If your requirements for being private are such that your activities cannot be revealed to anyone, the better terminology for that is security.
No, security means the prevention of unauthorized activity. Privacy and security aren’t on a spectrum, they are largely orthogonal concepts.
To securely connect to google, I use https so that unauthorized actors can’t see the request contents. Google in this case is an actor I have authorized to receive the contents of the request by visiting their website. Even if via those requests google collects a bunch of advertising information about me, that information is being collected securely since google is an authorized actor and the connection is using HTTPS so other actors are prevented from viewing the request.
To be private in this case usually means deeming google an unauthorized actor and avoiding making requests to them in the first place.
What I’m getting at is that security is a well-defined and understood industry standard concept about how to go about setting up the right sets of locks and keys so that those systems can then be used to control authorization to something. Privacy on the other hand is simply taking those locks and keys and making a personal determination about what corporate, state, etc actors to consider unauthorized. This makes privacy an inherently more nebulous, personalized, and often arbitrary concept, as opposed to security. It also means that privacy depends on security while security does not depend on privacy.
Say you had a diary and kept it locked with a key. If the lock could be picked (insecure), the information in your diary would be accessible to anyone who can pick a lock (unprivate). However, if your lock was unpickable (secure), you could still be unprivate by unlocking your diary and showing your friends (loss of privacy via secure, authorized means). Ergo you can’t be private without being secure, but you can easily be secure without being private.