If I had to guess. 18 is probably more a reference to the fact that every detail of people’s personal lives gets plastered everywhere and can be leading news stories. Rather than hiding anything illicit or illegal they did in a professional setting.

Which to Palantirs point would serve as a deterrent for many good people.

From embarrassing things they said or did decades ago. To personal family drama and everything in between. Already both administrations saw people working in them harassed. Their families were harassed etc. Over stuff that occurred ultimately decades ago that journalists drug up in an attempt to discredit them.

Or to put it more simply. Whether someone is a competent administrator and capable of doing the work they are hired and or appointed to do. Should be the main concern. But in the current environment. Whether they watch way too much Anime on their days off. Said something stupid a decade ago or made a joke that landed poorly. Have Juvenile or immature hobbies etc. Things of that nature ultimately are things that are brought up and plastered all over. Ultimately to intentionally portray it like it’s a bad thing

I doubt you're brain-dead, but i know you're brain_dead.

I think its referring to private lives as in not criminal activities but just human follies. If a public figure cheats is there a legitimate reason to expose that and drive them out of that position, even if they have been otherwise doing their job properly?

good catch, #18 needs an exception clause, first the Black Hats and socialists /WEF types need to be removed, Epst. & other traffickers removed, DEI ended, then there can be some privacy rights.

I disagree and that’s not what they are saying.