Of course the answer to that is yes. I think there is a role for consent in certain circumstances where the relationship is bilateral between a company service provider and a consumer, where the consumer understands the information that is required to provide the service. With the current digital economy, we're way beyond that. There are many purposes for which the information is then used, often with the purported consent of the consumer.
While there is a place for consent, it has its limits, and that's why I say it is important that privacy legislation define privacy for what it is. It is not at all limited to the mechanical question of consent. It is a fundamental right linked to other fundamental rights. When the outcome of a practice of a company, despite purported consent, is to surveil a consumer in terms of data localization or in terms of the content of messages given by that person, then I think the law should say that consent or no consent, it doesn't matter. What is at play is a privacy violation, being the surveillance of the individual in question, and that is a violation per se that should lead to significant penalties. It is possible to do that.