This is somewhat of a bullshit argument. Not on your part! But on those who typically use it as justification. Because there are two independent components to

This is somewhat of a bullshit argument. Not on your part! But on those who typically use it as justification. Because there are two independent components to such a system: {increase cost of identity} + {protect privacy of identity} When it's offered/justified to combat spam... the implication is that the solution will deliver both promises. In reality, the first (concept of identity) gets built, marketing/sales realizes they can abuse the hell out of it for their ends, the second (privacy protection) gets overruled at the VP/C* level, and any privacy protections are quietly never implemented. This happens again. And again. And again. Google is probably the best case ethical scenario here, in regards to having standards around privacy data stewardship, and even they abuse it frequently when the profit is too large to ignore. The only reasonable takeaway is that any system that permits mass tracking is too dangerous to privacy to allow to exist, and all should be opposed. Or, as GDPR does, render companies liable for omissions from a privacy perspective.