It's a fine line, a slippery slope.. 'perfect' security is probably a practical impossibility. The basis of objection to your above quoted statement, as I understand, is similar to arguments about human rights. Do we have universal protection of human rights in this world? Not even close yet it remains a standard ethical and moral imperative to strive for.
Yes, we should have privacy regardless of and unrelated to whether or not we have things we want to hide, however..
It seems a bit like the money game: i.e. that once you go down that road it's never going to be enough and the further you go the more frustrating will be the illusive end point.
Yogis and such mystics often renounce not only material possessions but privacy too. That is an extreme that I wouldn't advocate but it must he recognized that that is the direction where peace lies, not in the striving to achieve it.
Therefore like much else in life one needs enough privacy (high level, perhaps yes) and I would disagree with a cavalier attitude expressed in those you are happy with everything being out there because they fell unashamed (for whatever reason) about it.