They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions th

They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions they're taking are perfectly legal. Leaking government secrets? Not so legal… There's an obvious reward for taking "questionable" tax deductions: lower taxes. What does Ballmer, specifically, gain from releasing classified information? And really? You want to compare questionable tax practices that aren't actually questionable legally to something that can be construed as espionage? But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive. Those two statements don't follow. The government may cease these practices if people find out and come out against them, but that doesn't stop them from prosecuting the person that brought them to light. When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government? When was the last time anyone of stature defended the public from the government via illegal means? It's a risk. Full-stop. You can get prosecuted for releasing classified information. And let's not even take it all the way to going to jail. The government can make your life a living hell just by prosecuting you for a crime, even if they're unsuccessful in getting a conviction. Which leads me back to my first question, why would Ballmer take that risk?