There's no way to know if a powerful organization is abusive, anyway. I'm willing to bet my aunt's knitting group isn't abusing anyone outside its membership.
I'm being flip, but there's real substance here. A government, bank, utility, or military has direct power over people. They can cut people off from money, property, or freedom without any offering any recourse or external accountability, and that makes them potentially abusive to the public.
A private citizen, hobby group, or business with strong competitors is generally not at risk of abusing the public. They don't have the power, or couldn't sustain it while behaving badly.
So there is a narrative where we can decline "full transparency" while demanding transparency from public actors. The role of media (and Wikileaks) here is complicated, because they lack direct power but can still have predictable influences on the world; even so, we don't have to grant privacy as a totally symmetric right.
I agree that as a matter of policy, perhaps media organizations and Wikileaks shouldn't be held to the same standards as governments.
But that's not a distinction that Assange makes in his rhetoric, and I'm doubtful it's one he will make in practice either. Would Wikileaks really hold off on publishing if it came across a damaging leak about a news organization?
I feel Assange and his supporters do a great disservice to the public debate by oversimplifying things. Sometimes secrets are necessary for the proper functioning of our governments.
I'm being flip, but there's real substance here. A government, bank, utility, or military has direct power over people. They can cut people off from money, property, or freedom without any offering any recourse or external accountability, and that makes them potentially abusive to the public.
A private citizen, hobby group, or business with strong competitors is generally not at risk of abusing the public. They don't have the power, or couldn't sustain it while behaving badly.
So there is a narrative where we can decline "full transparency" while demanding transparency from public actors. The role of media (and Wikileaks) here is complicated, because they lack direct power but can still have predictable influences on the world; even so, we don't have to grant privacy as a totally symmetric right.