Okay let's get one thing out of the way: You can't use a narrow legalese-defined definition of "wiretapping" and act like it's the same as the popular definition of wiretapping. You do this when you talk about the "wiretapping" in the bill and say that it "really is that crazy". You might not realize that you're doing this, because it might be so ingrained in your training as, whatever profession you are, but it doesn't fly with me. You MUST choose between one definition or the other, and either way, your argument falls apart.

Secondly, if "someone disagrees with me an organization I like in a strident and caustic way" is enough to make you reach for an ad hominem, then that just shows an unfortunate delusionality on your part. Not really helpful to your cause me-thinks.

> Far from merely shielding tracking pixel abusers from "frivolous" lawsuits <blah blah blah>

It appears that we agree on the substance of my argument. Which is enough for me.

EDIT: After reading a comment below, it seems that you might actually be using the "popular" definition of wiretapping, in which case, please provide an example of a scenario where this law allows something nefarious, taking into account other laws such as the CCPA. I doubt one exists.