Ethics of leaking

I have been musing over an issue that has troubled me for a while now; the ethics of 'leaked documents'. Almost every day we read in our papers or see on TV items about people leaking information. Most recent is the documents leaked in Christchurch from the 'Arts Centre' about the conservatorium of music ("Suspicion hangs over Christchurch Arts Centre senior management and trust board members after confidential financial documents were leaked to opponents of the proposed music conservatorium.") and internationally there are leaked reports about UK involvement in Iraq.

We have learnt about many scandals that we wouldn't have, if someone hadn't leaked the infomation; we also have dishonesty uncovered, criminal acts committed, unfaithfulness exposed.

But is it ethical, is it Christian, is it theft; in short is it wrong? The following I found on the web about this very topic and it would represent the position of many people.

[We publish confidential information almost every day on TechCrunch. This is stuff that is also “stolen,” usually leaked by an employee or someone else close to the company, and the company is very much opposed to its publication. In the past we’ve received comments that this is unethical. And it certainly was unethical, or at least illegal or tortious, for the person who gave us the information and violated confidentiality and/or nondisclosure agreements. But on our end, it’s simply news.
If you disagree with that, ok. But then you also have to disagree with the entire history of the news industry. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising,” is something Lord Northcliffe, a newspaper magnate, supposedly said. I agree wholeheartedly.
That doesn’t mean we are entitled to do anything we like in order to get to that information. But if it lands in our inbox, we consider it fair game. And if we have reason to believe it will be widely published regardless of what we do, the decision isn’t a hard one. We throw out the information that is sensitive or could hurt an individual, and publish what we think is newsworthy.http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/15/our-reaction-to-your-reactions-on-the-twitter-confidential-documents-post/ ]

Then here is a reaction from a company that had their information 'stolen' and then published:

[We are in touch with our legal counsel about what this theft means for Twitter, the hacker, and anyone who accepts and subsequently shares or publishes these stolen documents. We're not sure yet exactly what the implications are for folks who choose to get involved at this point but when we learn more and are able to share more, we will.]

No doubt about where they stand; it's theft, illegal and open to legal proceedings. This is the crunch of the argument; is this theft or is 'leaking' some how different. Does the news worthiness outweigh the means in obtaining it! Does the 'public interest' make it okay!

Here's another person commenting on the net who is for 'leaking':

[I get so furious with the slimeball tactics of these corporate fascist weasels who think they own the world. The only reason this nonsense is kept secret is because it is so patently wrong, abusive and controlling. The more light that can be shed on this and similar tactics of using business negotiations to override democratic rules the more likely we are of being able to shut down and shut up these relentless power hunger dicks.]

Then this person suggest otherwise:

[Some will argue all is fair, love and war and that Twitter should have better security policies, however, what they also have to remember is that brands, like Tech Crunch, have a duty to be the best they can be through ethical reporting, fairness and solid foundational values.
Ethical reporting, fairness and solid foundational values builds trust with people. Any dent to this trust is hard to get back. Moreover, a loss of respect is difficult to regain.]

And this:

[My perspective is simply that it is theft of company information to take confidential information, which is considered intellectual property/work product and distribute it externally. As with any Govt employee that leaks classified information to the press - they may thing it's the right thing to do, but they are still breaking the law.]

Whether you should 'leak' info or not is not just a black and white issue. You could be helping the law to catch someone doing wrong and sometimes we have a 'right' to know what is going on 'behind closed doors', in the name of democracy. Are you saving a life by 'leaking' ?

Notice that I haven't said that it is not "black & white" whether this is "right or wrong". Let's look at what the Bible says about stealing, gossip,

"He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." (Eph 4:28)

"You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' " (Luke 18:20)

"You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15)

This to me says that stealing is wrong; stealing is when you take that which is not your own. If you belong to a committee that has discussed an issue and you disagree with something they have done, then you should stand up and voice your opposition in the committee or to the news media but once you step over the boundary and take documents that belong to the committee or company then you are stealing. Stealing is wrong.

"A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret." (Proverbs 11:13)

"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips," (Romans 1:29)

To gossip is wrong; so this speaks about a lot of our news media. The information they often collect is based on hearsay and not fact.

So I would suggest that 'leaking' information is stealing if the information doesn't belong to you. Now should you publish material that is given to you? That can cause a dilemma...because it might save a life!