I'm the only person allowed (by me) to be a hypocrite.
The legal doctrines collectively called estoppel ensure this in courts of equity. You cannot first argue one thing and then later argue a contradictory position. And in the court of public opinion, you cannot argue that no one has the right to data privacy and then later try to invoke some form of right to data privacy for yourself.
Most of the time, that doesn't matter. But when a member of a legislature codifies into law that I don't have privacy, I for danged sure am not going to even grant that guy a sliver of a courtesy of a fig leaf of privacy. I would air his dirty laundry immediately and without hesitation the instant any shred of it landed in my lap.
Because rights are a cooperative compact between equals. They are given as a reward for good behavior, but it is the summation of good behavior across hundreds of millions of individuals. It doesn't matter so much what I believe in relation to a right, but what I do. If I, for instance, did not believe that owning and carrying sidearms was a right, I probably would just not own or carry one, and the right would not be affected. If I instead launched a crusade to destroy all pistols, my neighbors would likely be even more unhappy if I did it while carrying for my own protection.
You only have those rights you are willing to extend to others. That is tit-for-tat social strategy writ large.