All of those things are basically religious terms to me. Some people subscribe to the religion that they have a "right to be forgotten" or a "right to their data". I don't subscribe to this religion, I want out.
You can lobby for the law to be changed. Don't be surprised you can't get a critical mass for "Yes, I'd like businesses to be able to track me".
You could just as equally declare copyright law or property law to be a religion and insist you don't want to subscribe to it, but society as a whole does, and so if you want to participate you just have to lump it.
What if the laws were the other way, and business were being mandated to track everything they can about the people they interact with? How would this tyranny be different from the one existing currently? Just because the majority decides something, that doesn't mean it's not tyrannical. People should be free to peacefully interact with each other as they individually see fit. Some people may track, some may choose not to, advertise that fact. Any picking of sides is totally arbitrary and therefore unjust.
The European union has evolved from the European Economic Union, and they are generally pretty pro-business and pro-freedom.
One thing you want to keep an eye on that is actually harmful to business (and economic freedom) is if some part of the economy gets caught up in a race-to-the-bottom. This is a situation where everyone's best move is to defect, and then defect again, all the way down until no one is free/making a profit/happy/etc anymore.
In this case there is a clear race to the bottom situation where everyone ends up having to track everything about everyone, just to keep up with the competition. As this would be pretty much truly be a panopticon-like tyranny by any other name, that's clearly not desirable.
In this case the EU is trying to make legislation that stops the race from going all the way down, by leveling the playing field so that everyone can conveniently say "see, we can't go further because it's actually illegal now".
So the net (long-term) freedom is actually increased by this measure.
Is it not tyrannical to prevent you from selling copies of Lord of the Rings without paying the author by that same logic?
If the majority of society was in favour of tracking everything then the opponents of that would have the same options of lobbying to change people's minds. As seen in the difference between end user reactions to GDPR vs ACTA, that seems like it would be much easier.
Yes? Copyright law was widely regarded as tyrannical when first introduced. Anything to which violence is an inappropriate response should not be legislated.
Because once you've told something to someone it's not yours anymore? Sure you can sign an agreement, but the consequences of violating it are civil, not criminal.
During WWII in Europe, numerous people in occupied territories learned that it is very important to be able to retain your privacy and ensure people don't learn too much about you. While people of Jewish ancestry are often taken as the canonical example, many other groups of people and individuals learned that "I have nothing to hide" is most definitely never true.
Would it surprise you that it is in fact Germany that now has very strong privacy protections these days?
