While the question of "is it actually possible to do this in a privacy preserving way?" is certainly interesting, was there ever a _single_ occasion where a government had the option of doing something in a privacy preserving way, when a non-privacy preserving way was also possible? Politicians would absolutely kill for the idea of unmasking dissenters on internet forums. Even if the option is a possibility, they are deliberately not going to implement it.

▲

palata 6 days ago | parent [-]

> was there ever a _single_ occasion

I don't know where you live, but in my case, many. Beginning with the fact that I can buy groceries with cash.

▲

63stack 6 days ago | parent [-]

Example does not fit, when cash was introduced electronic money transfer was not an option.

▲

palata 6 days ago | parent [-]

Health insurance being digitalised and encrypted on the insurance card in a decentralised way?

Many e-IDs in many countries?

▲

63stack 5 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't know about e-IDs in other countries, but in Scandinavia (at least in Norway and Sweden, but I know the same system is used in Denmark as well) they are very much tied to your personal number which uniquely identifies you. Healthcare data is also not encrypted.

	▲	palata 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Well the e-ID is an ID, so to the government it's tied to a person. But I know that in multiple countries it's possible to use the e-ID to only share the information necessary with the receiver in a way that the government cannot track. Typically, share only the fact that you are 18+ without sharing your name or birthday, and without the government being able to track where you shared that fact. This is privacy-preserving and modern.