Yes, and the legal argument to "consent" here is what has always been the most interesting for me, and he hits on it in the essay.
We all know how it goes: "Well, once you click "I agree" to the Terms & Conditions, you're basically fucked." Well, are you? What IF the Terms & Conditions said, "By agreeing below, you are also agreeing to RJ (say) being allowed to physically break into your house at any hour of the day or night."
Well, that won't work, "Consent to Terms & Conditions" or not. Why? Because breaking and entering is illegal, and you cannot "consent" to someone else's breaking the law, as the law trumps their "Terms & Conditions".
So, what we need are laws that require sites specifically ASK for our consent on SPECIFIC data collection (and this, too, forms a perfect legal complement to our supposed prohibition on "general" warrants under the Fourth Amendment):
"By agreeing to our Terms & Conditions below, you agree that we can:
a) Mine ALL of your data that we can get our hands on. Yes/No?
b) Use your data to re-sell to third parties for the purposes of.. Yes/No?
c) USE none of your data, at all. Yes/No?
.. and so on.
That would leave US with a lot more privacy (the combination of secrecy, anonymity, and autonomy, as he brilliantly points out), but where would that leave FB, Yahoo, Google, and RJ?