Citing the Quadrature du Net, which expresses itself better than I would:
Admitting that consent could be an economic compensation would mean that fundamental freedoms may be attributed according to economic criteria. Privacy would become a luxury affordable only to the ‘happy few’.
Outside the communications sector, some practices are typical examples for this. This includes loyalty cards, offered by big stores and that allow companies to establish detailed profiles from their customers' daily consumption, hence characterizing their sheer intimacy. Whereas the ‘happy few’ can afford to escape this surveillance by not using these cards, the poorest people often have no choice. Refusing to submit to such surveillance would deprive them from promotions often necessary to close their budget. They cannot afford the ‘luxury’ of privacy nor the ‘ease’ of not being under surveillance. However, such things are not luxury nor ease but fundamental freedoms.
For this reason, and to fight against such abuses, these fundamental freedoms have all been taken off the market: physical integrity (Art 3(2)(b) of the EU Charter prohibits the sale of one’s own body parts), the freedom of decision over one’s own body (Art 5 of the Charter prohibits submission to forced labour), the freedom to marry, to vote, etc. This should be no different when it comes to privacy and to the confidentiality of communications.
Section "Freedoms have no economical value" of https://www.laquadrature.net/files/lqdn_positions_eprivacy_01_09_2017.pdf
