If someone convinces a friend or family member of the lie that they can trade privacy for services, then my communications with them are compromised without my consent.
This is all about every being's right to choose to be private. The idea that it's okay to impinge this right as long as someone thought of it as a transaction is morally bankrupt.
None of these things are necessarily the end of the world if there's some data protection guarantee. But to say it's simply a choice ignores how much data other people have on us, just by going about our daily lives.
It's even less acceptable if a company uses its customers to spy on people who aren't customers.
To rationalize it by saying "well, you could have used a different bank" is self-indulgent nonsense.
Generally speaking, this article seems to gloss over the fact that this data is generated by actual human beings; examine for instance this section on ownership:
"And it adds to the confusion about who owns data (in the case of an autonomous car, it could be the carmaker, the supplier of the sensors, the passenger and, in time, if self-driving cars become self-owning ones, the vehicle itself)."
So the person from whence the data was generated doesn't own the data, despite owning the vehicle on which it was generated? Isn't that kind of crazy? edit: Ah I do see the passenger in there now, I'll leave this up because the point still stands that "the passenger" is a very passive way to describe the human being involved.
I don't use FB, but a data-promiscuous person who knows a ton about me recently unfriended my closest contacts. Ignorance is bliss?