I don't think you can talk about government as a single entity. but this proposal inclines in that direction. One feature of this administration has been a stronger commitment to openness via Freedom Of Information Act requests. Although this commitment propagates through different agencies at different speeds (depending on budgets, bureaucratic inertia, and political factors), there is certainly an administrative mandate for greater responsiveness to public inquiry. I think this indicated an increased awareness of privacy issues since the identification/specification of information is a necessary first step to challenging the retention or application of such information.

I'm not sure that the complex issues surrounding privacy can be addressed with a single bill or even the attractive simplicity of a simple-seeming constitutional amendment. There's a constant tension between rules on the gathering of information vs. rules on its use. Preventing information from being gathered or retained obviously limits the scope for abuse, but also has a distinct opportunity cost - consider the value of individuals' health information in performing epidemiological research, for example. Some argue that since humans are morally fallible and abuses are inevitable, the risk premium of such abuse must exceed the cost of foregone opportunities by definition, pointing to incidences of organizational abuse such as genocide or systematic discrimination. Others (including myself) prefer to look at the risks/costs in probabilistic terms and consider institutionalized secrecy or obscurity to have significant risks of its own.