When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.
The Times was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers, but they didn't facilitate their theft. Ellsberg was charged for the theft, but of course the Nixon admin's misconduct resulted in the charges being dismissed.
Given the corruptness of government, Freedom of Information can be bad.
Unredacted data sounds dangerous, but it asks the question-
"Why is the government doing it to begin with?"
If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.
Retrospective control is better than nothing.
Although if you commit benign computer sabotage and happen to acquire information about war crimes, that should be a freebee.