[corresation]

nobody anywhere is arguing that we should abandon useful technology due to blind fear, uncertainty, and doubt

Except that the entire article was raising fear, uncertainty and doubt about the retention of that data. The "useful" part is retaining the information such that later on when someone is arrested in the commission of a rape, for instance, they could look at other historical appearances of that person's known vehicle and see if there's a correlation with other incidents (which at most would be circumstantial given that a vehicle can have many drivers, but it could instruct further investigations).

This article warns that such logged data betrays "your political and religious beliefs, your social and sexual habits, your visits to the doctor", and then says " If this data is too private to give a week’s worth to the public to help inform us how the technology is being used, then isn’t it too private to let the police amass years’ worth of data without a warrant?"

That does not mesh with your rebuttal at all.