All this "break the law" stuff like the rule of law is still a player in any of this. Clapper says it is and everyone pisses themselves laughing. Holder says it is and yeah, same deal. The people vs $25,000 so the police can keep it with no charges laid. Patraeus wasn't economically uninvolved with the sales of his hagiography where he did all that leaking but they had an inconsequential show-trial where he got off with nothing for him - let that be a lesson. And how do we know he did that? His email was illegally hacked, without a warrant by the FBI - who's building is
still named after J. Edgar Hoover who was as criminal as anyone has ever been (Aside from being a cross dresser who liked to bash homosexuals for fun and his attempts to get Martin Luther King to commit suicide through blackmail and harassment. Yeah really, you can't make this stuff up).
Or we can explicitly hold up an Australian hacker with an idea, the ability to hack that idea together and have total commitment to that idea for which he required nobody's blessing, approval nor government funding to a much higher standard than public servants, hired to serve the public, who have very clearly been engaged in criminal conspiracy. Ok it's fair to do so but we need to say that out loud every time if we're doing that. Once the standard is set it has to be the same for all or the rule of law is rather a moot point.
Should there be a law at all that compels people to keep this kind of thing secret? Is such a law constitutional? You have free speech but this is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Really? Because people might be worried about what is happening in the democratic process and want to be informed so they can act accordingly? That's a big call.
The New York Times and the Washington Post publish one hell of a lot of "official leaks" from people who are essentially paid to do that leaking to spin the story. It's their job. Or so "someone familiar with the matter" told them.
Should journalists and their employers get all the proceeds when the source takes rather more risk. To be honest I don't care whether Snowden is an altruist (although he clearly is) I'd pay the goddamn devil to get that information out so we all know it and can slowly, piece by piece, reform that post-terrorist-attack blindspot that has become an utter disgrace. Would you rather not know?