>Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit

>Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit card and driver's license to the nearest telephone pole. Not at all. They broadcast it to the world. They are an accessory. >I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present. That's... just ridiculous. You could get the same result by just redacting all the private info except names. Then everyone knows but no one is put at risk. But they didn't even bother to do that. >Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them What you personally consider to be secure has no bearing. They took private sensitive data that was not public and made it public. Just because you think that maybe it probably was already at risk is irrelevant. >but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them How can you even try to make this point? It makes no sense. If I know your credit card info, all I have to do is assume that other people already have it so it's fine if I publish it? >Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks. EXACTLY. Who knows? Not you, so it's irresponsible and damaging for them to release them when it's possible no one had them.