Harmful to whom may be the important question here. I thought the underlying premise of radical transparency was to make it sufficiently difficult to maintain s

Harmful to whom may be the important question here. I thought the underlying premise of radical transparency was to make it sufficiently difficult to maintain state and corporate secrets that they either give up trying to keep secrets entirely or at least learn to avoid conducting truly shady activities because secrecy is no longer a guaranteed. If that's true then I'd say that admission is a strong endorsement that the practice is at least on sound theoretical ground.