Then you won't have any leaks. Problem solved!
Of course, you won't have any information other than what the government tells you, but them's the breaks...
However, the government needs to spend its resources keeping the "real/important" secret stuff under-wraps and opening up the rest(via low-level leaks).
A system like I proposed would lead to a better allocation of intelligence/security resources by the government and increased transparency for us - without removing all barriers to secrecy, which is highly unrealistic.
It's much safer IMO to have blanket protection for leaking/whistleblowing.
A similar thing happens with FOI requests here in Australia - there's an exemption for material which is 'commercial in-confidence'. Now pretty much everything that the government produces is marked as commercial in-confidence, and it's back to the old system of suing the government to release information.
Far better to have people leak stuff and then be protected under whistleblower / freedom of the press laws if it's in the public interest (with presumption that it is in the public interest, so the government has to bring a case to prove that it's not).
I remember Fareed Zakaria talking about how transparency hurts good governance - basically using a tyranny of the majority / anti-democratic type of argument. I think the example of ancient Greece having more war under democracy than "tyranny".
However, if everyone did see all the info we had on us, and the dirt on everyone else as well, perhaps it would lead to more outrage universally / less war. Then again, there'd be ALOT more gov't PsyOps going on to decisive the public.