Someone has to play Devil's Advocate, and I'm feeling like it today.
Insurance is about spreading risk, and different groups have different risks. Do you object to insurance costing more for a 16-year-old driver than it does for a 36-year-old driver? Do you object to insurance costing more for someone who has been in 3 collisions than 0 collisions, or for someone with 3 speeding or careless driving tickets, than someone with 0 tickets? Men vs women? This ZIP code vs that ZIP code?
This is just more of that.
If it costs you more, you're a victim of accuracy, but if it costs you less, then you're a beneficiary of accuracy. Boo hoo or yay, depending on how well you drive.
And this merely involves information that the buyer had already decided doesn't need to be kept private. Before they spent their money, they knew the vehicle spies on them; they just (maybe) forgot the consequences of that spying. If you cared enough to make sure your vehicle (and phone, watch, etc) doesn't spy on you, then you don't have the "problem" of your insurance premiums accurately reflecting your actual risk.
And so, I think that deep down, this is basically fair. Though I think that if it ever became maximally (magically!) accurate, then there would no longer be need for insurance at all, since we'd all know the future and then be able to plan for our liabilities (or lack thereof) directly, without amortizing it across the larger population. And that would be even more fair, though it's impossible to achieve.