Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.
Here's the problem. The personal data of news figure should not be combed over by anyone. Please don't just throw up your hands and say "this is certainly unfortunate."
Do you know anyone who works in a government job with access to any sort of records? How about anyone in IT with access to the company's databases for HR, payroll, etc.? These people are just like the rest of us, with the same curiosity and the same failings. They're just as tempted to know interesting little details about other people as anyone else, but they have the power to see those details easily. Many will not be able to avoid the temptation. Most of those people are harmless. Some aren't. Think about how someone who doesn't like you could use personal details of your life against you. There are a *lot* of ways.
We do not live in the world of 1984, nor do we live in a police state with institutionalized, encouraged spying on one's neighbors. But privacy values are malleable, and they can and do shift over time. Your statement and others like it make me feel that we are shifting towards a culture with no expectations of privacy -- towards 1984. Please do what you can to prevent that; at the least, please consider your own views, how they apply to the rest of us, and how they affect the general culture of privacy we have now.
It's a tired analogy, but again, why do people send mail in sealed envelopes as opposed to on postcards or other readable-by-anyone methods? Even if they are doing nothing wrong? The knowledge can provide some power over us, and so there are things they simply don't want other people to know. And we respect that. We should respect that.