Indeed, that's a very difficult line to draw. In the US we have the concept of a public figure, and I'll admit I have no idea how that's actually defined. That being said I've also wondered if it's too blunt a concept. Are public figures entitled to any privacy, and if so, where is that line? I see celebrities being hounded by paparazzi while trying to go about their daily lives, for example, and while I understand the principles behind why that's legal, I have to imagine it's a real drag.

In Germany we draw the line on what type of information the person in question makes public by their own choice. Do you invite tabloids for a home story and let them take pictures? Then other pictures of your home can be published. If you on the other hand never talk about your home and family publicly let alone invite media in, that can remain private. In addition, if the information is relevant to a larger topic (e.g. a corruption scandal involving a politician's home) then you can show anything relevant to that.

See New York Times v. Sullivan (US SCOTUS)

I haven't checked the exact wording of this definition but, as a summary, "The Supreme Court has defined public figures as those who hold government office and those who have achieved a role of special prominence in the affairs of society by reason of notoriety of their achievements or vigor and success with which they seek public's attention. "

.

If somebody is seeking a position of power and/or trust from the public, then the public should get the same information about that person that we'd allow an employer to ask for about a prospective employee. So their qualifications for the job, how they intend to do the job, how they've done in similar jobs before, and how they've handled similar types of trust in the past.

Otherwise, frankly, fuck the public.