OK, how about comparing the rate of property crime in buildings using traditional, non-electronic locks, with buildings using electronic locks that track access?

The point here is that so far no evidence has been put forward to support all the hypothetical public safety benefits for which we're being asked to give up our privacy. That's troubling.

It's not your privacy.

You get to communicate with your friends while keeping that fact secret from the government. That's in the Bill of Rights.

You do not get to enter a building that someone else owns while keeping that fact secret from the building owner. That's a crime.

It is my privacy, and just because a private building owner can legally violate that privacy doesn't mean that they should or must[1], or that the users of that building shouldn't question the stated reasons that their privacy is being violated (particularly in the case of universities, which usually respect their community members' opinions more than a typical private organization).

[1] For this reason, your assertion that secretly entering a private building is a crime is not universally true.

Why do you consider the fact that you're entering a building to be private? Why do you consider it a violation?

Just because the owner has a legal right to keep tabs on people, and that doing so doesn't infringe on constitutionally protected rights, doesn't mean privacy isn't being violated or that (s)he is above criticism.

You do not get to enter a building that someone else owns while keeping that fact secret from the building owner. That's a crime.

Nobody is saying that it should be "kept a secret". Only that it shouldn't be on record, especially electronically. You know, like people do everywhere buildings have regular keys.