I don't believe that the comment to which you replied mentioned disinformation.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if my email was splashed across the Internet, regardless of who did it or why they did so.
Why don't we image all your storage devices, then post everything you've written, every site you've browsed, everywhere you've been, etc., etc., etc.
It's not disinformation, so it's okay to do so right?
You're right, we're talking about the members of a private organization that has no governmental role.
Are those people not entitled to the same level of privacy to which you and I are?
And if those folks aren't entitled to privacy, who is?
How about all those celebrities[0] whose iCloud accounts were hacked and naked photos and private messages spread far and wide?
Are they entitled to privacy? If so, why them and not others? If not, why not?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...
When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?
is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.
Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was.
> ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party.
I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a...
She writes:
> In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.”
Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.