This is the crux of it, it's not voluntary association to be a participant in the surveillance economy. If I didn't live in the EU this would be my train of thought: I didn't choose it, I just accessed a website that had trackers and eventually that data is sold, I wasn't willing to do it and the contract for it is buried somewhere and simply by accessing it I've implicitly given the system tacit agreement to get my data scooped up.
That's why I believe GDPR was a major advancement for data privacy, I can actually choose to block trackers or to not access a website if they make it hard to not be tracked.
In here though I talked explicitly about GDPR and data privacy in the surveillance economy sense.
I'm not discussing encryption or government overreach on privacy matters in the EU in general, unsure why it is brought up in this thread, care to expand?
I still don't get why you brought this up when I'm specifically talking about one case of data privacy where I believe the EU has done right, I believe it's doing wrong with encryption and I'm actively contacting MEPs to share my view.
Again, what's your point? They're different issues, why are you conflating them and creating a strawman?
The EU doesn’t care about protecting you from “surveillance”.
No, invasive government surveillance is supposed to require a warrant. Invasive is defined as a search of your 'person, house, papers, or effects'.
A third party's records on you aren't your person, house, papers, or effects. They are records concerning you, but they are not your records.
The government (just like every other government in the world) doesn't need a warrant to receive a tip, to ask your neighbour if they want to volunteer/sell any information about you, or to surveil you when you go about your public activities.
I'm sure you didn't consent to be the subject of that tip, or to your neighbour snitching on you. That still doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate form of surveillance.
Being surveilled by private entities is non-consensual and hardly ‘choosing to do business with them’.
Corporate surveillance is different because corporations can't throw you in jail, can't send police and such at you. That's all.
A high profile example, though there are many others: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environme...
The fact that government involvement is needed is really semantics. No one affected by this decision could hold the officials responsible for this decision accountable, so the government is really an arm of the corporation at this point. This is inevitable when consolidation of wealth/power isn’t limited.
There are other examples too, like when Hertz gets you arrested for GTA because someone else was late returning the rental car you're driving.
Corporate surveillance is a different beast because people can choose which corporations they do business with, absent market consolidation. We are not absent market consolidation, but it's that which is the scandal, not what would otherwise be voluntary associations between private parties.