WikiLeaks, the organization dedicated to exposing private information and data leaks, has been propelled into prominence after releasing the personal emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta as well as those of the DNC. Both releases revealed major corruption, including pay-to-play politics, and the DNC’s rigging of the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton. Since then, the right has seen WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in an increasingly positive light. According to The Blaze, Republicans “had an overall -47 favorability rating [for WikiLeaks in 2013.]” Currently, “Wikileaks now enjoys a +24 favorability rating among Republican voters.”

This sharp increase has clearly occurred for two primary reasons: WikiLeaks hacked the enemy of Republicans (the DNC and Podesta), and because WikiLeaks is not currently threatening Republican interests, as they did in 2010 when WikiLeaks began to make classified State Department documents on the war in Afghanistan public.

Earlier than that, in 2008, Sarah Palin claimed that Assange “is not a ‘journalist,’ any more than the ‘editor’ of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a ‘journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands.” These harsh words came after Palin’s personal emails were made public by WikiLeaks. Now Palin is apologizing for her previously accurate statements, primarily because now WikiLeaks is focusing on her political foes. Palin’s drastic change in tone over WikiLeaks is disingenuous- and it is just one of many examples.

Some of you may be asking, “Okay, but so what? They did some bad things, but now they’re on our side!” To quote Donald Trump, “Wrong!”

Just like Putin, WikiLeaks is on its own side. It, and similarly Assange, are out for their self-aggrandizement. Consider further the 2010 Afghanistan leaks incident. Before the leaks were released, Assange, in his misguided crusade against a lack of government transparency, made the argument to reporters and government officials that the leaks remain entirely uncensored. Why is this a problem? Those leaks contained vital and sensitive information about spies and informants in the region. According to The Guardian’s David Leigh and Luke Harding, journalists took Assange to a fancy restaurant where they told Assange the danger he was putting Afghan informants in. Assange promptly replied, “Well, they’re informants, (…) So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.”

I understand the want and utter need for government transparency: it’s why I supported Edward Snowden when he revealed the NSA’s unconstitutional spying practices.It is also why I supported the idea of transparency and openness in this election: which is why WikiLeaks releasing information about government corruption didn’t bother me. Corruption in our government is what we as the American people have a right to know about and fix accordingly, but Assange and WikiLeaks take the idea of transparency too far.

Assange and WikiLeaks do not believe in censorship, which means they will release ALL accurate information they receive, even if that information was previously private and personal information of little to no value. When the DNC was hacked, for instance, there was more than just information about election rigging that was released. According to Hack Read, information released by the leaks also included, “highly personal information of donors such as first and last names, full address, zip codes, phone number, email address, occupation, employer, credit card data and donated amount.” On top of that, the information released also included “passport numbers, IP addresses and system details of the client such as operating system and browser info.”

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government is not allowed to investigate private documents or property without just or proper cause in an investigation of criminality. Why should we be okay with a private organization, beholden to no man other than Julian Assange, a man who takes the idea of transparency too far, having access to this information (especially when they’ve given no good reason for it), but not the government which is beholden to us? The answer one should come to is that such a seizure of private information is negative in both cases.

Many support WikiLeaks because they are for government transparency and the exposure of governmental corruption. I am for it too. However, WikiLeaks goes far beyond that boundary and releases government information that puts innocent people in compromising positions, releases private information not relating to corruption that hurts private citizens, and goes against all rights to privacy we hold dear.

To those of you who may say in response, “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about,” I give you this quote in reply: “Saying that you shouldn’t have a right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you shouldn’t have a right to free speech because you have nothing to say.”

These wise, albeit slightly paraphrased, words come from none other than Edward Snowden. I think it would do us all well to heed them.

Related

Eric Shaffer Eric Shaffer is an author, contributor to various outlets and host of The Shaffer Hour. Eric values intellectual honesty and truth above all else in politics and reporting. As a conservative, Eric spreads a message of logical thought and reason in the political realm.

The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.