The argument is that privacy serves no purpose aside from facilitating lies, and lies are bad. One challenge that has been presented is that there's a difference between "lying" and "not telling the whole truth" but I believe both are "moral bads" and I don't really want to get into that regardless (the distinction between passive and active moral decisions has been debated endlessly by philosophers already -- google "killing vs. letting die," for instance).

I don't think it's infeasible to find a technology. I think it's infeasible to change our culture to be more accepting of the sorts of things that people choose to keep private. As long as people are persecuted for their completely normal beliefs and actions privacy has a place and keeping things private is justifiable. But if I were designing a utopia I think I'd try one with no privacy at all (everyone has access to the same set of facts about everyone / everything else) and see how things go.

Why do you think my position is immoral? How is it a flawed concept? You haven't presented a logical argument for your position -- that privacy is good. I'd love to hear one that doesn't include a clause where "some bad actor does something immoral because of lack of privacy."

Maybe P = NP, then we won't have a choice :)

Edit: spelling.