Poor individuals also commit most of the crime that damages their community. Focusing only on the money at stake ignores whether or not the victims matter. I care a lot more about getting thugs and shoplifters out of my neighborhood than I care if Google 'violated' my privacy since the former hurt me in the real way and the ladder only hurts me if I'm white and paranoid.
no, the poor don't commit most of the crimes, and what crimes they do commit are often crimes of necessity and of quite limited effect. whereas, the crimes of the well-to-do are often large and affect a broad range of society (y'know, like the sacklers, madoff, putin, or bashar al-assad). worrying about thugs and shoplifters makes as much sense as worrying about lightning strikes, pickpocketing, kidnapping, and drowning in a bathtub. if you worry about the former, you should seriously worry about the latter too. but you shouldn't ever worry about any of those things, since they're exceedingly unlikely and/or of limited effect. centers of power, wealth, and influence are far more likely to negatively affect your life, potentially dramatically, than a thug or a shoplifter.
we should take this one step further and escalate transparency based on size, money, influence, and power. a poor individual generally has little power, so gets broad privacy protections, while a multi-national corporation needs to be fairly transparent in its practices and aims.
the constitution (with amendments) plus public markets together sort of implement this at a course and haphazard level, but we should implement it broadly and smoothly. both democracy and fair (not simply free) markets depend on individuals having autonomy and information.