However, if you stub your toe and don't fall down the stairs you may complain a bit more than you would in the latter example, but you're still not going to complain much because it's just a stubbed toe. You're not likely going to make it out to be like you just broke your leg.
Admittedly, as I ALREADY SAID, a lot of my musing and expression of my thoughts on this is based off other things I've read be it on my facebook feed, articles, or other forums.
One particular person I was dealing with on another forum (and likely shaped some of my heated response here) who said not a peep about the privacy issues of the sterling case but whose suggested this "invasion of privacy" is a "non-consexual form of sexual violence" ala rape. An "invasion of privacy" that should make us "terrified". That "privacy is everything" and that it's "repulsive" that people seem to not be bothered by this because "women are hot so it's okay". That anyone seeking out these pictures in any way are "engaging in violence against a womans body". That this invasion of privacy is an act of "psychic violence which constitues a form of assault".
If this is one's views on "privacy" in this issue, and your views on "privacy" on the Sterling issue were "that's too bad, but..." at best, then I call "bull****" on the notion that your care is about "privacy" and not something else. This isn't like stubbing your toe in both cases, but one you fall down the stairs. This is like stubbing your toe in both situations, but one you fall down the stairs and say next to nothing about the toe and in the other you act like you just got sliced in half from your toe to the tip of your head with a long serated knife.
And this persons responses and attitudes hasn't been that much off base with some of the random comments I've seen on my facebook feeds or some of the various articles headlines and excerpts I've seen linked about this.
The disconnect between this and the sterling case, when one is simply going on about "privacy", is the width of the grand canyon which is why I roll my eyes at the screams of some about "privacy" when it's crystal clear and transparent that they give two ****s about privacy from a principled level, but rather they believe privacy should exist on things they morally don't have an issue with and could care less about it on things they morally do.