There are two fallacies I frequently feel the need to debunk in this discussion. - Cash is anonymous - Cash is an "old" or "low" technology. When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and frequently your face is captured by cameras in stores, ATMs and vending machines. Modern cash is high technology . Look…
> When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and frequently your face is captured by cameras in stores, ATMs and vending machines. Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Your buying something is not logged anywhere, for example.
1. You might not be involved in a major crime but you might be a suspect. Lots of innocent suspects get convicted.
2. You might be a whistleblower. Lots of whistleblowers get framed.
Etc.
"If I've done nothing wrong I have nothing to hide" didn't work out well for Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
A lot of the reason many of us want privacy preserved is to prevent a similar path here. Totalitarian governments don't always pop up overnight on a revolution; they often creep up on you.
The creeping process is also often:
1. We'll track X with major checks on privacy; it will only be used for terrorism and child abuse investigations and held in a secure vault
2. We're just doing a better job of sharing / using data we already collect
Neither off those is objectionable, but together, you end up in a distopia.