Defending clients who have been sued for the theft of confidential data, especially trying to characterize their behavior as for public welfare purposes (such as “whistle-blower” or public interest disclosure), requires a combination of legal, ethical, and factual strategies. The following are possible defense ideas and precautions： --- ### **1. Legal framework: clarify the legality of “public welfare purposes”** -**Is there a legal defense?**： Certain national laws (such as the "Whistle Blower Protection Act" in the United States or the exception clause of the European Union's "Trade Secrets Directive") allow the disclosure of confidential information under certain circumstances to protect the public interest (such as exposing violations of laws and crimes, endangering public safety, etc.). It is necessary to demonstrate that the customer's behavior meets the legal conditions. -**Principle of proportion**： Even if the behavior involves violations of the law, it can be argued that its means are proportional to the public welfare purpose (for example: data disclosure is the only feasible method, and the harm is much smaller than the avoided loss of public interest). -**Case reference**： Citing similar jurisprudence (such as the ”Pentagon Papers Case“ and ”Edward Snowden Case", etc.), it shows that the court has dealt with or exempted public disclosure lightly. --- ### **2. Factual strategy: Building an evidence chain for "Public Welfare Purposes”** -**Proof of motivation**： Collect customer communication records, public statements, etc. before disclosure to prove that their intention is to expose public interest risks (such as corporate fraud, environmental hazards, public health threats, etc.), not profit-making or malice. -**Data content relevance**： It needs to be proved that the stolen data is directly related to the claimed public welfare issues (for example, the data proves that the company concealed the carcinogenicity of the product). -**Objects and methods of disclosure**： If the customer chooses to disclose (rather than publicly sell) to regulatory authorities, the media, or legal channels, it can strengthen its “good faith” claim. --- ### **3. Weaken the prosecution's charges** -**Question the definition of ”confidentiality"**： If the data should have been disclosed in accordance with the law (if the information related to public safety is illegally concealed by the enterprise), it can be claimed that it is not a legally protected trade secret. -**Necessity argument**： Prove that the customer has tried to report through internal channels but was ignored, or that the situation is urgent (such as a major hazard is about to occur), forcing them to take extraordinary measures. --- ### **4. Risk warning and Compromise strategy** -**Plea negotiation**： If the evidence is unfavorable, you can negotiate to plead guilty but emphasize public welfare motives, and strive for commutation of the sentence or conversion to civil punishment. -**Influence of public opinion**： Shaping the public's recognition of the public interest nature of the case through the media or expert testimony may affect judicial tendencies (but it is necessary to avoid accusations of “public opinion interfering in justice”). --- ### **5. Ethics and professional boundaries** -**Restrictions on the duties of lawyers**： It needs to be clear that lawyers shall not assist in falsifying evidence or instigate false statements. If the customer is unable to provide credible evidence of public welfare purposes, care must be taken to avoid excessive claims. -**Customer's right to know**： Inform customers that even if the purpose of public welfare is established, they may still bear legal responsibilities (such as civil compensation), but the penalty may be reduced. --- ###**Key challenges** -**The gap between law and public awareness**： Many jurisdictions do not have a clear exemption clause for “public welfare theft” and rely on the discretion of judges. -**High threshold for evidence**： Customers need to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the public interest of their disclosure is much greater than the interest of data confidentiality. --- ###**Summary steps** 1. **Evaluate the legal basis**: Study local whistle blower protection regulations and jurisprudence. 2. **Collect factual evidence**: fix key evidence such as customer motivation, data content, and disclosure channels. 3. **Construct narrative logic**: Characterize the case as a “public welfare act of last resort” rather than "theft”. 4. **Flexible response to litigation**: Combining multi-channel strategies such as defense, consultation, and public opinion. It should be noted that this kind of defense is highly dependent on the specific case and judicial environment. It is recommended to cooperate with lawyers familiar with trade secret law and constitutional law.