I think they are saying that this person apparently drives poorly enough to warrant a huge increase in insurance and that they want people who are bad drivers to be found out, but that they don't like the way this person was found to be a bad driver. Kind of a "while this is the result we want this is horrible, and not the way to get it."

They are conflicted, perhaps even made conceptually(?) uncomfortable, because they see value in that persons insurance reflecting their driving history, by the fact that they see a positive outcome in this case of invasion of privacy.

That's how i read it, not then condoning it just sharing some internal dilemma here. If my take is accurate, we should have compassion and help them through this with support not jumping to conclussions.

They very much did not suggest that they approve at all of the sale of their data only that they see a connection.

They cant ignore that people will use this as justification to continue down this path into the complete solvency of privacy...and that it may just work

I'm making a lot of assumptions to explain my take in their eyes and expanding out a bit. Admittedly i am exploring this and cannot prove anything I've just said