> "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution"
The fact that it's even feasible to release confidential information about government action implies that there is some ability for individuals to interpret the law. Otherwise, if the government does it, you just have to accept it as legal.
Yes, sometimes government actions are illegal, but a random individual can't know that unless they A) see a court case actually happen or B) interpret the law themselves and determine that the actions are illegal. Option A doesn't help whistleblowers, since the whole point of whistleblowing is to cause a court case to occur.
You're right that individuals do have to interpret the law, and choose their behaviour accordingly. AFAIK, it's only in the last hundred years or so that we've started to recognise human rights having precedence over a single nation's law, which makes it "legal" for individuals to act contrary to their nation's laws.
That recognition does make it easier (than it was) to counter, but there are still challenges, and they're unlikely to disappear soon.
The fact that it's even feasible to release confidential information about government action implies that there is some ability for individuals to interpret the law. Otherwise, if the government does it, you just have to accept it as legal.