The analogy wasn't really about that though, I was trying to explore whether or not the third party is considered a willing participant or not, which changes the implications of the data collection.

A stranger in a restaurant can't help that they heard you talk about something private, but it was entirely the fault of the person sent to intentionally record a conversation so you could say they willingly participated in the ordeal.

Backing out of the analogy, Facebook willingly collected the data, it was entirely their intention to collect the data. So the responsibility of that data collection is theirs, and they were an active participant. I think it's important to set that precedent, because we all know the technology was entirely indifferent to what it was collecting, but we can't use the inadequacies of a technology and process as a way to excuse companies from responsibility. Holding them accountable would force them to get better processes and improve the technology so it doesn't happen again.