> national duty It's difficult to "appreciat[e] the opportunity for debate" without also acknowledging that there is a legitimate argument to be made that secr

> national duty It's difficult to "appreciat[e] the opportunity for debate" without also acknowledging that there is a legitimate argument to be made that secret mass surveillance is wrong, in which case a legitimate argument can also be made that one's national duty to disclose a program of mass surveillance trumps any professional duty to respect its secrecy. Indeed, any reasonable legal framework for state secrets will include the notion than an overwhelming public interest should overrule the expectation of privacy. See, for example, the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which includes an obligation to disclose private information to the public if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is an overriding public interest in disclosing it. Again, the problem with Edward Snowden's disclosures is not that he breached some ethic or etiquette, but rather that such programs as he disclosed should never have existed in secret in the first place.