It's actually very simple. If a year from now you find that the authors (Engelberg and Tofel, others?) of this project are still free then everyone whose data they published was a legit "celebrity" and the leak was OK with the current administration. If you suddenly discover that all of ProPublica are actually sex offenders and evade justice by hiding out in embassies (or something similar) then they overreached and leaked the wrong data on an off-limits "non-celebrity". Makes sense.

Courts exist for this reason. On one hand, you have the right to privacy (though it is not spelled out that clearly, it is inferred).

On the other, you have freedom of the press clearly outlined in the first amendment. There is no perfect answer and it will be subject to some debate. But in this particular instance, precedence has made it clear that people of significant stature (and that could mean a blue check is a signal of that in court!) have less of a right to privacy when weighed against the first amendment.

Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc.

With regards to celebrity, there is absolutely a tradeoff. On paper celebrities have the same civil rights as anyone else, but e.g. have you heard of the paparazzi before?

> Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc.

I disagree. A right is a human right. Human rights are not granted by a country, they can only be violated. My right to free thought and expression doesn't cease being a right if I'm in an oppressive state. A state can violate my rights but human rights are universal. You can disagree that privacy is a human right, and that's fine if you do.

In regards to paparazzi, if you're in a public space, you don't have the same right. It's balance by the right of another person taking photos in that same public space. There is no expectation of privacy, so I'm free to snap your picture, same as I have a right to record a police interaction (despite what some legislation might have you believe). But that doesn't mean I have the right to break into your home and record you sleeping.

I didn’t disagree. I said it’s an ideal.

Do you seriously think the experience is the same in public between an average citizen and a celebrity? There is a huge trade off that a celebrity accepts when becoming a household name/face.

> Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?

Yes, but right to extreme wealth isn't. I don't think people should be able to control this amount of wealth at all, but while they can I think public scrutiny over their finances is entirely reasonable.