No, they get a free pass because of the law. Any privacy regulation ever has some clause to the effect of "unless required by law" or "except for purposes set

No, they get a free pass because of the law. Any privacy regulation ever has some clause to the effect of "unless required by law" or "except for purposes set out in APPENDIX 25/c: open government data". It might even be more general, as in "except for a legitimate purpose". And the government itself providing such data is usually taken as a rather big clue regarding its legitimacy, almost tautologically so. Datasets released by governments do tend to be fairly limit when it comes to personal data, though. There are some well-known datasets (political donors, public company officers, etc.). But when, for example, answering FOIA request, personal data of private citizens is almost always redacted. There's just one stream of public data that I would take issue with, and that actually happens to be the worst misuse of data I can think of, including whatever Facebook is up to this week: the release of arrest records and mugshots. I would consider that practice to be unethical even if it came with a time limit and only included convicted offenders. As it is, with even wrongful arrests having a good chance to be your top Google hit for decades, it's pure cruelty and indecency.