That's not actually how the law works though. Restaurants lose a lot of money throwing out food that's probably good enough by the standards that most of us us

That's not actually how the law works though. Restaurants lose a lot of money throwing out food that's probably good enough by the standards that most of us use in our kitchens at home but because there was an excursion in the fridge temperature of 2c or whatever the law says they have to throw it out. They could make a lot more money if they didn't have to do that, especially if chefs were allowed some discretion in when things are "out of date" like they used to have prior to food safety laws. However, as a society we actually don't want chefs to have that discretion because although we might trust an individual chef we sure don't trust every chef. So we set rules for restaurants because we would rather have some restaurants go bankrupt and there be fewer restaurants around than have everyone risk eating food that might be below standard every time they go out. Instead, we set an objective baseline criteria for food standards. Same thing with privacy. Your personal standard of privacy may or may not be higher than my personal standard of privacy, but society-wide we don't want privacy to be a roulette wheel or a tragedy of the commons, so we set an objective standard for it. That may or may not bankrupt some ad-tech companies who are reliant on the dodgy-chef techniques, but that's not a loss to society as a whole any more than losing dodgy restaurants would be.