That goes both ways. Just because one wants to keep secrets doesn't mean you should stop someone else who wants to know everything. To make the case for who is

That goes both ways. Just because one wants to keep secrets doesn't mean you should stop someone else who wants to know everything. To make the case for who is wrongly imposing their will, we need need a framework for measuring goodness. The author goes in that direction, talking about measuring the societal benefits of privacy and the systemic harms that privacy protects against. However, the "secondary use" harm wasn't very compelling. Contract law seems to be the proper way to handle that, rather than privacy. A better argument was that privacy protects free thought. Unfortunately, he mentioned it too briefly and didn't discuss the conflict of free speech and privacy in enough detail. Perhaps there wasn't enough space, but I think more explanation of how privacy expands "the range of viewpoints being expressed and the degree of freedom with which to engage in political activity." After all, those viewpoints are of little value to society before they are shared widely. One could argue that it's not privacy that is important, but protection against retaliation.