I don't know how good your Swedish is... but if you can read it, alternatively can convince one of the on-line translation engines to transpile the article into something almost, but not quite resembling a language of your choice, here's an article from 1971 (!) warning for the privacy consequences of unlimited data collection:

http://www.friatider.se/h-r-varnar-professorn-f-r-vervakning...

The conclusion is as follows:

I princip bör information om individen behandlas som individens egendom, innebärande att han måste tillfrågas innan någon vill utnyttja informationen. Individen bör skyddas mot olovlig användning på samma sätt som mot övergrepp mot personlig egendom. Dataexperterna kanske hävdar att det skulle bli för dyrt att tillfråga alla dem, vilkas data skall användas varje gång detta skall ske, och att det är tekniskt svårt att genomföra. Svårare problem har man lyckats att lösa och kostnaden bärs ändå av "den svage".

In English this would be:

Information about an individual should in principle be treated as that person's private property, meaning that the person should be asked before someone wants to use it. The individual should be protected against unwanted use in the same way as he is protected against unwanted use of other private property. Data experts might state that it would be too expensive to ask all individuals for permission any time the data is to be used, and that this is difficult to implement. More challenging problems have been solved and the costs are born by "the weak" anyway.

These consequences are far from unanticipated. People outside the organization have been predicting the catastrophic use of the data facebook is gathering and this is just the first time a problem has been this noticeable, but tons of abuses have been happening for years. Facebook was happy to continue to engage because it's about profit.

Facebook is a hostile platform and that should be checked. This isn't just about free markets and what people will use. People used to really enjoy cars without seatbelts.

The path of progress often involves regulation after consequences, unanticipated or otherwise, make it clear that it's necessary.

I am quite uncomfortable with this, personally, because I'd prefer it if people were allowed to choose for themselves. But in some cases, cigarettes being a good example, regulation does seem to be worth the trade-off, and it most definitely seems to be effective.

This particular issue I find complicated enough that I don't have a strong opinion on the way forward. But I strongly disagree with your claim that 1) regulating things doesn't change things, and 2) calls for regulation are misguided. The broader privacy issues are real, very serious, and have been neglected as a 'mainstream' discussion for way too long.