From what I know about governments is that it is a bit of a gamble. Depending on the people who are in government, depending on how the courts may interpret the constitution at that time if there is one, depending on many unpredictable variables, the government can be more or less responsible.

So if we are supposed to hope all governments with maximum transparency remain responsible we are really just hoping our neighbors don't act in ways which statistics and history would have us think those in authority can act.

The information I have now, is just history, statistics, and the laws. These are the tools I have to work with to evaluate what a government might do in the future. Laws can change, the history impacts the culture in unpredictable ways, and statistics tell me what the government actually is doing.

Anyway I am glad you recognize there is a balance. That is the reason I'm not able to go with radical transparency. Radical transparency seems to tip the balance too far on the side of oppression (in theory).