Many faces to privacy of “social media accounts” of individual people.
First, public officials have obligations to the public which they claim to serve. Remember that’s why Hillary got into such trouble for not exclusively using a State Department email system. Not sure I blame her, given that government agencies are not actually known to be “the best” at securing the information about their accounts. Open Meeting laws require that deliberations for public policy be public (presumably to prevent back room dealing and undue influence)
The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to ensure transparency in the deliberations on which public policy is based. Because the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, the Open Meeting Law requires, with some exceptions, that meetings of public bodies be open to the public. It also seeks to balance the public’s interest in witnessing the deliberations of public officials with the government’s need to manage its operations efficiently.
Second, regarding the personal privacy of convicted traffickers of child prostitution and child porn, if you stand up for their personal privacy, that’s a nice idealistic goal but how comfortable are you about them working in the school that your kids attend, or even move into your neighborhood?
Third, your own personal information, from your own personal view, certainly deserves a level of privacy. As long as you’re not a public official or a convicted criminal.
Someone as savvy about security and privacy as James Comey might still be dox‘d with information from “OSINT” (open source intelligence) — information obtained from publicly released information such as his speeches:
Some clever searching and matching makes a convincing case that this is really Comey’s account.