Merry Christmas, mehvix com. Here, I say the alternative to privacy is
The ability to escape, to have the choice of solitude, to be free from measurement (tracking), has been eroded.
It's a matter of life in the 21st cen. USA; your behaviors might be logged and scruntanized somewhere or somehow. It doesn't matter if they are, just the awareness that you believe you could be under observation causes one to behave differently (if this your constant environment, this influence becomes subconscious).
It means your actions are no longer a product of autonomy; rather, imposed tropism plant expectations of how to act/think/feel, say,
Under a locked down environment, the world appears more dim. One becomes less receptive, less imaginative, to the vast possibilities of what could be--in a time where mysticism and wonder has waned--'I think we should do more of the same'. I am greatful to have parents who raised me with an appropriate level of hands-off-ness, where I grew up in an environment where I could sift out my own thoughts. What I think should be protected is the ability to step away, to be free from having someone elses bogged perspective layed down as the law.
Socially, the impact of survallliance leads to self-censoring; groups homogenize, individuals become myopic to that set before them; it's the lazy default[1].
This is a more broader point, but automatic dismissal of perspectives, neglecting reflection in service of outsourcing takes to le status quo, is really quite cowardly. Engage in the brouhaha and you forget you are capable of loving the unloveable.
What limits the purview? What be the implicit premise or narratives we go along with?
[1]: See: absolute (privacy) pessimists-- those who tell that no matter how you live, 'they' can comprise anyone. It's wholly unproductive. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you are sure you are powerless, then you subserve. Any fool can construct a scenario where nothing matters.