the dictionary definition seems fine:

> a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people. > the state of being free from public attention.

From this, it seems obvious that a person should not be observed in our digital spaces without clear consent, where consent is not tied to preclusion of goods or services (i.e. without coercion).

Sure. 20 years ago I would agree, and even 10 years ago I'd say there are some nuances to explore.

Today, though: governments are actively pushing policy to restrict the internet, legalize backdoors, and normalize mass surveillance. We're in the levels of obvious privacy violations that would make for an overly alarmist dystopian novel if published. There's not much nuance to worry about as of now.