Serbia's mistake was proposing this via law, instead of just forcing the population to track themselves with COVID check-ins and then tapping into the data:
https://theconversation.com/police-access-to-covid-check-in-...
https://theconversation.com/police-access-to-covid-check-in-...
I disagree. The problem of surveillance still stands even if you trust each and every single actor directly or indirectly involved in it. The critical aspect is that surveillance is made possible through significant investments in infrastructure, and infrastructure outlives actors and governments and regimes. Once you have the infrastructure in place, all it takes is a bad actor to weaponized it and use it to oppress and control you.
Just because you trust who is in charge today that does not mean that said person/organization will continue indefinitely as-is.
How is tapping into that any more difficult than a COVID app? The three major credit rating agencies already have complete knowledge of every place I visit, and every single thing I buy.
They will happily sell this information in aggregate to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who wants it, and hand over every detail in response to a police warrant.
Just thought I'd proceed the discussion with the argument that will inevitably be brought forward.
Covid adds a bit of friction to this but I have yet to be refused a transaction because of a cash payment.
If you're in the US, this isn't true. Businesses are only required to accept cash for debts, i.e. where you pay after services are rendered. That's why dollar bills specifically say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
The gas station can refuse your cash payment for a candy bar because there's no "debt" yet. A restaurant can't refuse to take cash unless they make you pay before they bring you food.
It's not common to do, especially since cash is so easy and cheap to handle, but it is legal.
> Covid adds a bit of friction to this but I have yet to be refused a transaction because of a cash payment.
Earlier in the pandemic, most places near me had signs up that they weren't taking cash because of COVID.
https://www.knox.vic.gov.au/whats-happening/news/playgrounds...
Qualitatively, the difference between the two is academic. I'd take pearl-clutching on this subject seriously if we didn't already scan ourselves into every establishment we patronize, by swiping a piece of plastic. This ship has sailed decades ago, thanks to cash-back, and not actually having to deal with cash, either on my end, or the merchant's end, and thanks to everyone owning a cellphone (Which is a device that broadcasts your location 24/7.)
I take it you also don't use any online service, because 99% of them don't take cash? Don't own a cellphone, because that broadcasts your location data 24/7? Don't own any device that actively scans for wi-fi networks?
Your government already has fingers in all of those data sources.
I do buy a few things (books, DVDs) online, and pay with a card -- that reveals my address to that business, but that would be the same if I sent cash (or a cheque), they do need an address to which to deliver. As I say, I assume the state has my address, but there's no need to give them my location when I'm not there (nor to tell them when it is I'm not there).
So returning to your assertions:
"we already track ourselves by virtue of using credit cards at every business we visit"
speak for yourself, I pay with cash
"The three major credit rating agencies already have complete knowledge of every place I visit, and every single thing I buy"
That's your choice, they have no idea where I go, nor what I buy except that I'm rather keen on French novels and 1960s Italian films. Mind you, since I'm in the UK those suspicious activities might land me in trouble with the Brexit police [looks nervously out of the window].