Fair enough, though I don't think I ever saw that meta point being touched in any of the discussions about recent privacy issues, and I wish it had - it seems to be important for the future of mankind.
> most of those that do don't expect Him to adversely affect their every day life
To be honest, a lot of the stuff we want to be "private" about probably wouldn't adversely affect our daily lives as well. For instance, if I were to be discriminated by my employer for being a Trekkie (because everyone who cares can know everyone elses fandom affiliations), that employer would be doing himself a big disservice by dismissing potentially good people because of irrelevant criteria and will be outcompeted by one who doesn't discriminate (unless he wants to create a Star Wars-oriented workplace to improve cohesion and morale; let the market decide then if this actually makes sense).
The only big objection I can see is with insurance - while on the one hand I'd be totally fine for insurance companies to bill people by their risky behaviour, it would have nasty consequences for health-related policies; having access to medical data makes insurance more expensive for people who need it the most. But I suppose there could be workarounds.
That's an interesting meta point which is much wider than this discussion (it also encompasses PRISM etc)
But plenty of us don't believe in the omnipotent God, and most of those that do don't expect Him to adversely affect their every day life by forwarding on their browsing history to their spouse, the local newspaper or the police.