I think the difference is between cheering on the loss of privacy and recognising the loss.
The loss of privacy was something that was totally foreseeable (by me, at least) but embraced by the general population. The general embrace has meant that we all operate within a panopticon-like system - this itself modifies behaviour. No alternative choices are available - as a collective all have to 'follow the herd', with phones etc being essential to modern existence, despite the privacy reservations felt by many.
I'm taking the opportunity to express the idea that it is possible to find appeal in this or that tech feature and to lose sight of the broader ramifications. Each incremental change can be justified (no batteries makes my phone slimmer, 'finding my' is useful, its good to know my blood pressure, etc) but to imagine that the rollout of these features is a natural unfolding of reality without preordained end goal (technocratic governance) is naive.
Technocratic governance is not a goal that anyone would accept if it was proposed in a straightforward way - hence the duplicity, incrementalism, destruction of existing institutions, etc.