> Similarly to how Journalists feel justified in stories that have negative repercussions for some parties being reported upon. One way of assessing these decisions is answering the question "Is more harm done than good by releasing information this to the public?"
That method leads to the worst evils in the world. Many have concluded, or used it to justify everything from, 'it's ok to take these poor people's land and give it to megacorp, because we'll get a factory' to 'it's ok to silence these journalists because it's for the public good' to 'it's ok to kill my enemies because I think they are bad' to 'it's ok to commit genocide against this group because the world will be better off without them'.
Who am I, or who are you, to decide what is good or bad, or how good or bad, or to weigh those things for others? Beyond our obvious cognitive limitations (as humans, we are too flawed cognitively and morally to make judgments for others) and lack of legitimacy (who elected us?), there is our obvious bias - 'good' is what is good from our perspective, based on our biases, subject to our ignorance of others.
That's why human rights exist: It's their right and you can't make that decision for them; it's up to the person involved. If you think their land, etc. is so important, then ask them - it's up to them whether they want to do it. They have property rights, speech rights, etc. and nobody can abridge them, and in the limited circumstances where they can be abridged, there is a whole infrastructure of legitimacy (democracy), protection from corruption (separation of powers, juries, etc.), process (law, due process).