> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?
I would. I don't trust the government to decide what should and shouldn't be confidential, and I'd be curious to hear any justifications for why the government deserves even the slightest bit of trust.
So your position is that what that person did is OK because you personally don't trust the government?
What other crimes would you then permit because you don't trust the government? Would it be OK to stab soldiers then? They work the government. How about robbing postal workers? Which crimes no longer are crimes when the government is the victim, and which rules do you use to determine that?
And then take the same question and apply it to corporations. You may not trust Google, for instance; would you say that it's OK then for a Google employee to leak 700,000 random emails from GMail because that would embarrass Google? If not, why is your logic different here?
> So your position is that what that person did is OK because you personally don't trust the government?
What do you mean by "OK"? The question I was responding to was whether I would defend him, and I said yes. I'm not making a legal or moral argument, I'm just expressing my personal preference.
I would. I don't trust the government to decide what should and shouldn't be confidential, and I'd be curious to hear any justifications for why the government deserves even the slightest bit of trust.