Acceptable behavior won't need to be hidden and attention-seekers will love everything they do being known. If the behavior really is wrong, then don't do it. If it's not wrong but your society's standards for judging people are wrong, then work to change the society, like what gay people did. Privacy for non-bad behavior is a temporary measure to allow people to practice it until everyone decides that it's not bad. But it also entrenches the societal view that it's bad! In case of behavior that really is bad, then lack of privacy is a good thing because it discourages it and protects other people from the consequences. For example, criminal and credit records.
The particular problem the author mentioned was marriage. It's a kind of fraud to fool someone into marrying you by not revealing things that they wouldn't accept about your history no matter how unreasonable their judgement is. You're taking advantage of their ignorance to gain more for yourself at their expense. A potential spouse has every right to dig into any aspect of your past that they want because committing to the wrong partner could ruin their life. It's only a good thing for them to be fully informed.
> Privacy for non-bad behavior is a temporary measure to allow people to practice it until everyone decides that it's not bad.
One other aspect of privacy is that it's harder for people with power to control other people's (private) behavior. For example, if all location information was public, employees would be much more likely to face repercussions at work for interviewing at other companies. You can make it illegal but it's hard to prove and will certainly still happen, so privacy is more effective. It's the same sort of reasoning behind secret ballots.
There are useful secrets like business secrets or planning a surprise party. But you have to carefully protect them anyway. What other behaviors are you thinking of that should be protected against easy searching but which are still publicly visible?
Given that a protest by its very nature is a disruptive event, i consider this fair game. Otherwise you're trying to silence dissenting opinion by outmanuvering, and how is it NOT totalitarian to silence dissent?
The particular problem the author mentioned was marriage. It's a kind of fraud to fool someone into marrying you by not revealing things that they wouldn't accept about your history no matter how unreasonable their judgement is. You're taking advantage of their ignorance to gain more for yourself at their expense. A potential spouse has every right to dig into any aspect of your past that they want because committing to the wrong partner could ruin their life. It's only a good thing for them to be fully informed.