At my core, I believe everyone, regardless of affiliation or beliefs has a right to online privacy.
On the other, man do I freaking wish that one of the big porn sites would put up a billboard with the (private) sexual fetishes of these specific elected officials.
Edit: I would wish more for the latter if I thought it would change anything.
Everyone else may have personal views that are not reflected by the law. That's a good reason to not make them suffer for the sake of it just because of what the law says.
Politicians have the power to directly vote for or against laws. They are the only people to whom this caveat does not apply.
An electronic billboard, where the private sexual fetishes of 1 random constituent are publicly displayed, next to their name. A new unlucky constituent is randomly chosen and displayed every day. At the bottom, a bold red banner reads, "[REPRESENTATIVE NAME] TOOK $XX,XXX FROM THE CABLE INDUSTRY, THEN VOTED TO LET THIS HAPPEN."
Publishing that a congressperson ordered a dildo or butt-plug would get peoples' attention pretty fast- and might accelerate change.
I'm starting to warn people not to go to WebMD and similar sites because of recent events.
Coincidentally enough, most people(even in tech) didn't hear about the Experian leak, perhaps that was because
1)The data was sold "legally" to the actor
2-∞)...[reasons].
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/03/experian-lapse-allowed-id...
If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse.
Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is a facist. When Bush was president, people compared him to Hitler. When Obama was president, people compared him to Hitler. Now Trump is Hitler. I've heard people non-ironically compare Steve Jobs to Hitler. Comparing an Apple CEO to history's most notorious genocidal dictator, in complete earnestness.
Do we want us, a crazy bunch of humans that for the most part seem to be unable to differentiate between an idea we don't like and genocide, deciding who is deserving enough to have rights? Privacy is a complicated issue, and I don't think it would be hard to paint all but the most zealous of advocates as being soft of privacy and therefore undeserving. Not a path I hope we go down.
The legal doctrines collectively called estoppel ensure this in courts of equity. You cannot first argue one thing and then later argue a contradictory position. And in the court of public opinion, you cannot argue that no one has the right to data privacy and then later try to invoke some form of right to data privacy for yourself.
Most of the time, that doesn't matter. But when a member of a legislature codifies into law that I don't have privacy, I for danged sure am not going to even grant that guy a sliver of a courtesy of a fig leaf of privacy. I would air his dirty laundry immediately and without hesitation the instant any shred of it landed in my lap.
Because rights are a cooperative compact between equals. They are given as a reward for good behavior, but it is the summation of good behavior across hundreds of millions of individuals. It doesn't matter so much what I believe in relation to a right, but what I do. If I, for instance, did not believe that owning and carrying sidearms was a right, I probably would just not own or carry one, and the right would not be affected. If I instead launched a crusade to destroy all pistols, my neighbors would likely be even more unhappy if I did it while carrying for my own protection.
You only have those rights you are willing to extend to others. That is tit-for-tat social strategy writ large.
Yours is a barely-disguised version of the usual "I don't care about privacy because have nothing to hide" argument.
How does it not imply what you're attracted to?
Throwaway for obvious reasons but I figured you deserved an attempt at an answer.