> It isn’t all bad news. These same reidentification techniques were used by journalists working at the New York Times earlier this year to expose Donald Trump’s tax returns from 1985 to 1994.
Flippant comments like that make it hard to take the authors seriously. Their concern for privacy apparently evaporates when the techniques are applied against people they don't like.
Things such as conflicts of interest, crimes, and lies about where/how they got their money and whether they're really as wealthy as they claim to be, whether they've cheated on their taxes or paid unfairly low taxes considering their enormous wealth are all things that could influence these critically important decisions on the part of the public.
A further argument is that officials serving in public office don't have the same expectation of privacy that private citizens do.
In view of these two arguments and others it's not difficult to see why the authors of this article need not consider the revelation of Trump's tax returns a good thing merely because they don't like him.
Further, there is no evidence in the article that its authors would not be concerned about the privacy rights of other people they don't like who aren't: 1 - the President of the US, and 2 - not public officials.