There's a perception that famous people - film stars, for example - surrender their right to privacy in exchange for their fame.
I do not agree with that. Unless someone is deliberately making a choice to exploit their personal life in order to be famous, I hold it to be true (in my view) that the individual has a right to keep their personal life personal.
There are limited exceptions, such as when one holds an office in which aspects of one's personal life affect the ability to which the person is able to perform that office. Even there, however, it cannot be a slathering free-for-all in that person's life; it would be (in my view) those particular aspects relating to the performance and function only. For instance, certain professions require a police check, and certain professions require a Working with Children check. The person's criminal history and "relevant professional conduct findings" need to be scrutinised, and it's in such instances that a cry of "That's private!" becomes ridiculous and suspicious.
With people who are "famous for being famous", the whole celebrity thing, it seems clear that such people have made a deliberate decision to turn their lives into public viewing. It may be that they want to keep certain aspects of their lives private, but it becomes hard for them to clearly articulate that and to expect it. For instance, when an individual records a sex tape and releases it (oh, so accidentally!) to the public, and sets up a reality show in which it appears that nothing is off the table as far as revealing it is concerned, at what point is that person entitled to say "Oh no, not that bit - I don't want anyone to know about this private aspect of myself"...?
On the one hand, there's the expectation that our human rights include our right to maintain sovereignty over our own privacy and thoughts; on the other hand, there's the (ongoing) behaviour that very deliberately exploits that sovereignty of privacy and thought and private actions, releasing it for view to the public in exchange for fame and/or money, and it may be thought hypocritical to cry "Stop looking at me" or "Stop grubbing through my private life" if it turns out that something that person doesn't want made public IS made public.
There's a difference between such self-exploitation (in which the salacious is up for sale, and the more salacious, the better) and the inevitable fame that comes about from being an acclaimed performer (actor, musician, whatever). In the former case, the person is "selling" his or her private actions/thoughts/speech and ensuring that such private behaviours are sufficiently outrageous to attract "buyers" (watching public, subscribers, whatever the case may be), but in the latter case, the performer's performances (singing, playing, acting in a film or play etc) are what draws watchers, subscribers, etc.
There is more than one reason why I don't watch the sort of reality TV where people's private lives are exploited (either by themselves or by others)...
However, I don't have any idea what you mean by saying "Privacy is something that is understood and cherished by people who don't fold or allow someone to fold their mind" or that it is "mocked and sneered at" by "people we call boot tickers and back stabbers". Is that not trying to conflate separate concepts? I dare say that many back stabbers do not mock the notion of privacy. I dare say too that people who exploit their own privacy may still believe in a "representation of worth", only they place a monetary value upon their privacy. It's certainly possible that many who thus exploit themselves (or worse, allow themselves to be thus exploited) have a lack of self-worth, and that this is the moral vehicle for the exploitation, but I think it would be problematic for me to assume that.
