You seem to think the term "privacy" (i) can be applied to large organizations such as governments, and (ii) it bears a significant resemblance with an individu

You seem to think the term "privacy" (i) can be applied to large organizations such as governments, and (ii) it bears a significant resemblance with an individual's privacy. I can understand (i) (though I would prefer the word "secrecy"), but you really really need to explain (ii). By the way, even if (ii) is correct, it makes little matter, because of the power balance. As Chomsky often points out, when the powerful obtain information about the powerless, they gain even more power over them than the powerless would have gained over the powerful from similar information. Which means that a more "open" society, with less privacy for individuals and less secrecy from trusts and governments, will inevitably tip the power balance even further. It is just unreasonable to treat state (and corporate) secrecy and individual privacy the same way. Assange may be a hypocrite, but on this particular issue, he's clean.