Currency is already managed by the elected government, and every democracy in the world traces electronic transactions. Some (like Italy) forbid cash payments in large sums altogether. So what's the boogieman here?
Some have a more hands off approach, including size of transactions and flagged behaviour as indicators of when payment processors must report to the government.
The Goverment should absolutely have no idea who spends what, where. Warrants and court orders, check values should be required before anyone can know. The potential to suppress political opponents, to squelch legitimate protest, to interfere with elections, is too dangerous.
Simply because some countries, like the US after 9/11, decided to give up this aspect of a free people, does not make it right.
In anycase, the governments have the capability, what remains is just the intend. And we see how intends could change at the whim of a leader.
The company will sell all data to my government anyway if prompted.
Of course no tracking at all is the best option and I’m a huge proponent of cash - but it’s not always practical.
Cryptocurrency solves that problem well, which is why governments have moved hard to effectively nerf it everywhere.
The idea that visa and mastercard provide these ...
This fear of government services is toxic americanism.
User data is available from either and in the case of Visa/MC it also likely leaks overseas.
Yes, it is. The state acting as a direct intermediary for all transactions creates new mechanisms of both mass surveillance and economic control that do not exist in the status quo where the state functions merely as the issuer of cash.
When private businesses create digital transaction systems that augment the cash economy, the state itself does not have direct access to or control over the transactions that flow through those systems, and must work within legal strictures to interact with the organizations managing them.
> User data is available from either and in the case of Visa/MC it also likely leaks overseas.
Perhaps, but the legal implications between the state obtaining access to illicitly leaked data and the state itself being the originator of that data are drastically different.