Surveillance was already happening at scale and being put to use for whatever nefarious purpose. As long as it wasn't public, very few people cared. Now that the data is used for public good (helping determine health policy), media and activists jump on the bandwagon because, duh, "government surveillance = bad" knee-jerk.
Public servants putting high-tech tools to work to get people their tax money's worth? It's actually the _only_ ethical use for this collected data!
Secondly, the government making use of an unethical or nefarious practice only serves to legitimize it, and make it harder to roll back.
Lastly, if everything was above board, why be forthright about the use the employment of such data sets?
But that's not really applicable here because they're not using their "coercive powers" to get the data. They're getting data that anyone else could get by paying enough money.
Also, advertisers _do_ maintain a prison of the mind by entertaining futile, elusive, ever-shifting goals to divert energy that could be spent in trying to change things.
Why do multiple person believe the issue is that it's the public sector that use it? I didn't know the data was available. The issue is definitely not who use it.