We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Let's grant that a hack—a way of obtaining information—and a leak—a means of disseminating information—are very different things. But, still, does the particular distinction Foer draws between the two make sense? Suppose, for example, that Russian intelligence, instead of feeding its trove of hacked secrets to WikiLeaks, had chosen to pass them along to an American investigative reporter, who then wrote about a selection of them in, say, the pages of the New Yorker or the New York Times. Would Foer have any grounds for objection?