[JadeNB]

> That seems like a very arbitrary distinction, and I'm not sure how one arrives there.

I think a blurring of the difference between "things that the government can do" and "things that a private company can do" is a very unfortunate (and also very deliberate) development in modern society.

To me, the distinction is far from arbitrary; it is fundamental. Democratic governments are elected, and at least nominally accountable to the people over whom they exercise their reserved rights; for-profit companies are generally accountable only to their shareholders, not to those over whom they exercise these privileges—and technically to governments, although governments seem unwilling to exercise much of that right of restraint.

(This is a response to your point about the distinction being arbitrary, not to your question about private companies analyzing data. If a dataset of which I am a part is used without identifying me as part of it, or after obtaining my consent to be included in it, then my qualms about it go away. If, however, the company gathering this information, while counting the traffic flow of which I am a part, decides to sell information about where they've noticed I like to shop to advertisers, then, yes, that's a moral red flag for me.)

[shadowgovt]

For-profit companies are also accountable to the market; a company lying about the traffic numbers, for whatever reason, loses when a competitor offers more accurate numbers.

What happens when the government chooses to lie about the numbers? What if it's doing so because the public has signaled it wants to be lied to (which happens from time to time)?