Upstate1618
Not true, despite what GrapheneOS have said elsewhere. A good example I like to use is public toilets. Public toilets, the ones where the toilets are partitioned off from each other, provide sufficient privacy and even provide some security (they have locks). But these partitions and locks are not designed to provide perfect privacy or perfect security. If someone really wants to knock your door down or peek over or under the partition, they can. But how often does that happen? It protects you 99.99% of the time, and 99.99% of the time, no one wants to break in or watch you while you poop. But that does not mean it doesn't provide any privacy or any security at all.
Another example are blinds and shutters. They'll provide privacy for the majority of situations, but a motivated attacker will be able to get around it. That does not make them useless.
If you're of the kind of person that believes a protection mechanism must be fool proof, for it to be useful at all, then you also fall into the kind of camp that believes privacy is dead because there are so many examples of where your privacy is being invaded. The plethora of ways to compromise your privacy or security, and the ease of which it can be achieved, does not provide any evidence for why it's pointless to attempt to stop that from happening.
Security and privacy go hand in hand and they benefit from each other, but they do not require each other.