<story><title>On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email</title><url>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wall-street-email-idUSKBN12W4F7</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>smallnamespace</author><text>Time for Wikileaks to make all their internal communications public.&lt;p&gt;After all, don&amp;#x27;t they believe in full transparency?</text></item><item><author>nerdo</author><text>Sounds like things are going as planned for Wikileaks[1]:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; RS: One of the unintended consequences is the opposite effect, which is what we&amp;#x27;ve seen with the Department of Defense, and even the State Department, here in the U.S., of trying to make secrets more impenetrable rather than less and trying to take precautions against what has happened from happening again in the future. How do you regard that?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; JA: Well, I think that&amp;#x27;s very positive. Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;content.time.com&amp;#x2F;time&amp;#x2F;world&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;0,8599,2034040,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;content.time.com&amp;#x2F;time&amp;#x2F;world&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;0,8599,2034040,00...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Bartweiss</author><text>At risk of taking bait, they explicitly &lt;i&gt;don&amp;#x27;t&lt;/i&gt; believe in full transparency.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;ve backed and associated with various privacy groups and suggested that individuals and groups not in the public interest deserve privacy.  Assange has complicated that a little by releasing personal, unredacted emails, but it&amp;#x27;s been their stated intent at least.&lt;p&gt;Give that transcript another read: &amp;quot;organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye&amp;quot;. That&amp;#x27;s not decrying privacy, its decrying use of privacy to hide abusive behaviors. I haven&amp;#x27;t seen Wikileaks accused of that; the usual accusation is that their public behaviors are politically motivated, which is very different than alleging internal corruption.</text></comment>
<story><title>On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email</title><url>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wall-street-email-idUSKBN12W4F7</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>smallnamespace</author><text>Time for Wikileaks to make all their internal communications public.&lt;p&gt;After all, don&amp;#x27;t they believe in full transparency?</text></item><item><author>nerdo</author><text>Sounds like things are going as planned for Wikileaks[1]:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; RS: One of the unintended consequences is the opposite effect, which is what we&amp;#x27;ve seen with the Department of Defense, and even the State Department, here in the U.S., of trying to make secrets more impenetrable rather than less and trying to take precautions against what has happened from happening again in the future. How do you regard that?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; JA: Well, I think that&amp;#x27;s very positive. Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;content.time.com&amp;#x2F;time&amp;#x2F;world&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;0,8599,2034040,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;content.time.com&amp;#x2F;time&amp;#x2F;world&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;0,8599,2034040,00...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>maxerickson</author><text>They can be hypocrites and still accomplish their goals just fine.&lt;p&gt;How many people are going to avoid leaked material because Wikileaks are hypocrites?</text></comment>