No. Not at all. Freedom of speech is extremely strong in the US, and for good reason. Freedom to install software onto other people's computers is not.
It's extremely troubling that people are defending this person.
It's classic shoot-the-messenger.
Meanwhile Facebook was - and probably still is - tracking people's online behaviour even when they're not logged into Facebook, based on legalese buried in T&Cs which most users don't even know exist, never mind have read, never mind understood, never mind given explicit informed consent to.
No it's not!
I don't go around shooting people to advocate gun control laws.
I don't go around stealing people's belongings in cars to advocate that people shouldn't leave valuables in cars.
This is vigilante behavior that should never be condoned.
When you think criticism - oblique, but clearly still harmless - is more of a problem than the behaviours, you are very much trying to shoot the messenger.
Put another way, "shoot the messenger" is a phrase used when an unbiased person, merely delivering a message of bias/harm from another, is attacked for the message.
You are not a messenger, when you perform the act/deed/thing yourself.
Everything doesn't have to be black and white you know
"Dooing good, through bad methods"
He should have been brought to trial
This isn't big brother with all the power systematically spying on citizens, this is a nobody with no power showing us a picture of ourselves. Both cases are happening, both happen against the will of the people, and yet which one do we allow to continue?
I'll also point out that the discussion we're having is exactly the outcome the artist intended.
"I'm not sure I would make this piece today, anyway. I'm increasingly critical of artwork that attempts to engage with the theme of surveillance by replicating systems of surveillance. How fruitful can a conversation be about consent and privacy, when an artist does not seek their subject's consent?"
I also don't think it's as bad as you're making it sound. I feel it's akin to gray-hat security research. Maybe he crossed the line into "you shouldn't do that" but ultimately had a harmless intent and didn't cause any real damage. Not exactly whistleblower status but more like a comedian being granted the liberty to push some boundaries and spark potentially valuable conversations.