> spying requires secrecy...

Eh. Both Superpowers knew that they were spying on each other all the time, and that was still considered to be spying. But feel free to replace the word "spying" with the phrase "clandestine largely-automated mass surveillance" if it makes you more comfortable.

> ...and lack of consent.

Given

* the fact that the contracts one is required to "agree" to in order to use most services are often novella-length or longer, and frequently include by reference other contracts of similar length

* that nearly all contracts like this have a clause where not only does the powerful party reserve the -very frequently-exercised- right to change the terms of the contract without any prior notice, but said party presumes that you automatically accept the rewritten contract and gives you no option to negotiate

I'd argue that the real situation on the ground -in the US, at least- is that "consumers" have consented to approximately zero of the contracts that -despite that lack of consent- legally bind them.