To leak or not to leak: 5 types of leaker

Another day, another leak. Goes nicely with cheese don't you know.On a more serious note who is behind a leak and what are their motivations.

First, I suppose is the "knight leaker". They do it because the public should know about this travesty / abomination, they are people of honour and integrity, a shining example to us all. I imagine them to be people who have campaigned internally for the information to be released and get frustrated enough, realise it will never come to light unless they take a stand and do it themselves. I imagine these people have true moral dilemmas over loyalty and accepting what the right thing to do is. I imagine the decision to leak wins over loyalty on the basis it is for the good of mankind.

An example of this type of leak is that a government department has failed to keep track of 50,000 immigrants and has not put in place any policy to resolve the issue. Or Revenues and Customers have notice 50,000 tax errors but are only chasing those that have underpaid.

Then there must be the "profit leaker", they have information that someone wants and is willing to pay catch for it. Psychologically they think they can easily get away with it or the profit outweighs the risk. They have no moral dilemmas and are motivated by pure hard cash which might get them a new car or a house in the country. They also think there is no victim and it is perfectly harmless.

These people might be giving away confidential information such as who has quoted what for a government tender or giving away personal details such as bank details they might have access to.

Next will be the "thrill seeker leaker", this small group purely like being the centre of attention, they might be the secretary's and assistant's who are underpaid and over worked. Yet now they control the information and can leak something important. Again they think it is harmless, at least at first, then they might display addictive tendencies, aching for just one more leak. They probably carry on until they get caught or just get too greedy and leak something too big to go unnoticed.

Then there is the "revenge leaker" these have information which put someone in a bad light. They can also twist the information to be out of context, perhaps by lifting quotes which in isolation look bad. This is a very politically motivated leak and might be to discredit a rival. I imagine there are some labour supporters in government departments who pass things to Labour so the Tories look bad.

Finally, there is the "false leaker", these are the government sponsored leaks to test public opinion. I would imagine 50% of leaks at least, have semi official approval because if they leak the document they can canvas public opinion for free and if there is unanimous disapproval of a leak the party involved can always go on record and say it was a "blue sky" discussion document that was drafted and circulated at a low level. The document was never meant for public consumption and was discarded at an early stage. Most importantly the government or other party has plausible deniability.

As a way to canvas public opinion for free you cant really fault it.

I think today's announcement is of the false leak variety. The government can canvas opinion and see how much support some of these bodies or organisations have. If the hordes start to advance on Downing street they can always deny there was ever any intention to abolish the organisations. Plausible deniability and smoke and mirrors, now its policy now its not.