REGIONAL VIEWPOINT: The risks of springing a leak

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/05/2023 (886 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Leaks have been around since governments were first invented. Someone once quipped that “the ship of state is the only vessel that leaks from the top.”

It is true that high level government officials, both politicians and senior public servants, periodically release highly confidential information in order to achieve various aims. Not all leaks, however, come from the bridge on the ship of state. Some come from down below in the engine room.

This was illustrated recently by the news that a 21-year-old IT specialist serving in the Massachusetts Air National Guard had allegedly leaked sensitive intelligence and defence information in order to impress his friends in a Discord chat room.

Despite his youth and junior rank, the individual had security clearance to deal with highly classified information. Once identified, the alleged leaker was taken into custody by the FBI to face charges yet to be determined.

Put simply, leakers are persons in possession of classified information which they are not authorized to release. There are laws and sanctions, as well as informal norms and pressures within organizations, that are meant to prevent leaking. Leaking is an ethically ambiguous activity. Not all leakers are saints or sinners, some are just misguided or stupid.

Leakers who break the law should not be described as whistleblowers. Whistleblowing involves the good-faith disclosure of information about serious wrongdoing within government, through authorized procedures that qualify the whistleblower for protection against retaliation.

There are many different motivations for leaking. Higher level government officials have been known to leak to support political aims, to influence policy debates, to test reactions from interest groups and to curry favour with journalists.

Leaks from lower-level public servants are often based on the belief that certain information needs to be shared with the public, whether that information relates to what they regard as dangerous policy decisions or to what they perceive as serious wrongdoing.

Such leakers may choose not to become whistleblowers because they believe it will be futile or because they fear reprisals.

Not all leaks occur for altruistic reasons. Leaking can be done as part of spying and espionage activities. It can be done for ideological reasons. It can be done for money and notoriety. It can be done by disgruntled employees of government organizations. Contractors providing goods or services to governments have been a significant source of leaks, likely because they are not part of the public sector culture of loyalty to government as an employer.

In rare cases, leaks serve the public interest by disclosing information that needs to be more widely known. More often, leaks are disruptive and damaging to the organizations and individuals who are impacted.

When leaks occur, governments insist they will find the offender and apply the full force of the law. Thousands of public officials have security clearance so identifying leakers is often difficult. Moreover, leak investigations are a double-edged sword. They can serve as a deterrent but, if they fail, the result may be to empower other potential leakers.

Seeking prosecutions of leakers can lead to the disclosure of additional sensitive information. If governments try to suppress media circulation of sensitive information, it can lead to criticisms about denying free speech and the public’s right to know.

The recent leak of a trove of sensitive documents to the internet was not unprecedented (remember Edward Snowden and Wikileaks), but it was unusual for several reasons.

The accused leaker’s motives were apparently trivial — not serious, he was simply trying to impress his online buddies. The method for sharing resulted in an early identification of the leaker, and he will pay a serious price for a stupid ego trip.

Dumping a large volume of documents into cyberspace, as opposed, for example, to a leak of a specific document to news outlets, is more dangerous because leakers and governments are unable to control potential harm done to institutions and people.

Informed commentators think there will be more frequent leaking in the future. Some reasons include heightened mistrust of governments; the ongoing revolution in digital technology that supports instantaneous release of information; and the growing attempts by countries to hack into one another’s information systems.

Historically, leaks have been less common in Canada than in larger political systems, especially the U.S. This may be partly because of the Canadian political tradition of respect for authority. In recent decades, anti-government sentiment that might encourage leaking has risen, but not to the extent found in the U.S.

Fear about future leaking has led to calls for fewer officials with security clearance and new bodies to oversee stricter classification systems for highly sensitive information. Passing stronger whistleblower protection laws and promoting cultures of safety to disclose would also help to prevent external leaks.

» Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.