When someone started digging in video rentals records and the politicians found out that it was easy to determine what they had rented, so they passed a law of some sort against it?

From [link|http://www.rlg.org/annmtg/rotenberg01.html|Privacy and Transparency: The Paradox of Information Policy]

[debate on constitutional right to privacy and nomination of Robert Bork for Supreme Court] continued for several days, with members of the committee asking questions and reporters following closely the comments that were being made by the constitutional scholars and the commentators. One reporter, who wrote for a weekly paper, perhaps growing a little tired of the law review articles with the dense prose and lengthy footnotes, decided to cut to the chase to understand the nature of the judicial nominee and went to the local video rental store in the neighborhood where the nominee and his family lived, went up to the clerk, and said, "Can you give me, please, the video rental records of Judge Robert Bork." The clerk, this being one of those consumer-friendly stores, was very happy to oblige: Would you like a printout? Would you like an electronic format? They were very accommodating.
...

The members of the Congress, sensing the sensitivity of this issue and perhaps recalling some of the things that they had rented recently at video rental stores, soon after this hearing passed legislation to protect rental records of videotapes and said in effect that there would be a presumption of privacy and that when disclosures were made they would be done so on the basis of consent, or legal warrant, or for certain marketing purposes.