dizzy: I think your problem is that you are trying to distill an absolute out of what is really a complex dynamic. Privacy isn't a "thing", it doesn't exist as such. Privacy isn't even the amount of information about yourself you keep to yourself versus the amount which is known to others (be it the public or your social circle).

Privacy is entirely self-defined - something that would be private to one person wouldn't be private to another. In the case of corporations, the definition of privacy is what they can get away with not telling their consumers or the government. Since for commercial operations, the amount of information they can keep private usually translates into profit, there is an argument to be made for the redistribution of wealth through enforced disclosure on their part.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of this system, I think that if someone has a good idea and chooses to keep it to themselves, they should be allowed to do so, regardless of the fact that open source software is a noble contribution to the advancement of computer science. Still, I'd rather see open source medical research - a bit more pertinent to the lives of the masses, if you ask me.

As for a company that invades peoples privacy without authorisation in order to make a profit, I don't see an ethical problem there - taking anything without permission is theft, including one's personal details. They should be stopped not because of privacy issues, but because they're thieves.