[hshehehjdjdjd]

I’m sorry but this is not really a substantive objection to what I said. Yes, people have a vague preference for privacy. I never disputed that. No, failing to respect that preference has not caused material, externally visible harm.

[Krasnol]

We're not taking about some vague concept. For some of us it is part of the constitution. It's the RIGHT to privacy. Your attempts at downplaying it are the main vehicle of the advertisement industry and it's a disgrace at least. This ideology has educated those "people" to ignore that by hiding the means and downplaying the relevance. This law tries to at least regain some of the awareness that has been lost in the last decades and this is why the industry is crying so much.

[hshehehjdjdjd]

You have a constitutional right to privacy from the government. There is no such constitutional right (in the U.S.) that would prevent private surveillance, especially in cases where it is consensual.

[Krasnol]

How can anything be consensual even under the broken US law if one side doesn't know about it or at least doeasn't understand what is happening?!

[hshehehjdjdjd]

At least in US law, it is incumbent on the parties of a contract to understand it. If they sign without understanding, that’s on them. Terms of use are a contract between you and a website owner. If you don’t understand them, you can either not use the website, or accept the risk that you’re consenting to something you may not like. (Again, this is the current state in the U.S. I’m aware it’s different elsewhere.)