am taken aback by your attitude - you do not seem to possess the demeanour of someone who easily surrenders or gives up!
Conventional methods of communication have always been vulnerable to monitoring, and while it is not entirely legal, it would not be unexpected to discover that unencrypted emails are scanned for certain terms, phone conversations are transcribed and examined, and the internet is systematically searched for information. While there is no justification for such behaviour, this amount of intrusion is particularly egregious.
The privacy of your actions within your vehicle, including your destination, conversations, appearance, driving behaviour, and more, is not being monitored by the government solely for national security purposes. Instead, it is the automobile manufacturer (who willingly sold you this costly vehicle) that is engaging in surveillance in order to profit by selling your personal information to the highest bidder.
While I do not support government monitoring, I acknowledge the need of finding a delicate equilibrium between safeguarding national security and protecting individual privacy. However, private firms do not possess the same level of authority - they are not tasked with safeguarding the country from terrorist attacks or actions by foreign nation states. No, their primary motivation is to generate profit. I would not categorise or group the two things together.
Privacy restrictions are intensifying in the majority of developed nations, with the United States falling behind in this aspect. Although it has been adopted for quite some time, the United States currently lacks a comparable counterpart to Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). I am sceptical that the lack of understanding among our legislators is the only reason for this issue. However, it is quite likely that corporate lobbying is a contributing factor, as is often the case.