There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.
The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.
I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all.
Are you conflating legal privacy protection with legal copyright protection?
The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This is a valid legal exception to copyright, which is why they won.
He didn't file a privacy lawsuit. He filed a copyright lawsuit. I don't think it was audacious of him to do that. He would have won, too, had it not been a newsworthy event.
Just think this through. The mere fact that you broadcast something publicly doesn't mean you lose copyright ownership of it. And it doesn't automatically give other companies like ABC the right to rebroadcast it themselves. (If it did, then everyone in the world would be legally entitled to rebroadcast any free-to-air television stations! which might be reasonable in some kind of free-property hippy utopia, but isn't allowed in our society).