Comment by brigandish

Your assumptions are the opposite of those for an English common law country, which is why those with that background are particularly aghast.

> Operating a motor vehicle requires a license, and you have to present it.

You do not have to present it in all cases, and not to actually use the vehicle.

> Drinking and other activities and purchases require showing ID to prove your age.

Not in all cases. Purchasing alcohol in the UK may require ID (but again, not in all cases) but drinking is legal above 5 years old in areas that are not solely for the purpose of selling alcohol (crazy, but true).

That list will go on.

> Since the government currently has all of our ID data

No, it does not - for example, a passport is different to a birth certificate and they contain different amounts of identity information, and my government does not need to know other identity info regarding my work.

> mathematically secure algorithms have been invented to prove personal information without revealing it, I'd say we have reached the point where digital identification can be implemented without infringing on people's privacy any more than a clerk checking your ID.

This is too strong a statement. Having strong algorithms does not equate with the level of security you claim to exist. Implementation of the whole process is just as important.

Regardless, we have plenty of good reasons to fear any government having this information. The Japanese government, for example, has its civil service set up in a way to prevent the kind of abuses we saw in WW2. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dutch have done the same, for what should be obvious reasons.