If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

You're doing it wrong. If you want to paraphrase one of the two affirmations in that quote, you need to write something like: "Or I don't care about freedom to bear arms because I don't have anything to shoot at".

The second part of that structure is showing a use case for that freedom (speaking, publishing, shooting). Simple possession is not enough.

So concentrate more the next time you feel like entertaining this fantasy that civilians need to be able to freely shoot at stuff, just like they need to freely speak and publish.

A more interesting essay might analyze the beliefs and attitudes that lead to people agreeing with the statement, and (perhaps) why they are problematic.

(It's actually quite difficult to figure out why people are comfortable saying they have nothing to hide, it's masked by the sea of text explaining they are wrong)

In NJ, for example, it's not even safe to move your guns when changing residences, let alone taking them out of the house at any other time for any other purpose (taking a handgun off your property is equal to committing robbery with it in the eyes of the law for example). There are some protections under the law, but those only apply after you've been arrested, charged, and had your life ruined--if you're lucky to have a judge who lets you bring them up, that is. With hollow point bullets, you can't even legally move them when you change residences, and have to leave them at your old residence (which might also be illegal). To even own a gun, you have to be a legal expert. NY, MA, CA, have similar, though perhaps slightly less draconian laws. You won't be able to get a carry permit (concealed or otherwise) even if you prove you have multiple stalkers who intend to do you harm or kill you.

NJ especially, I assume, is a model the anti-gun lobby wants for the whole country. There are no guns (especially handguns) legal outside one's home or place of business. We have such a peaceful state with no gun violence at all. I guess it's a small price to pay for persecuting all those gun owners.

We have. The question of how to eliminate "class privilege" has remained open for quite a while and will for as long as the optimal distribution of scarce resources is still an active field of study.

It doesn't actually mean "no privacy for anyone". For that to be the case, society would have to be actually egalitarian, e.g. post-privilege.

You're delving into Foucault territory here, which is fine but also somewhat tangential. Of course the people doing the spying and the people who fund it will be less affected (but maybe not with the bad state of infosec), that's a given where any power structure is involved.

How would egalitarianism fix this? I think you're operating under a wholly different definition of egalitarianism than is commonly accepted. The only way to solve your dilemma is through a stateless society with a totally flat hierarchy with a method of economic exchange that doesn't involve a market system, or any mechanism that awards having more information.

They don't get killed by drones for starters.

Not yet.

If someone says homeless alcoholics should be rounded up and put into camps, then the fact that they aren't that, and don't have a friend in that situation, is their "privilege" they may not be aware of.

That's just asymmetry. You can just as easily have it be an oppressed group calling for the internment of a dominant group, which by definition they will not be a part of, and may not even be in contact with if there are factors like apartheid put into play. Calling it "privilege" makes no sense.

"Privilege" is not a complicated word, it means what it means in context and is perfectly fine to use.

The sociological concept of privilege is in fact an inversion of what we generally call a privilege. Sociological privilege often refers to constant and immutable characteristics that cannot be taken away, and moreover makes the value judgment that the group with privilege is bad, and that said privilege must be abolished. This is totally ass-backwards: it should be that the disadvantaged group is elevated to the same level of privilege, because more often than not (excluding class) "privilege" simply refers to the baseline that preferably all groups should be held to.