A lot of people wonder why we study and document things that are already “common knowledge”. This is true of scientific studies as well. What a waste of money, right?

The answer is, until you actually do the work you don’t actually know. Scientists and government officials can’t cite common knowledge. And even if you were right about the conclusion, the details matter. The amount matters. The mechanisms matter.

Nothing because the government wants to do this surveillance itself but can't by law. The availability of corporate surveillance means the government can use it too, so it benefits them.

What do I want them to do? Pass a constitutional amendment that bans government invasions of privacy, legislation that extends those rights to individuals' interactions with private parties, legislation that funds the enforcement of those protections, legislation that creates civil penalties for violating those rights, and funds courts that hear those cases.

What do I expect them to do? Limit super-invasive spying to domestically-controlled companies.

This report gives us a framework for legislation. In no way does it "tell us what we already know".

There are plenty of people who "know" things that are actually wrong. This investigation is an important first step for the government to feel confident they know what's going on before exercising state power, which is, you know, a good thing. Vibes- or rumor-based exercise of state power is ill advised.

The Biden FTC has been quite aggressive against all sorts of anti-consumer practices throughout the economy which tend to follow these types of reports. I suspect action is coming relatively soon.