State coverups are a reality, harsher penalties such as the death penalty probably won't deter potential leakers. Making the state more accountable and "policing the police" is the key rather than putting a lid on it, issuing harsher penalties and orchestrating more coverups and whitewashes.

You have to consider the dirt which any given administration tries to cover up, for example Iraq 2003/WMD claims made by the US and UK governments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-70-years.html

You don't classify a postmortem from a "suicide victim" for 70 years if you've got nothing to hide. If the victim is also the key player in "leaks" relating to the infamous "dodgy dossier" affair, people are right to be suspicious. And this coming from the "Lord" who led the "inquiry" into the whole affair. This is where classification is abused and equals simply hiding the truth and misleading the public. There is a huge difference between this and the actions of military personnel in a theatre of war.

But as ever, people have short memories and go about their daily lives in a state of self delusion and with the conviction that they are powerless to change the status quo in this "democracy". Even in the case of Iraq 2003/WMD the dirt got out, but the politicians simply kept repeating the same lie, revising the statement day by day - finally, "it was the right thing to do". Why? We've no idea, but the powers that be are sticking to that and in doing so are simply repeating the bare faced lie again and again. Looking at the state of that country now, I have serious doubts.

This is an example of something "the public has a right no know" - i.e. actions carried out in your name, for you as a voter and which you will have to pay for or bear the consequences of - long term.

I think in the good doctor's case the 70 years is so that all the people involved will have died anyway so any severe penalty for them would be pointless.
There is NO WAY he committed suicide. You don't book a restaurant for an anniversary meal with your wife and then go and top yourself.
If it hadn't been for that, they just might have got away with it!!

I have a good book called Senseless Secrets. Harry Potter's "Room of Requirement" was very much based on the absurdity of some government secrets being used to cover-up elected officials' dirty laundry.

Nevertheless, I believe that classified information is generally classified for good reason. When the President has a supposedly confidential phone call with another head-of-state and tomorrow it's in the newspapers, that's a problem. Likewise, when you examine what the WikiLeaks material – terabytes of it – consists of, that's a problem, too. The biggest problem is: "how did they get all of that stuff in the first place?"

How did apparently-authentic messages from the Secretary of State wind up on a DVD in an active battlefield, in the hands of a two-bit soldier of the line? That soldier could not have taken that information: it was given to him. But, by whom?

Now, the US Government also gives out security clearances like water ... in fact, they have outsourced(!) the process of granting them, which in my view makes the whole thing pretty useless. There are a lot of things out there with very low-grade classifications which probably don't need them at all. (Certainly, I think that classification is used so that the public doesn't find out how much money is being wasted on certain things.)

But, nevertheless, if it is State Secret, and you reveal it ... most especially if you reveal it for political gain ... in my hard-lined opinion, "you are a traitor."

We have a Freedom of Information Act. Through a formal process you can request that certain information be declassified and given to you – possibly in redacted form. The intent of this Act was to balance "the public's right to know" with the needs of information security.