How ya figure? It's same in type. Pervasive monitoring/metadata collection is an attack.

PRISM/CALEA/ubiquitous surveillance via facial recognition, social credit scoring don't just magically stop being linguistically addressable because we've tossed another specific example into the generic bucket. It just means that we're getting better at identifying exploitative forms of unnecessary data collection.

Unless I'm reading your statement wrong, I'm just not seeing a here your worry comes into play. There's no Orwellian language leak there, and I'm usually pretty sensitive to that just because it does drive me nutswhen people try to do that intentionally.

The source for the story clearly has a specific political bias regarding its interpretation of privacy.

That political bias doesn't impinge on the facts of the report though (merely that Brave believes it's worth surfacing loudly).

So the right to privacy is a political agenda item now? I don't get what you are saying, can you please clarify?

Yes, anything related to the life on society and how we regulate it or not is "politics" and a particular political subject is pushed by any individual or group is a "political agenda item". If we act like politics is a dirty word, only the worst of us will involve in politics.

Whether pseudonymized background data collection constitutes a violation of right to privacy is a hot-button political topic. The GDPR has put a stake in the ground on this but is not the final say on the matter.