You're right in that we can't be certain without additional evidence that he was targeted primarily because of who he was. I've edited my comment. But it is certain that the investigation into Gov. Spitzer's activities began as a result of bank employees examining his accounts, specifically, and that there were no other clients of the madam who were publicly exposed.
Regarding "PEP" surveillance, I would say that transparency is good, but there is nothing transparent about a process whereby people's activities are reported to data collection centers in secret, and then through some unknown and mysterious process culled and sorted.
Public scrutiny is good. But selective secret scrutiny, scrutiny only of politicians who threaten powerful constituencies, is a disaster for democracy.
Regarding "PEP" surveillance, I would say that transparency is good, but there is nothing transparent about a process whereby people's activities are reported to data collection centers in secret, and then through some unknown and mysterious process culled and sorted.
Public scrutiny is good. But selective secret scrutiny, scrutiny only of politicians who threaten powerful constituencies, is a disaster for democracy.