They’re probably not the best people to be asking that question anyway. Police, politicians, and especially anybody who works in a national security role, are all people who have already accepted living with seriously diminished privacy in order to do their jobs. It’s also not terribly surprising the journalists are mostly rather delinquent when it comes to privacy controversies, as privacy gets in the way of a journalist doing their job as often as it does a police officer.
This is a really good point and I'm not sure how to really tackle it other than ask if they're also comfortable with the same being true for their families as well as themselves?
There were cases where lack of privacy for public figures family members have caused issues[0][1]. I don't want to focus on that specific story, it's just an example.
This might be a case where people are happy about that information being public? Or maybe they have a more nuanced take? For example, report that it happened, but don't print their name / picture? (for example both articles below did name, but only nytimes seems to have also done picture)
Where you draw the lines on this stuff can be really important.
