Iâd guess the distinction would be more âpublic interest disclosureâ rather than âofficialnessâ (after all, a lot of whistleblowing ends up in the media because of inadequacy in âformalâ channels). Or, with apologies to Yes Minister: âI give confidential briefings, you leak, he has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Actâ.
The question seems to be one of proportionality: investigative or undercover journalists often completely betray the trust and (reasonable) expectations of privacy of its subjects/âtargets, and this can ethically vary from reprehensible to laudable depending on the value of what it uncovers (compare paparrazzi to Panorama). Where this nets out for disclosing these slack group messages is unclear to me.
Iâd guess the distinction would be more âpublic interest disclosureâ rather than âofficialnessâ (after all, a lot of whistleblowing ends up in the media because of inadequacy in âformalâ channels). Or, with apologies to Yes Minister: âI give confidential briefings, you leak, he has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Actâ.
The question seems to be one of proportionality: investigative or undercover journalists often completely betray the trust and (reasonable) expectations of privacy of its subjects/âtargets, and this can ethically vary from reprehensible to laudable depending on the value of what it uncovers (compare paparrazzi to Panorama). Where this nets out for disclosing these slack group messages is unclear to me.