That's a nice unexamined assumption: "our own information". Not only do you have the idea that you can own information, but you come to "own" information merely by the fact that the information itself concerns you.

Next, "people don't want information about their movements to be publicly available". The question isn't what people want, but what people are entitled to.

I understand the legitimate use of secrecy (in the short term) to, for instance, hide one's suspicious-but-innocuous (or illegal-but-harmless) activities from the government. But even in the long term, let's imagine that every stoner in the United States has undeniable proof of their ongoing possession and use of marijuana made public. What's more likely to happen--that the DEA will swoop in to arrest all of them or society will realize that would be silly and hypocritical? Getting from the status quo to that point is just a question of game theory, and whether those with power will be just as exposed as those without power. Hard problems, sure, but the old bargain (we'll keep secrets and let you keep yours) is due for renegotiation.

Using "own" doesn't always imply ownership. Consider: "my own barber", "my own mother", "my own congressperson". It just means "the X that pertains to my life".

And you're still making the mistake of thinking that the only reason you would want information to be private is because you're ashamed of it. As the paper I referred you to notes, there are other, non-secret, non-shaming information that we don't want to be easily accessible by others.

Also, wanting control doesn't imply that the person wants to falsify or hide information. Consider how hard it is to get rid of mistakes on one's credit record.