> The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks.
If simply trusting in the moral intuitions of ordinary people was any way of solving social problems, we wouldn't have social problems.
> I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.
I've read the exact argument, in exactly so many words, on HN, that governments should never hold secrets.
> You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad.
Given the connotation of the term "whistleblower", that's pretty much a tautology. You would not have called anyone "whistleblowers" for exposing the plans for Normandy.
If simply trusting in the moral intuitions of ordinary people was any way of solving social problems, we wouldn't have social problems.
> I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.
I've read the exact argument, in exactly so many words, on HN, that governments should never hold secrets.
> You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad.
Given the connotation of the term "whistleblower", that's pretty much a tautology. You would not have called anyone "whistleblowers" for exposing the plans for Normandy.