For the record, I think this is the sort of cause that WMUK should be seen to be aligned with. Surveillance of your access to information is a form of cost, especially when the information you access potentially covers all topics. It's an unconventional kind of cost (and some people wouldn't even call it that) but if you give up privacy to find and use information, that's a sense in which you're paying for it.* We work for access to knowledge which is free, in multiple senses, and universal as far as possible, so I think a campaign for sensible restrictions on surveillance is something we should be aligned with. I hope, but don't presume, that others share this opinion, and I guess this is also the thinking behind Stevie's question.
Apologies if this is "mansplaining": I expect readers already understand this.