Well, ten years after death is a thing, while you are alive is another... Also who register matter (private companies, no matter if on their own or formally for

Well, ten years after death is a thing, while you are alive is another... Also who register matter (private companies, no matter if on their own or formally for the public vs the public State directly totally on internal resources). Personally I agree we need statistics, data in general, but to be collected with EXTREME care and transparency because yes, we might spot health issues in advance and so save lives, we might anticipate needs and so satisfy them better with better forecasting/planning BUT we might also do nasty things. Try to imagine if a day resources start to be scarce, a dictatorial government rise supported by most people self-(propaganda)-convinced that that's the sole option to sort the situation out and such government start the old: it's not that bad but some work to make it bad against us, we need to took the down. So a social score born, became spread, with much general data on the population: how easy can be selectively killing or just addressing careers of various people thanks to the mass of data on them, accordingly to dictatorship NOT social needs? More "lighter" and general example: how can we prevent a cohort of people taking advantage of such big mass of data for their own profits at the expense of another cohort? It's not just a mere matter of privacy: if we ALL know anything about anyone or nothing about anyone we are on fair and equal conditions, some will take advantage some others not because some will be smarter, just more active etc than others, but overall situation should remain in a normal fair balance. If just very few know very much on almost anyone and most others know next to nothing about those few... Just imaging simple things like knowing with enough precision what people eat anywhere in a country: those who know can organize "better" (commercially) shelves and gain competitive advantage on competitors to a point perhaps of pushing them to the margins and then abuse the gained position to establish de-fact price policies on pretty anything. Even if data are public and collected only by the public, no one is corrupt etc those who can process such public data at scale can grab competitive advantages against all the rest. In fairness terms: just imaging you came from a bad health family: you might be drop for many job offer because of such legacy, pay more for some health insurances etc. You might say "hey, that's true but still fair", well, it's not. It's not because potential employers know something about you, you do not equally know something about them up front. At social scale we need a certain degree of incertitude to let the society evolve by nature instead of by planning because we MUST plan and we might even be good planner BUT nothing beat natural evolution in the long term and as a society we MUST think at the long terms. Individuals have, rightly, to think about their own life, so short an mean terms, but at a society, so State level we must also weight the very long terms. Our individual life is, unfortunately (well, for some at least) a not-that-short/not-that-long timeframe, States, populations can potentially last millennia. Planning even for a single century for us is well... More fantasy than science, and that's why we have to allow nature do it's job with a certain level of "background noise"...