Yeah, I completely endorse those points.
I think, just to add a sentence to the point about accuracy. I think in a libel case the wrong is that the information is false and damaging. In a privacy case, we're simply talking about an unjustified intrusion into someone's private, virtual or physical space. In libel, if you're talking fundamentally about accuracy, then there may be a greater responsibility on the journalist to check out the accuracy of the story and therefore the Reynolds steps, as they currently exist, do require journalist to notify the subject of the story in advance.
I think in privacy, if for some reason it's absolutely clear that the information is accurate, I think it is worrying to then impose this prior notification requirement because you are essentially asking the subject to snap an injunction on publication.