When asked why privacy matters (e.g. if you come across the "If you have nothing to hide ..." argument) it is likely that the asker will understand and identify with Charlie Lee's example of giving money to a friend.

"If you send money to your friend, do you want your friend to know how much money is in your account?"

I think it stems back to the specific training that the public receives from the corporatocracy which controls it. Individuals are discouraged to discuss monetary issues amongst themselves, while the notion of financial privacy is one of the only rights still permitted. This is to discourage conversations on wages by employees of corporations and to prevent those who do not already have money from knowing how to invest it more effectively.

You can take advantage of the trained instinct of an indoctrinated citizen to keep private matters guarded from other citizens. For the same reasons that privacy is encouraged between citizens, it is discouraged when the citizen is dealing with a corporation or a government. It doesn't matter to a trained citizen when their information is leaked to corporations or governments.

Target the message to the audience, embrace the individual's shame on financial topics in dealing with other individuals, and lovingly guide them down a path that is in their own financial interest.