How about: "That's none of your damn business"?
Ultimately I think it's a rational fear of being ostracized (or worse) for having believed or done something deemed by the group to be "not OK". The right to privacy shoes us to explore the nature of ourselves without harming others and without putting us in danger of violating social norms.
The counter argument might be that with more visibility and openness, the more tolerant we all might be if each others faults, but unfortunately history does not seem to demonstrate this.
Another example, Why I do I feel the need to close the bathroom door when I take a dump ? Because it considered taboo or weird. But if more and more people take a dump with the door open, it will be less weird.
Its a hassle too to have to keep things private.
Even if norms change to be far more permissive, there will still be issues with this. Besides, norms are never that permissive in absolute terms since some form of hierarchy quickly sets itself up in response to changing circumstances. For instance in some past contexts a young man might want to hide his promiscuity and adventurous experiences, whereas in some modern contexts he might want to hide his lack of promiscuity and adventurous (instagrammable?) experiences.
To borrow your analogy - even if most people become comfortable with open-door-dumps, why should we force someone who isn't to do it?
Until we stop judging each other, the right to privacy seems pretty important. That doesn't mean you always have to exercise it, but it should be your right.
No, not really, it actually goes a quite deep. In a liberal democracy, it is not the citizens who need to justify their desire for privacy, it is the state that needs to justify impinging on it. This is very important, because the state always has Very Good Reasons™ for impinging on your privacy (and other rights).
> win in a democracy
This is why fundamental rights such as this are enshrined in constitutions and not up for grab by normal political processes.
An important aspect of liberal democracies is protection of the minorities. The majority can't just do what it wants, there are limits.
Not that it is relevant in this conversation: “people who value privacy” are not a group considered a minority who need protecting from the majority. If you want people to help you protect your privacy, you need to convince them, plain and simple. Asking the electorate for help in electing privacy conscious officials and telling them to fuck off when asked why is going to get us absolutely nowhere. That’s the plain truth of our privacy debate today: we are losing, and we need help but we can’t convince people to help us. Ideas of civil liberty are not cutting it. Evidently.
If you need any more convincing, look at how the public sees Snowden. And weep.