Okay ... half of experimental psychology papers are about giving people some small amount of money, or even just some token or just a chance to tell their story for filling out a questionnaire, sometimes extra credit is involved, or incarceration is involved (in psychiatric care) which is where I start having serious ethical problems with it.
Questionnaires where they reveal things, often associated with at least a way to contact them for an interview, but sometimes with name and everything, usually is psychiatric settings (where people are often incarcerated without any proof, trial or any of that I might add). Things like whether they stole from their employer. Whether they ever used violence to obtain sex. They often ask children, homeless, prisoners, patients ... other groups with perceived or real precarious situations. (things that would never pass an ethical review board for, say, medicine)
I never claimed people weren't willing to trade privacy for some benefit. I think most people (including myself, if the cost/benefit is favorable to me) are.
But the fact that that's true doesn't mean that people don't care about privacy.
You could even argue that it's indicative that people do care about privacy, as they attach a material value to it. This isn't an argument that I'm really making, but it isn't an unreasonable one.
What is claimed here is not that nobody values privacy. The only claim is that large amounts of people, some from "vulnerable" groups, would trade privacy for a small reward. The article alleges this only happened because they were lied to.