o me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.
This seems like a false dichotomy.
Wish I had more time to go in to why I think that. One counter example might be The Manhattan Project.
Could you do the manhattan project over 15 years without a leak? Time is a factor in these things.
And I don't think necessarily the people on the project would think what they are working on as 'abusive' per say. Compared to killing civilians from a helicopter, being corrupt, dodging taxes or spying on the entire world like the gestapo, the manhattan project probably had a different feeling to it.
Was the Manhattan Project efficient? How do you go about assessing that? Do you have any term of comparison? Do you think it's unlikely that it would have been done sooner and cheaper if it didn't have to be kept secret?
Well, for one thing, everyone working on the project was kept in the same big research compound in Los Alamos. No one in, no one out. It had the dual purpose of efficiency (all the researchers in one place) and secrecy (none of said researchers were allowed to leave).
This seems like a false dichotomy.
Wish I had more time to go in to why I think that. One counter example might be The Manhattan Project.