It really serves no public interest, I was honestly shocked when I saw that Wikileaks decided to publish this stuff. Publishing leaked personal emails with no newsworthiness is the kind of thing a dirty supermarket tabloid like Gawker would do.
At least I imagined that Wikileaks would want to preserve their reputation as doing something for the public good but a childish move like this focused on a single individual (an enemy in their eyes) makes me question the organization's values going forward.
They've been grasping for relevancy the last few years ever since Assange has gone into exile but the Chelsea Manning disclosures were newsworthy and responsibly handled.
The Cablegate leaks were newsworthy and responsibly handled.
Syrian/Saudi diplomatic emails, Iraq/Afghanistan war documents, Trans-pacific Partnership reporting. These actions bring attention to large groups of people in power and hold governments accountable for their actions.
Publishing the emails from an AOL account of a CIA director doesn't quite fit that mould.
"He did nothing wrong, therefore he has nothing to hide".
Are you really questioning the fact that this was made public while NSA, CIA and other agencies have been wiping their asses with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and the Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
No one is questioning that it was made public, rather, that Wikileaks decided to latch on to a data leak that kind of shares the same trollish territory as leaking nude celebrity photos.
Running with the Chelsea Manning leak helped start a conversation about the ethics of drone warfare and the culpability of the US military in the deaths of civilians.
What kind of a wider conversation does leaking John Brennan's SF-86 create? Maybe there's some ancillary discussion about those in the security community not using secure channels but it mostly just feels like a cheap shot.
> What kind of a wider conversation does leaking John Brennan's SF-86 create?
Does it necessarily have to create a conversation?
It, at the very least, destroys yet another time the "nothing to hide" argument and underlines both the fact that nobody is safe unless active measures are taken and that all this spying business is tainted with serious amateurism.
And if this is worthless to you, see it as a backlash. Our personal informations are intercepted on a daily basis and played with in a way that we have no control over. The average Joe, alone, can't fight back, Wikileaks is the collective answer.
It is in-line with Trevor Paglen's work [1] on demystifying spying activities: they're no super heroes, they're bound to physical, practical and logistical limitations (like we all are), we can fight them.
It's in the public interest if encryption and digital security are in the public interest. People like this have a voice that's actually heard when those topics come up. It's just a gentle reminder that actively sabotaging security "for national security" can come back to bite.
At least I imagined that Wikileaks would want to preserve their reputation as doing something for the public good but a childish move like this focused on a single individual (an enemy in their eyes) makes me question the organization's values going forward.