I've recently read <a href="http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/">the future of ideas</a>, for the second time and I would really suggest it to everyone who is interested in digital freedom and innovation.
The book is distributed for free on its website, under a creative common license (like others from Lawrence).
this was a very interesting reading for me, but I don't agree here:
<cite>Their own operations are voluntarily opaque, both externally and within, but with a mission of inflicting involuntary transparency on others. Is that necessary to their goals? Necessary to their lives? Or just unequivocally wrong?</cite>
I think that wikileaks is forced to some level of opacity because of their goals and lives
the government is using lives of other people, for its own goals and to be able to do that, needs some opacity
I've recently read <a href="http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/">the future of ideas</a>, for the second time and I would really suggest it to everyone who is interested in digital freedom and innovation.
The book is distributed for free on its website, under a creative common license (like others from Lawrence).