As the collective methological knoweldge of the Open Source movement begins to permeate those who understand government and politics and things of that nature, I suspect we'll begin to see more and more stuff like this:

The real damage to our national security isn't in the too much disclosure of information. Al Qaeda doesn't have bureaucracies of analysts and spies probing for weaknesses in the American security system. The worst thing that could potentially happen is that the name of a captured jihadi is prematurely leaked before useful intelligence can be gained. Does anyone truly think that al Qaeda actually believed that e-mails and phone calls to the US weren't being monitored?

No, the HUGE problem, the elephant in the room, isn't leaks. Rather, it is in a complete lack of transparency. As we have seen again and again, secrecy prevents the full analysis of alternatives. It shuts down debate and prevents the qualification of sources. It is also the crutch of bad and/or nefarious management.

This is why Microsoft's products are routinely exploited by malicious software (viruses, spyware, etc) and high-quality open source products are not. Market-share is a factor, but the reality is there are simply way more holes in Windows than in Linux (or BSD, the open source core of MacOS X). There is no way for you to vet the Windows code, whereas every proposed patch and development to any active open source project will be reviewed and debated -- in public, I might add -- by experts in the field, with the opportunity for anyone at any time to suggest an improvement or fix.

The application of this simple revelation to Government is a little tricky, but the overrarching lesson is that Security Through Obscurity Is Not Dependable, and may in fact create vulnerability, not to mention being latently undemocratic.

The simple reality is that in the 21st-Century, Governments must go on-line in a real way which empoweres citizens to learn about, watchdog and interact with public servants and services. This will inevitably provide better governance, which is what citizens deserve and desire. The first political party to explain (perhaps demonstrate) and "own" this sort of initiative will make political hay.

Why do local credit unions routinely have better web services than the Social Security Administration?

Why isn't the Government providing secure, trusted, unified identity services?

Why isn't a unified federal budget available online with the ability to drill down from departmental appropriations to specific expendatures?

The truth is that people respond to real information as well as to propaganda and fearmongering. In the long run, one form of building political capital creates a strong civil society which can make collective desisions and support itself, and the other creates a latently facist Daddy State in which citizens are disempowered, afraid, and seek protection and patronage from their superiors in the statehouse.

Pick one.