Unfortunately, that's not reality. Each citizen complies with the laws of his/her own country. So do companies.
There is no global law concerning these issues, so companies with a presence in country X are bound to country X's laws. It doesn't mean country Y's law are great and/or should be the common denominator.
Actually no. Each subject complies with the laws of "their" country up to the limit of enforcement. When enough people disobey, social change occurs.
What the establishment is advocating is to move these limits of enforcement down to the level of individuals' thoughts. This isn't surprising, as their power deludes them into forgetting that laws follow society, and not vice-versa.
Imagine the setting of a century ago. A homosexual travels across a border, at which point their actions from the past several months are magically analyzed. They're then thrown in jail for buggery, while everyone else smiles and nods! Justice was served, with due process, to suppress repugnant anti-social behavior.
This debate has been framed such that believing that privacy should exist implies one is an "absolutist". Well then, I guess I absolutely believe that every individual action need not be subject to public scrutiny.
Different societies have figured out the issues differently.
In some societies, you get killed for being gay, for example. Or for having the wrong kind of sex. Or for not following a certain religion. Or for saying the wrong things. So... you want to hand the power to that society to peer into the minds of anyone, and do whatever the majority thinks should be done?
You are advocating for tools to enable a tyranny of the majority. Instead of letting society figure it out for you, how about allowing each person to have their own freedom?