"
- depth of social bonding and cultures
- even magic and mysticism.. (in the days of full and unalterable data with logic processing)
"

I think here privacy is very important as it allows identity-trying. If there is no privacy then somebody can't try different incompatible identities that they find interesting and they also need to be very careful in their current identity not to anything that is permissible in their currenty identity, but might be a problem in future identities (theyre behavior is limited activities that are current-identity approved and all possible future-identities approved.)
E.g. non-major drug-crimes like posession might not be seen as very bad in your current country/setting but when immigrating to the US they seem to play a big role1 (kidnapping/robbery can get waived, almost all drugs not iiuc). (somewhat related to some parts of mysticism)
E.g. someone who lives openly gay(/or in faith/opinion/group) in a region but might want to return to his more negative former country where it would be better to hide this tendencies from family umfeld/authorities (eg during an college exchange term or whatever).
This basically goes for everything whether it be a complete lifestyle (eg hippies vs traditional business executive (in 60s archetypes) or whatever people do or just their personal or political/world-view opinions (eg personx thinks persony is z or political opinion or whatever or worldview from like causality to like what determines behavior or basis of justice/legitimacy of behavior etc))
And in general depth of social bonding is strongly related to trust and intimacy and that is greatly facilitated by privacy (eg when you google psychologist one suggestion is even indicating that people love their psychologists and maybe also this experiement2))(edit: could be further facilitated with privacy-regulation (like with formerly mentioned psychologists or sexting that we already have)

2:
some study where two people together do a quiz on personal questions and then they love each other afterwards iirc
(there was some nyt-article about it)(possibly very stupid study dont know just an suggestion)
EDIT: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/style/no-37-big-wedding-o... (google-result)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866933
was discussed here (possibly different to nyt-link)
i think i read the article and dont think i read the study or not more than the abstract if (but im not sure about complete former sentence)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014616729723400...

1:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/for-what-types-crime...
You may be able to get a waiver if you are inadmissible for one of the following:
a crime involving moral turpitude (except for murder or torture)
two or crimes with a combined sentence of five years or more (except for murder or torture)
one offense relating to simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
prostitution or commercialized vice, or
having committed a serious criminal offense, claimed immunity for that offense (for example, diplomatic immunity), and left the United States, without thereafter being prosecuted in a U.S. court for that offense.
You will not be eligible for a waiver if you are inadmissible for one of the following:
any drug crime (other than an offense related to simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana)
drug trafficking
murder or torture
significant trafficking in persons
money laundering, or
having committed a particularly severe violation of religious freedom while serving as a foreign government official.
[eg getting a waiver doesnt seem simple at all, but they couldnt even get one]