I made my original comment misunderstanding what the parent comment meant as "not knowing an ethical problem exists". I also am not talking about this specific decision, but criticizing ethical decision making in the tech industry in general.

In ethics, there is no right or wrong answers (mostly), just right and wrong methodologies. If you go the pragmatic way, you'd argue that the benefits of telemetry are greater than the downsides and implement it. If you go Kant's way, you would already have a maxim (either "never invade privacy" or "prioritize technical benefits regardless of the users" in this case) and act according to that maxim regardless of the situation. If you go the intent way, all that matters is whether your intent for the action is good or bad, in contrast if you go the outcome way, all that matters is the outcome regardless of the intent or the methods.

These are all "valid" ways to discuss an ethical dilemma. However, one must always acknowledge the dilemma. This industry, especially big tech, seems to ignore this quite often, mostly because it's very easy to see people as "just numbers" when you don't see them directly. Don't even get me started on lawmakers who are also ignoring this whole issue. Many standard practices in this industry would be straight up illegal in lots of other areas, especially where there is face-to-face contact.