The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.
People used to be unhappy that files and data of Aramco are undeclared, unclear, and not transparent.
I don't mind releasing - I'm under a routine audit. And it'll be released.
I believe that Secretary Clinton has said, has acknowledged, that that was not the best way to handle her emails back then... and has turned over all of the information and the emails and documents and now the server.
Once a discovery has been published, there is no way of un-publishing it.
We can say, "if you want government money, you have to make this data public - you have to share it."
WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong.
If I had some information, the last thing I would ever do with it is send it to Wikileaks.
When dealing with data, scientists have often struggled to account for the risks and harms using it might inflict. One primary concern has been privacy - the disclosure of sensitive data about individuals, either directly to the public or indirectly from anonymised data sets through computational processes of re-identification.
I'm a freedom of information campaigner, so obviously I support the cause of Wikileaks.
I will release my tax returns - against my lawyer's wishes - when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.
