My take, from "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", is that if a person has done something wrong that is relevant to us as a society, it's okay to expose them -- like if they park in the handicapped space, sans placard, and then skip out of their car into the store. However...

Is it really a matter of compelling public interest that three days ago, while waiting in your car for the light to change, you picked your nose? And just because some guy in the next car was quick to catch your nose-digging with his phone and post it to You- Tube, should it really be preserved for eternity like a bug in amber?

...Brandeis and Warren explained that a person has a right—a natural human right—to determine to what extent their thoughts, opinions, and emotions and the details of their “private life, habits, acts, and relations” will be communicated to others. They noted that this right to privacy comes out of our right to be left alone and that it applies whether an individual’s personal information is “expressed in writing, or in conduct, in conversation, in attitudes, or in facial expression.”

This has not changed because of what’s now technically possible: how it takes just a few clicks to Facebook or Instagram an embar- rassing photo of a person or blog their medical history, sexual ori- entation, sex practices, financial failings, lunch conversation, or daily doings. No matter how fun and easy the technology makes immediately publishing everything about everyone and no matter how common it’s become to violate everyone’s right to privacy, each person’s private life remains their own and not a free commodity to be turned into content by the rest of us.

I'm quoting from Brandeis and Warren's Harvard Law Review article on privacy from the '90s -- the 1890s.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

Patrick, libel is only involved if you can prove that a person told untruths about you in writing.

The right to privacy is really at issue here -- of a private person, a person who is not a public figure or doing something of public relevance, to not be publicly exposed.

http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153

While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.