Right, but the modern progressive narrative is that it's a person's choice to participate in sex work. I entirely and fully agree that underhanded privacy violations without clear consent are wrong, especially when most people simply assume privacy since it has been an assumption for thousands of years. We can both lock arms and definitely agree that's wrong and needs to be stopped.
Our deviation of view is in individual choice to participate in such schemes, and whether or not to frame it as a positive-or-negative event. If Amazon started offering free Prime Shipping for permission to open my packages and advertise to me based on it, my rather vanilla cis-gender male interests would make me more than happy to do so. Now I understand people from other demographics may not feel safe doing that, and I'm plenty well ensuring they have access to privacy in a reasonable, easy fashion at their discretion. But in the same fashion, I am -not- interested in participating in porno, but that does not mean no one can participate in sex-work who might like to. And I'm sure people who would participate likewise agree I personally have a right to be free from such.
The same goes for food. Many poor people skip out on side dishes to meals, etc, and end up eating unhealthy, incomplete meals because they're too poor to afford the full dish. They also may decide to engage in fasting because of their poverty. But that does not mean I think fasting is wrong for someone who chooses it, nor does it mean we should ban the sale of food and replace it with government issued rations.
The thing is, I'm more confident that if Comcast is paid to have a privacy package, that they'll probably find clever ways to keep -others- from spying to boot. Now they have a vested interest in not only violating the tubes you have access to, but making sure others on the other end don't spy on your tubes as well. More than that, it makes it into a tangible product, which creates a market for competition, etc. Of course this is the same as the food industry: food as a service means "going without eating" is an assumed thing that must be bought out of by money. As is, children do without food by default, and food must be acquired via money. In those cases, we have food programs (which still need work, IMHO.)
Still, I can respect your point of view, but personally I think Comcast will do more for privacy trying to sell it as a product than a government mandate will. We can take care of our poor who can't afford such a service the same way we do those who can't afford food. Of course, in your defense, education and housing have yet to be properly tackled via government support, despite free market innovation. So I can definitely understand your concerns are legitimate.