Instead, the takeaway here is that personal data snooping is common, pervasive, and probably considered a perk by those who do it. As Machiavelli might have said, "What good is access to information if you don't use it?"
A lot of what makes the personal information of pop stars and presidential candidates so enticing is that they're public figures. That information also can be used for blackmail, commercial gain, or political advantage. But my bet is that Medicare files, Social Security contributions, or tax returns get reviewed (and passed around, and talked about) way more often than we care to think about.
The difference is the tabloids don't care about my peccadilloes or yours, and my political opponents are much more obsessed with the wall I built along my driveway. (Built to code or not? Do your own snooping.) And god only knows what your enemies are trying to dig up on you.
Speaking of peccadilloes, this also circles back to former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. His downfall, as we all know now, was triggered by automated reviews of financial transactions he was making. The point: There's a good deal of legal scrutiny that's completely transparent where our bank accounts, credit cards, and phone records are concerned.
So whether you and your big sunglasses appear frequently on page one of the National Enquirer, or you're just another member of the great unwashed, let's save the self-righteousness about infringement on personal privacy. Hooray for well-meaning laws, but they don't lock down the personal bits and bytes any tighter.
In this era of data mining and an information-based economy, personal privacy's no longer a reasonable expectation. Those days are long passed.
