My issue with the term is that governments are, and will ever be more invasive with our private data than private companies. This makes sense: the government will never be held accountable for data hoarding, and in fact kinda needs to hoard data to prosecute tax fraud and ensure law enforcement, but private businesses want to make sure people still use them, even if their users are privacy conscious.
Moreover, a bunch of fully for-profit companies are living off of exclusively selling privacy. Their only reason to exist is protecting their customer's information. Think ProtonMail, Tutanota, TunnelBear, privacy.com, the Mozilla Foundation (to a certain extent), Qwant, DuckDuckGo, and so on and so forth.
I very much preferred the previous term: "Government Surveillance". As some other comments on this page also pointed out, this loss of privacy comes with the benefit of productivity and reduced friction, while government surveillance rarely ever has a positive side to it (except catching criminals, and even so at the expense of non-criminals' privacy).
Moreover, a bunch of fully for-profit companies are living off of exclusively selling privacy. Their only reason to exist is protecting their customer's information. Think ProtonMail, Tutanota, TunnelBear, privacy.com, the Mozilla Foundation (to a certain extent), Qwant, DuckDuckGo, and so on and so forth.
I very much preferred the previous term: "Government Surveillance". As some other comments on this page also pointed out, this loss of privacy comes with the benefit of productivity and reduced friction, while government surveillance rarely ever has a positive side to it (except catching criminals, and even so at the expense of non-criminals' privacy).