Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you say about personal privacy. But with extreme power, there's not much that's legitimately private. Consider what people must reveal to get the highest security ratings, for example.
On the other hand, with enough power privacy is replaced by immunity. The importance of privacy is heavily distorted by one's level of vulnerability to state or social coercion. As an example - it's not clear whether J. Edgar Hoover was gay, but it's quite clear that he threatened and even blackmailed people who raised the question too publicly. Meanwhile, employees lower in the national security apparat were surveil…
I believe that the powerful ought to have neither privacy nor immunity. That ought to be the trade-off for having substantive power. There's the old adage about power coming with responsibility. So I'm rather expanding on the basis for responsibility.