A distinction has to be made between secrecy and privacy. While Assange built a great tool against secrecy (and that's what scares Washington and alikes), it may be something good for privacy (hypothetically, the relationship with your aunt is safe, and maybe safer than before Wikileaks).
Things work when the penalty is commensurate with the bad behaviour, if there's no penalty than you're inciting "the bad things"...
If your definition of "bad things" is "everything that's illegal", you're making a reference to the law, but what we should consider is that the law is made by humans. Wikileaks targets those who think they are exempted not only by law, but also by morality, and do this using the threat of completely exposing them ...
If you partially expose things, choosing what to publish and what's private; than not only you are implicitly expressing a priori judgment without clearly exposing it, but you’re manipulating the data and decreasing the punishment too (effectively incentivising the wrong behaviour).
I think that exposing some of the dirty little secrets of these big players is not something that the average Jane/Joe can do, and is definitely not something that you should expect from someone with a strong moral integrity, or excessive scruples of conscience.
Trust is something tricky in intelligence chess games.
Penalty is what is needed here, things won’t change until we require the governments to put the people responsible of killings, dragnets, … in jail. But Hacking Team is still happily up and running despite their actions and the same goes for the attitude of the American intelligence community.
I might also agree, but I’m sorry to say that we still need Wikileaks.