I disagree with that, though you might want to think strongly on what you mean by "privacy".
For some people, this is strictly limited to the technical capability to prevent (or allow) the flow of information. I'd long subscribed to this point of view, but have found it inadequate, if only because capabilities have been changing so dramatically on this point.
Rather, and this is something of a personal definition, though I'm not certain it's specific or original to me is that privacy is the ability to define and defend limits and boundaries on information sharing.
You might ask "why use that definition?"
My principle answer is that if it isn't possible to share information in a limited context, then there's something immense and profound which is lost. Two people, or twenty, or even several tens of thousands (say: a large company or government bureaucracy) might need to share information without disclosure.
I've been following the ICIJ's multiple projects on various data leaks, which are particularly poignant in revealing both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the ICIJ itself farms out its data to several hundred journalists from numerous organisations, and keeps a lid on the project until an agreed-on release date. (The group has produced a video showing just this process.)
On the other, ICIJ's stock in trade have been leaks of information from other organisations whose privacy has been breached.
The question of "which of these is right?" should very much arise. And it's not an easy question to answer, though I believe there are some guides which can be used.
As such, privacy is not an inviolable right, but it is a crucial element of social organisation.