Perhaps that's because privacy is actually an archaic and backward idea that maintains all of our problems alive. I can't think of a less progressive (more conservative) idea than privacy.
The next most important revolution in human history will be our transition to a completely transparent society.
Considering that we need to get to a transparent society, contributions to the privacy movement only ensures that the transition will be even more difficult and violent.
(I mean radical in the traditional sense, not as a slur)
Many people have written about this. I haven't read a single convincing argument in favor of privacy as anything other than a defensive measure.
The reality is that I came to this conclusion through a long process but I'm pretty tired. The process definitely considered whether the 'private' version of the world was even possible. I don't think it is. Surveillance will happen. Better we accept it and keep an eye on how it's used than pretend like we can prevent it in the long term. Even if you were able to discourage the ubiquitous 'high tech hackers' and 'big data' forms of surveillance (which I don't think you'll be able to do), bribes and drones will continue to be used for the powerful to get what they want.
In your utopia, if you ask me a question, do I have to answer honestly? That people would always want to answer honestly is not a satisfying answer.
Bathroom doors allow you to interact with yourself with some level of privacy. People know you're in there. They know for how long. They know if there are extreme sounds or scents. If you misuse the plumbing or other bathroom features there is clear evidence of this. In rare circumstances, the bathroom door can be kicked down while someone is using the bathroom.
The most common result of such information is "are you ok darling?".
Bathroom behaviours are interesting because they provide a real case study on the impact of acceptance on privacy. On a first date, where you're not presenting the real version of yourself, you don't want the other party on the date to know anything about the events while you're in the bathroom. Over time, if the relationship progresses, the secrecy around these events changes. The reason for this secrecy changing, I believe, is trust/acceptance. Over time you know that if the other person learns more about the bathroom events, it will not change how they perceive you. If you're in such a relationship, it also doesn't mean you wont use a bathroom door, and it doesn't mean you don't want your partner to use one.
Hopefully that analogy makes sense. Most privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them. I think we're more likely to see a world where this fear is addressed through improved respect of differences, compared to a world where suddenly surveillance is effectively impossible.
> Most privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them.
What makes you say that?
I don't think privacy advocates, and persons such as myself, differ in opinion on the problem today. The difference of opinion is on where we're trying to get to and how we get there.
Tbh, I don't know yet how to get to the end state I'd like to see.
Privacy is a good thing, whether you have secrets worth keeping or not is immaterial, privacy doesn't have anything to do with secrecy. The two are often mixed but if you look a bit longer you'll see that they are in fact orthogonal concepts only very loosely related.
Taking your bathroom example: there is obviously nothing secret about what is going on in that bathroom, you can infer most of it from your own experience. And yet, we do seem to feel the need for privacy.
Another example would be a diary. Diaries are intensely personal and our etiquette around them is that if you happen to come across someone's diary that you do not open it to read it. It is considered a private document, even if it will not contain any secrets it may contain thoughts that the writer does not want to divulge to the world at large.
So privacy does not require any secrets at all to be a very important thing to many people, including privacy advocates.
I don't think the word 'crucial' that you added is useful here.
Especially when not seeing that distinction might cause one to state something that is either not true or that inadvertently allows re-framing the discussion in ways that hamper progress.