> It just means that you now have to spend more effort keeping all your petty graft secret at the low end The problem is that secrecy doesn't purely serve 'pet

> It just means that you now have to spend more effort keeping all your petty graft secret at the low end The problem is that secrecy doesn't purely serve 'petty graft', but also allows politicians to actually make deals and get things done. The thesis that 'raising the cost of secrecy' is always a good thing is unproven. Plus, Assange et al are less a neutral information source, but rather an active participant in politics with their own, hidden motivations. Over the last 30 years, we've repeatedly seen the reform of politics in the US aimed at eliminating graft and taking power away from politicians and putting it in the hands of voters. Over the same period of time, politics here as gotten more and more dysfunctional. Relevant: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-amer... I submit that voters are often unable to effectively make compromises and form voting blocs with others. It used to fall to politicians to negotiate behind closed doors to hash out a deal. In Assange's secret-less world, that won't be possible.