But then you only elect politicians who don't care about privacy. I'm not sure those are the people I want crafting policy.
The claim was that they worked for you therefore they should be subject to constant surveillance. Submit to the same from your employer to prove that that is a reasonable expectation.
People in politics, as I said from the beginning, are still people. We can demand transparency in the decisions made (there are limits, because some of that information is sensitive - eg. National security, or commercial secrecy) but we cannot demand that people are surveiled every minute of their lives whilst at the same time complaining that it's a bad thing to happen to us.
Well, those in power should be held to a higher standard in various ways, and it is tricky. Someone who works on a pharma regulatory board who then the next year gets a gloriously-salaried job at Pfizer should probably not have been able to do that, even though for most people a job at Pfizer would be fine.
Your mistake is thinking public and private are the same.
There's no other explanation.
In a private company the employer has the power over the employees.
Working for the government and wielding power over the general public is a privilege and comes with higher expectations than a private employee.