linger over the balance; something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.” Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C.Cir.1989). However, an identified public interest must be balanced against the privacy interest. See id. at 874 (requiring this balancing “in order to determine whether, on balance, disclosure would work a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”). The magnitude of a privacy interest will somewhat differ for the types of information sought. See Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 895 (D.C.Cir.1995) (indicating that certain records may implicate a less substantial privacy interest). Indeed, a more substantial privacy interest is implicated in the child victim’s statements, see Favish, 541 U.S. at 170, 124 S.Ct. 1570 (<HOLDING>), than in the disclosure of the names of law
holding that the government cannot waive foia exemption 6 on behalf of the individual whose privacy interests the exemption protects recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records recognizing privacy interests of family members against the foia requests of child molesters rapists murders and other violent criminals for autopsies photographs and records   recognizing that the harm suffered by family members in combination with other factors  would presumably only be persecution where  the applicant not only shares or is perceived to share the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family members but was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident