The same logic applies to "Let's make sure that other party chooses the worst possible candidate, thus compeling everyone to vote for the candidate we prefer in the general election."
Or "let's present our boss with two options, the correct one and also an absolutely awful one, thus ensuring that they will select the correct option."
I'm not sure how telling Facebook (or Google) "you can't spy on people just because a page has a link to your widget" is even remotely the same as gaming an election?
Possibly. I'm ok with that too. If a site wants that info they can pay for it (vs trading their own visitor's data for the service).
IANAL, IMO, etc.... in terms of how I feel personally about the use of my browsing data, a lot depends on the scope of what/where/who I'm visiting. I don't have much expectation of privacy for simply visiting a site - some unique tracking ID gets passed around, ok, I can live with that. To me, the meatspace equivalent is a neighbor telling another neighbor they saw me at the supermarket.
But, once I start actively engaging on the site - buying things, entering PII for some reason, posting in a forum - my expectation of privacy is higher (even if the reality isn't the case). I don't want that info traded without my consent.
This is a textbook false dichotomy. We could change the laws around digital privacy to reflect an infinite combination of policies, it is not a choice between two options. The point is that Facebook's position should not be the default policy.
What makes this case particularly exciting to me is that it feels like a step in the direction of bottoms-up protections for citizens, as opposed to top-down regulation of corporations, which I believe is the better path forward.
> The same logic applies to "Let's make sure that other party chooses the worst possible candidate, thus compeling everyone to vote for the candidate we prefer in the general election."
Interestingly, wikileaks dumps revealed that exactly this occurred in 2016. Google "pied piper strategy" for the relevant coverage. Spoiler alert: didn't work out quite as they expected.
The two situations are entirely separate. What you, essentially, wrote is that there is no difference between gaming an election and the privacy afforded by a wiretapping statute.
The same logic applies to "Let's make sure that other party chooses the worst possible candidate, thus compeling everyone to vote for the candidate we prefer in the general election."
Or "let's present our boss with two options, the correct one and also an absolutely awful one, thus ensuring that they will select the correct option."