I think the discussion around privacy is too often framed in a defensive manner. Instead, I think the conversation should be reframed as a matter of a right to know. In other words, the burden of proof is not on those whose information is being sought, but those who seek that information about others or from others. If you want to know something, you must have a justification for knowing. The presumption is in favor of privacy. Furthermore, consent alone is not enough to justify seeking or sharing some kinds of information. (This should be read in a common sense way. I am not proposing a society of antisocial and hostile loners terrified to have a conversation with anyone.)
Take medical information. Who has a right to know that you have cancer? Depression? A spouse, the parent of a young child are entitled to health information as a general principle because of the nature of those relationships. But is Google, some guy at Google, your grocer, some colleague entitled? No. However, a criminal case may require obtaining such information and so the state may have a legitimate, conditional, and very selective claim to that kind of information in certain circumstances.
Privacy is necessary for human beings to flourish, at least in this life. As a practical matter, knowing something about someone can impede the good of both the person about whom something is known as well as the knower. It can negatively affect human relationships. Knowing the boundaries does require sound prudential judgement, of course, which is why if you're unsure, it can help to ask yourself what the justification for inquiring or disclosing is in a given situation. (Gossips are people who lack this sort of prudence and suffer from intemperate curiosity.)
I totally agree. I [knowingly] divulge personal information only when I choose to, and protest pretty vocally when information I don't feel like divulging is requested or "required". You can imagine the scathing feedback I gave to the _legally-mandated_ federal census I got subjected to last year. It asked stuff like my religious beliefs, gender identity, stuff that honestly the government has zero business even asking me, let alone knowing.
Take medical information. Who has a right to know that you have cancer? Depression? A spouse, the parent of a young child are entitled to health information as a general principle because of the nature of those relationships. But is Google, some guy at Google, your grocer, some colleague entitled? No. However, a criminal case may require obtaining such information and so the state may have a legitimate, conditional, and very selective claim to that kind of information in certain circumstances.
Privacy is necessary for human beings to flourish, at least in this life. As a practical matter, knowing something about someone can impede the good of both the person about whom something is known as well as the knower. It can negatively affect human relationships. Knowing the boundaries does require sound prudential judgement, of course, which is why if you're unsure, it can help to ask yourself what the justification for inquiring or disclosing is in a given situation. (Gossips are people who lack this sort of prudence and suffer from intemperate curiosity.)