It is not clear to me that just because a company can gather and use personal data that they should be free to do so. Even if they should be so free, it is not clear to me that they should be free to use any personal data in whatever way they want.
> Limiting freedom is bad unless you have a very good reason to do so.
The argument that they should be free to do so because otherwise we are otherwise limiting freedom is not convicing. Consider, for a moment, whether we have a right to privacy. Restricting person A from violating the rights of person B is generally not considered a limit on the freedom of person A. For instance, we generally do not talk about laws against theft limiting the freedom of a person to take whatever they want. If we do not have a right to privacy, then preserving privacy may still be a "very good reason" to limit such freedom.
> Some people may find that giving up their privacy for convenience is worth it, others, like me, would think the opposite, but we individually make the decision to use or not use Google, Facebook, etc. "Being taken advantage" is subjective.
Most people do not realize they are giving their privacy away or if they do, do not realize the extent of it. Privacy policies are intentionally obfuscated (and these public policies only exist because of regulation). People have expectations of how their data will be handled and PR departments do their best to suggest that their expectations align with reality, but theose expecations are never aligned with reality.
Even if this is how it actually worked, it would only work that way until it no longer works that way. Eventually you may find yourself uninsurable if you refuse to install a tracking device in your vehicle.