I wasn't familiar with "argumentation ethics" and while it's cool and all, I don't think I'd trust my conscience to it. Hillebrand says that the book will adopt Hoppe's argument as "the normative foundation for privacy." I'm happy for him, but really, I would have been content with saying don't poke your nose into other people's business.

ah man, you're in for a treat. It has a long and much-debated history, though remains surprisingly powerful! (Either way, it won't be Hillebrand's error; he's on pretty safe grounds to just use this, defer to Hoppe and the others, and move on on that basis)