You're right. I didn't get the analogy. After your explanation, I now get it. But still, the analogy is flawed then. If I give the restaurant money, the way th

You're right. I didn't get the analogy. After your explanation, I now get it. But still, the analogy is flawed then. If I give the restaurant money, the way the use they money afterwards doesn't affect me. They cannot take more money from my bank account or from my pocket. The only thing they can do is invest it and make more money, but it does not affect me. When I give my data, the way they use my data – after I've "eaten there" – can affect my life. They can send me spam, they can put me into database of "people with suspicious behavior", ... The law is more about giving a second chance: I could have given information in the past, and you could have sent me commercial emails in the past. But now I've realized I've made a mistake and I don't want you do that anymore. If you want an analogy to real life: it's more about giving 5 years of jail to a burglar. They committed a mistake, so they have to pay for it, but they should have the right to get out after having paid, and live a normal honest life. How is that unfair?