I wonder if it's to do with the physicality of older data collection methods. In your example, the data collection method was very clear: getting your fingers b

I wonder if it's to do with the physicality of older data collection methods. In your example, the data collection method was very clear: getting your fingers black and ordered to perform an action with them by someone in uniform. The use of that data is even clearer: the potential for being executed. It is very different to the newer methods where you don't necessarily know what is being collected or what it is being used for. I saw discussed online the other day some alarmist comments about the government wanting to know "what your bedroom activities are" in response to receiving the census letter in the post and seeing a mention of sexuality. Putting aside the ignorance of conflating sex with sexuality, I thought it was interesting how hard this problem is for most people to deal with. That same person no doubt uses multiple mainstream social media sites, has browsers full of tracking cookies, uses loyalty cards and has their data collected, sold and used for all sorts of things. But it's the letter through the front door, for, of all things, a function of society that is over 200 years old, that causes alarm.