Why Do Certain Cases Have Information Released That Others Do Not

Are there any levels of classified information that the President of the United States is not authorized to know?

No.Anything that is classified is so for national security reasons, and the POTUS is the head honcho when it comes to national security. In fact, every agency that is authorized to do any business that involves national security is headed by someone who reports directly to the president.Here are the definitions of classifications:Top secretThis is the highest security level that if publicly disclosed, would cause "exceptionally serious damage" to national security.SecretThis is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security. Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity.ConfidentialThis is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if disclosed to the public.Also:"Furthermore, under Executive Order, the President is the ultimate holder of authority to determine the classification of items, with a few exceptions (e.g., politically embarrassing material may not be classified in order to cover it up). There are actually only a few laws which govern the use of classified material, and they tend to be rather specific; so questions of how classified information is handled is a matter handled by the Executive Branch, not laws.Furthermore, many would argue that Article II of the Constitution ("The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America") would mean that no executive branch employee or official could refuse a lawful request by the President to see or do something. The Constitution simply does not contemplate an inferior officer overruling the exercise of executive power by the President on matters of administration of the executive branch."

Can someone share my personal information without my consent?

It depends on the nature of the information, and what you define as personal, but the basic answer is yes, they can share it without your consent.Most data about people has almost no legal protection. This is why it’s legal for gMail to read and analyze your emails looking for topics they can use to categorize you for advertisers. It’s why Facebook can do the same, even in your chats using Facebook Messenger. It’s why it’s legal for VR games and even your weather app to collect your minute-to-minute GPS track 24 hours a day, and sell it to advertisers or anyone else willing to buy it. It’s why your supermarket offers you a discount membership card, so they can sell lists of all the products you buy. The list is endless.There are a few precious restrictions, but not many. For example, healthcare providers must safeguard medical information about you quite carefully. The IRS must protect the confidentiality of your tax returns, and the courts must protect records that have been sealed by a judge. But even then, if by negligence, error or intent any of that information leaks to a third party, there are very few limitations on their ability to share it even more widely, entirely without your consent.This does not mean that such things are entirely without consequences. In certain instances you could initiate a civil lawsuit in an effort to collect damages, but the burden would be on you to prove that the data was legally privileged in the first place, and to prove that their actions were instrumental in causing you harm. But that only applies to a very narrow band of information… almost all of the personal data about you flying back and forth in our digital domains is legally naked.And thus so are you.NOTE: This is NOT legal advice, which can only come from an attorney licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction.

How do serial killers get a sexual release from killing?

Because they have a case of extreme sexual sadism going on.Pain and pleasure are closely linked in the brain, and in serial killers the wires have crossed and they have related sexual pleasure with the infliction of pain, perhaps this is due to them being abused at the time when their sexual development was happening, or they have been exposed to sexual violence at an early age and have linked pain with pleasure.Also serial killers have a tremendous lack of empathy, and are also likely to be personality disordered, and at times may possess neurological conditions that alter their perception and empathy including autism, psychopathy, and possibly even brain injury.Any way how sexual sadism works is all down to the responses people give when in pain, the reactions they have.The screaming, the facial expressions, the squirming etc, are very much like how people react when engaging in sexual intercourse, and as the wires are crossed in sadists these reactions provide them sexual pleasure.I am a sexual sadist my self, and when I imagine the pain and terror a person would be experiencing in a situation like being tortured, I begin to experience arousal, due to imagining the pain I am inflicting on them cognitively, but I am not emotionally invested.So this is likely the reason why serial killers are addicted to killing, and get sexual release, because it is the equivalent to sexual intercourse for them.Some sexual sadists can only experience sexual arousal from harming others, there’s always a degree of severity, its like a spectrum, some are fine with a compliant partner and that is enough for them to simply whip a person, others are only satisfied when its a non compliant person and these are the types that commit crimes, as they do not want someone to enjoy the pain they inflict, they want the fear and pain to be unwanted, also some sadists can not experience sexual arousal from pleasure, but this is only in the extreme cases, luckily for me I can experience arousal both from giving pleasure and inflicting pain.So sexual sadistic serial killers are likely to be at the severe end of the sadism spectrum, who can only truly get off from harming non compliant people.