I agree there are limits; there are no absolutes in anything. We don't have absolute free speech: you can't slander, commit fraud, conspire to commit a crime, incite a deadly stampede, etc.
I think the main concern is that the more powerful the actor (e.g., government is very powerful) the more important transparancy is, and the more vulnerable the actor, the more important privacy is.
For example, if an Apple (picking a random company) employee complains to authorities about dangerous working conditions, that employee may be very vulnerable - Apple could blacklist them; other businesses, if they learned of the complaint, could do the same, not wanting a 'troublemaker'. And that employee may be financially vulnerable, needing the job; their privacy should be maintained if possible. But Apple and the government are both powerful and there should be transparency about the working conditions, investigation, and outcome.
