Two friends of mine had a conversation about transparency, privacy and Reality Winner.  Winner was arrested on June 3, 2017, on suspicion of leaking an intelligence report about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to the news website The Intercept. I 'overheard' this conversation and thought it was worth sharing. 

Point | Counterpoint

Is Reality Winner a hero?

I haven't read a ton into the document that she leaked. I guess it would all depend on whether one felt that the public had a right to know the information that the government was keeping secret. If so, she's a whistleblower. If not, she's a leaker. I don't think there should be a knee jerk reaction to something like this... there are certainly MANY things that the government is hiding to protect illegal, unethical or shady behavior... but that doesn't mean EVERY leak is legitimate. But having said that, I generally believe that the government is not transparent enough, so I'd probably say this was likely in the public interest. And what do you think, Sir?

I believe that Ms Winner is an irresponsible, mal-informed Millennial faux-victim who is about to learn the consequence of making an oath to the People and breaking it.

Reality, indeed.

Transparency is not a good unto itself. It is a fallacy to believe that abject transparency is best. The lack of transparency is why android is better than iPhone, Boeing makes a better jet than Airbus, or for that matter, any business is able to maintain a healthy profit margin.

Moreover, the People already do have full transparency by virtue of their elective representatives who perform at their service and their best interest -- neighborhood by neighborhood. That is why there are Intelligence Committees so that some representative from your neighborhood can assess and monitor confidential State secrets without compromising the integrity or well-being of the State (should such information get out).

It is not for some 24-year old knave to decide what is in the best interest of the People. And if she did become legitimately concerned, there were appropriate channels -- secure -- through which to express her grievances. The whole ecosphere of "nothing is private' if allowed to metastasize will be a destroyer of real and financial assets, let alone sovereign nations.

Appreciate the time and effort you put into this reply. However, it seems like you think that I was advocating unchecked transparency - I was not. More importantly, you are assuming that our elected representatives are acting in our best interest, and there are *countless* examples where they have not and most of those involve hiding behind confidentiality and 'national security'. Ed's disclosures just happen to be the most glaring example of that.

Some choice quotes:

'The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.'' - Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary.

'Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety.' - Woodrow Wilson

'The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.' John Fitzgerald Kennedy

And one for fun:

'It's not me who can't keep a secret. It's the people I tell that can't.' ― Abraham Lincoln

funny.... :-).....  should we all know the nuclear codes?

nope.

whew.  ok so we agree there is a threshold......  and I believe we could also agree that that threshold should not be determined by any random person.

Instead the responsibility of, ahem, transparency should be endowed to a person chosen by the People...

of course not. it's determined by the courts. but a person who believes that impropriety is happening and that the chain of command explicitly values hiding that impropriety has no choice but to go public. it's after that occurrence, that the judgement is made.  and often times, it's only with some amount of time/distance and historical context does that become obvious.

Ellsberg was considered by many to be a traitor and a leaker. He was vindicated by the courts and is now fairly consistently understood to be a patriot.

It is determined by the courts only when there is disagreement regarding the propriety of the Constitution.... the responsibility is otherwise endowed to the People's representatives.  Those guys from your neighborhood whom you and your neighbors sent to Washington to represent your interests.

And, it appears that we agree that the courts decide the 'appropriateness' or legality of a leak, and on this the courts have been certifiably unambiguous.  Note that Snowden, (Chelsea) Manning, and Winner are, each, either indicted, convicted, or on-the-run.  Indeed, in these matters I do believe in the Courts' judgment.

We must then agree to disagree.

.