This question is sort-of spun off of a previous one.
Why do law-abiding citizens need strong security?
There are a lot of great security-focused answers there.  However, I think the true question that is brought up is more about privacy and anonymity than it is just security.

I'm looking for concrete examples that can be presented that show the need for strong security when conducting perfectly legitimate activities. Examples in the areas of trust worthy encryption on end-to-end communications for cellular networks, network identity obfuscation services like Tor or VPNs, complete and total data destruction, and so on are what I'm after.
I'm always inclined to point to social uprisings in states like Libya and Egypt but these events tend to be presented to too many of the people I encounter that use this argument as "things that happen on TV" and not real things that have any effect on them or their personal liberties. So counter-arguments that keep it squarely in the first world, it-could-hurt-you-or-your-grandma kind of are really valuable here.

The examples brought up in the post copied above are really more specific to privacy and anonymity than they are about general security.  I'm sure you'll find that most "Joe Users" will agree there is a need for Antivirus, Wi-Fi encryption, and other common defensive measures.  But, why would the same people have a need for things like Tor, or end-to-end encryption over cellular networks?
To be a bit more clear:  What are some arguments for personal online privacy/anonymity that your regular Joe User - who plays Angry Birds on Facebook while sitting in his boxers on the living room couch - will relate to?

One real world example - when you are naked in your shower, not doing anything wrong, would you like it if everyone came by and took pictures? Or televised your shower for the world? Probably not.

Another example - if I send a love letter, or write a will dividing up my savings, should that be published on the front page of the national papers? Again - no.

If I am carrying out my own business, the expectation should be that I have privacy, except where I have consciously and deliberately waived it. This was the case before technology became pervasive - it should still be the case. In the old days law enforcement needed a warrant before they could access your property or communications, because the assumption has to be innocent until proven guilty. This has been eroded as technology has developed.

If I encrypt all my emails to my friends, the expectation should not be that I am a criminal for doing it, just that I want privacy, like leaving a room to take a private phone call. I could be planning a surprise birthday party, or applying for a new job, or possibly just enjoy using PGP - it doesn't really matter - it's my business.

From the EFF's privacy page:


  Privacy rights are enshrined in our Constitution for a reason — a
  thriving democracy requires respect for individuals' autonomy as well
  as anonymous speech and association. These rights must be balanced
  against legitimate concerns like law enforcement, but checks must be
  put in place to prevent abuse of government powers.


Admittedly, I don't live in the US, but those constitutional rights sound good to me.
