Anyways, it's not (fully) about information sharing. It's about control. It's the difference between read access and read/write access.
Anyways, you missed the point.
The anti-new-technology and anti-gov-technology response to privacy and control is misguided. Corporations will fuck you, left unchecked, and governments will fuck you through corporations. There is no technical solution to political problems, and physical cash vs FedNow vs digital currency is a suite of technical solutions.
Trying to solve a political problem by eliminating technology is literally the same thing as trying to solve political problems with technology. The fallacy is in focusing on technology where the actual problem is political.
The problem is political and needs to be treated as such. The solution is building and maintaining political consensus in favor of strong privacy and personal property rights, not carrying around a billfold full of physical cash.
No you can't. Companies like OpenEye and Deep Sentinel offer facial recognition solutions that are targeted at loss-prevention, and these systems are commonplace in the USA. Facial recognition-based consumer analytics systems are also available.
In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a pint of ice cream that you can buy without having a camera pointed at your face. Even the little stand at the beach in the state park near my old place had a camera, and I didn't even have real LTE coverage there.
Privacy comes only from the force of law; not the other way around.
Anyways, the whole conversation is a red herring. This is a replacement for ACH, which already exists, and there isn't substantively more information sharing between banks and governments than already exists.