Then that means he has it right and you might have it backwards: the problems are the massive amount of failure states for which privacy is a protection.
Imagine being in a trial against Google, knowing that they have access to information for all the participants and their family and friends. Internet searches, phone calls, purchases, browser history, location data, voice recordings, and all the analytic tools to analyze and extrapolate what details can be used for manipulation and sell an argument. How could such trial ever been conducted in a fair way?
Would people still want privacy?
I believe that the answer is yes. Simply because there will always be the fear that things may change. You only need one imperfect law or law enforcer and you need privacy to protect you. There will never be a point where we can give up privacy, even if everything else is perfect.
Also, arguably, if there were perfect laws then the fact people have privacy or don't have privacy would make no difference so we might as well have it.
Privacy seems to be a mitigation strategy. An insurance for the future, as 'jib said. It may seem like it's in your best interest to pursue it. But it is also worth considering whether this isn't a coordination problem - where the locally best choice for an individual is a very bad when aggregated over entire society.
Anyway, in real world we won't get either perfect privacy nor perfect transparency. The question is, in which direction we should move from the status quo? It's a multidimensional problem; there are many components to privacy that could go either way. Personally, I'm in favour of everyone knowing more about everything, and reducing both means and incentives to lie to one another. "Everyone" includes the government too. I want to trust them. But they do have to earn it, and trust is in short supply nowadays.
A free market would pretty much eliminate the need for laws. What's wrong to you, might not be wrong to me. Therefore, you might refuse to help or trade with a person that does X, while I might have no problem with it and even help him.
Moreover, do you have any idea what a world with total privacy would look like? Even without total privacy, how do you even decide where to start (what to make public, what to keep private)? Surely, people will live in fear and keep everything they can private. How would that even work? No Google, no Facebook, no phone directory, all authors will use pseudonyms, etc. Basically, no meaningful connection will be made between people and the IoT will never possibly see the day. We'll all wear masks. Evolution will stop, we'll all die.
Second, while what you said is true, it would also mean that we wouldn't have a perfect law-making govt then, wouldn't it :)?
And even if it was optional (b/c it wasn't necessary), I'd agree that we should still have it, but that's different than codifying it's necessity in law (by the grace of the very people who want to deny it to you) and different than treating privacy as a panacea for protection against unchecked power.
I don't see law and privacy as competing for priority, I think they're complementary. Part of striving for better law, better law-making and better enforcement is an understanding that law is not always perfect, and improving law is a gradual, iterative process. Privacy - and other legal protections - are failsafes built into the system of law to mitigate the ways is which we anticipate it may fail.
I didn't have this in mind when I used the term "failure states" in my earlier post, but the choice of language comes from the way we build safety critical system. The primary goal is to build a product that improves lives, but part of that process is identifying ways the product could malfunction or be misused, and applying mitigations to prevent the negative outcomes. Ideally, on a prefect product used expertly, they're just extra features that never get used.
The reason they must exist is that our analysis can't assume the hubris of perfect design and implementation 100% of the time.
