Privacy laws, by their very nature, restrict access to information. If privacy laws are too broad then the public does not have access to information that may be used for the public good. There are many examples. You have probably heard of HIPAA. The federal law that restricts access to health information. Likewise, there are state laws in most states that require "peer review" of doctors to be kept confidential. And there is a national law that requires doctors to report any malpractice verdicts or settlements against them but at the same time the reports are confidential and not open to the public. The reason for these laws is to protect individual health records and to encourage open debate among doctors as to appropriate care. But the result can also be to protect bad doctors and to prevent patients from researching the physician they choose. These laws and policies protect doctors, and individual patients, but they harm the public by keeping important information private.
Another example would be the confidentiality of personnel files of many state and municipal workers. This may protect the individual worker but there are times that the public may need to know if a police officer, as an example, has had numerous complaints against him for brutality. If he has and is still working he may be protected by his boss. But the public is not served because there is a bad cop.
In summary, for every law protecting an individual's privacy there is the potential for public harm by keeping the public from having access to important information. For this reason, these laws must be balanced against the public right to know so that when circumstances warrant, the public can gain access to the information.
I hope the above is of help to you with your paper. You should be able to imagine other examples yourself. Good luck.
Attorney
Experienced in civil and criminal cases. Admitted to practice in US Supreme Court, and 9th Circuit.