Its fine, when there is a benefit to me. Same with some government surveillance.

I really don't mind some surveillance by government. There is a camera system at the stateline 6 miles from my house. Every time I drive into the neighboring state my license plate is read and recorded in a database, then checked against another database. Its done by computer, and I highly doubt my license plate number is deleted once cleared.

Is this an invasion of my privacy? Not in my opinion. It is a tool to catch criminals and it works, which is why I am ok with it. When you get an amber alert on your phone, the reason they know the general area to look is because of systems like this one. Unlike the ludicrous rules of the TSA, systems like this do actually make us safer for pennies on the dollar. (The TSA minutia may actually make us safer, I don't know, but it isn't cheap and certainly is disruptive.)

The data is not my own, it belongs to Law Enforcement and probably the state's Dept of Transportation. I actually am more comfortable in this regard than if a private company were collecting it, since the likelihood of that data remaining private is higher.

Were a private company collecting this data without any benefit to me,I would not be ok with it at all.

Lets take another example. The State of Oregon is currently testing out a fitbit device for cars. It is opt in and people that have the device do not pay gas tax at the pump, instead they are taxed per mile. The device collects a lot more data than odometer readings though. Some of that data might be necessary, such as a GPS reading. Why? Because the driver would not want to be taxed for miles driven outside of the state. That would be a double tax were they ever to fill up out of state. What about other data. Ever drive over the speed limit in Oregon? What could they eventually do with that data. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that the data could be used to automatically ticket speeders as well. At what point does it become tyranny? That mile marker is probably different for different people.

This isn't black and white. We can't look at it as a simple 4 legs good 2 legs bad argument. We need to accept that some surveillance is fine and some isn't by both state and enterprise. Where to draw the line is open to debate.