> My argument is - this data doesn't hurt anyone, is not likely to hurt anyone, and it is valuable enough that banning ad targeting is a mistake.

I see where you come from, but that data shouldn't be for sale.

Regardless of the fact that it may be valuable for some third party, if I have not given my consent, that should be enough to instantly ban any storage and processing of it. This should be the default. At the very least, we, the people being profiled, should be part of the conversation.

But we failed at forecasting what profiling and targeted ads would become, didn't properly regulated them, and now it seems that every marketer expects to get their hands on everyone's data, just because it is valuable for their businesses.

While there may not be current and widespread harm, although that is debatable, the default shouldn't be letting companies syphon data and build profiles about people without consent.

And quite honestly, I don't care if a business burns to the ground as the consequence of unethical behaviour. It should happen more often.

I don't get it. I don't mind the ads if they are not manipulative and attempt to actually inform about something I might enjoy. But this is already rare, and many (most?) online ads are for crap.

And beyond that, of course there is potential for harm if data is collected for targeted ads. It might be increasing the price of your flight because you've been looking at the target country several times in the past weeks. It might be canceling your insurance because you googled for headache medicine. Or it might be marking you as a person to be deported into a "reeducation camp" because of your heritage or religion thanks to data that was involuntarily collection about you (originally without evil intent, even). Most of these already happened in reality.