giving every single document to every single human being, without trying to divide them between "the documents that will bring something good if diffused" and the other ones, this way of thinking is bad.
At least, this is my opinion.
The only fact that Wikileaks put the life of a lof of people at risk, this makes me wonder whether he really wants "transparency for democracy".
I just think he wanted to get famous, he wanted to have the light on him, and why not get rich by writing his autobiography.
This is just too much; transparency is good; but giving every single document to every single human being, without trying to divide them between "the documents that will bring something good if diffused" and the other ones, this way of thinking is bad.
At least, this is my opinion.