> the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with
Ok, yes, I'm confused. In what way are the above two statements not completely opposite world-states? Is "information collection" (by government or others) not antithetical to the "right to privacy?"
Again I will refer to 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy [0]:
The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power).
0. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
This would include surveillance, but also includes legislation and prosecution on matters which do not involve anyone but the parties they pertain too.
"parallel construction" has no bearing here, because again, this is not about whether what you're doing can be known or even is known (this is also not at all how it works, but its beside the point so I'm not going further into it).