My opinion on privacy and private property:
(these are not arguments. They are statements of opinion at this time. My opinion is subject to change as new information comes to light. Call me a "flipflopper" if you will.).
Privacy does not derive from private property rights.
Private property rights derive from the right to privacy.
Privacy is a fundamental human right. It goes with the person and surpasses the "private property rights" that others may claim against the person.
To the extent that objects, land or material possessions are a matter of privacy, you OWN them by moral right. They are a part of your psychological being, and it is prima facie wrong for that to be disturbed against your will.
To the extent that objects, land or material possessions are merely a matter of "wealth" then you only own them by accident and not by any kind of moral right.
You can't defend property by saying "it is MINE", because "MINE" is only what is written on a receipt or deed somewhere. The argument "it is ME" however is morally persuasive.
And by "it is ME" I mean, the the object or property is of personal, sentimental, value. You use it in a personal way, and it affects your experiences of the world around you. It may be a record or your personal identity or it may transmit information about your self or merely an expression of your personal tastes, and thus, for you to share or keep private as you will.
I believe if people can not have these things, their lives will be uninteresting, insubstantial, irrelevant and unbearable.
Consequently, that kind of personal property should be considered to be protected as a fundamental human right.
The less personal privacy interest in a particular object you have, the less "ownership" is a matter of "rights" and becomes a matter of legal technicalities or accident.
Society does not owe you any protection of mere legal technicalities or accident. Any property laws which exist to maintain or propogate mere technicalities or accidents, are not moral. To the extent that they interfere with the fundamental human right of privacy, they are immoral.
We are slowly erroding personal privacy rights, and restricting them to those who own property. This is wrong. It should not continue.
The position taken by many, that someone on "public property" has no right of privacy, is falacious because whether or not property is public or private is a mere technicality. The landless (i.e. the majority of the human race) by that argument have no right to privacy at all. This is immoral.
Property advocats defend private property because they argue that without private property, personal privacy and liberty is an impossibility against state intrusion. I would take it a step further and say that without private property, personal privacy and liberty is an impossibility against the intrusion of other individuals as well.
However, the argument goes to far when it is used to justify treating employees or customers or citizens (and people in general) as mere objects and less than human beings when you violate their privacy on "your" property.
Morally, I say that your property is yours to protect your privacy and enhance your life. It is not yours to invade the privacy of others' and diminish their's.
Just my $0.02.