What it is not too early to discuss in regard to the leaks

Speculation counts for little. We're none of us experts on what the impact of this or that leak may be. What can be more fairly considered is the process of secrecy: its maintenance by governments; its penetration by leakers and whistleblowers; and its publication by the press.

Who is to blame for a leak of this kind? There are first the officials, elected and unelected, who fail to keep what they believe are vital secrets. There are next the leakers, who obtain the secret information and provide it to those who publish it. Are those who bungled the secrecy to blame? Are those who exploited the bungling to blame? How does one apportion fault for a leak of this type, taking its worth or harm out of the equation?

Next, who does one trust to decide what is secret? Do we trust those elected and unelected officials to make proper decisions on secrecy? In this case secrecy was somewhat incompetently maintained--does that inspire faith that secrecy is wisely and justly invoked? Do we trust leakers and whistleblowers to determine what needs revealing and what does not? Certainly some secrets are better revealed to the public than kept, but who ought to be the judge? The leakers, the officials? Finally, do we trust the press to publish that portion of the leaks that serves the public interest? Do we trust them to withhold what ought to be kept secret?

Draw on your experiences, and consider what you remember as useless or harmful government secrets. Likewise, consider what you remember as useless or harmful leaks. Is there a difference between the mass leak of a whistleblower and the targeted leak of a high official? How do we place these events in context?

I'd appreciate any and all input from DU on these questions.