> If you're effectively saying that any individual has free reign to do whatever they desire with trade secrets, sensitive diplomatic information, and whatnot b

> If you're effectively saying that any individual has free reign to do whatever they desire with trade secrets, sensitive diplomatic information, and whatnot because of a moral injury they may feel the system is giving them, then you've effectively destroyed any form of organized human activity that involves trust or secrets. That's a straw man argument. There are lots of innocuous things that could destroy our civilization if everyone chose to do it all the time. If everyone had their A/C turned up to MAX on a hot summer day, the entire continent will suffer a blackout and all industry will grind to a halt. If everyone exercised their right to travel on public roads at the same time, there will be a massive traffic jam everywhere. What saves the day is the mundane fact that not everyone exercises all of their rights all the time. Just like the bandwidth of your internet connection, rights are routinely oversold with the expectation that not everyone will use them at the same time. Otherwise everyone will have ridiculously low bandwidth caps. Most people who support Snowden believe that some people sometimes have a right, or even a duty, to divulge secrets. Organized human activity as we know it will, of course, grind to a halt if everyone in fact divulged everyone else's secrets all the time. But the mundane fact of the matter is that most people will keep secrets. Common sense, not strict laws against divulging secrets, keeps human civilization alive.