That's how Microsoft markets their "safe links" in Outlook, which is more or less the same behavior of wrapping all links with a redirect. Whether they actually do anything with that to save you from phishing attempts or whatever... who knows. Even if there is a safety feature, it's still an easy way to mine url query params for data or learn about the user for other purposes (which they may or may not be doing)
IMO if you can't turn it off, there's a secondary motive to the feature. Especially when the feature is marketed from a place of fear rather than aid.
This. We already rely on digital, currently through a rather small number of payment providers who, at the end of the day, suck at privacy and security. I'm not terribly well educated on digital ID, but i generally don't get why it is any worse than our current system (in the US, at least) of a bunch of corp run finance systems which are already very transparent to government surveillance, and care more about appeasing shareholders than security or privacy.
Comparing visa/mastercard/discover/credit reporting/banks etc to a government based digital option, at least the government option can be beholden to voters and at least the government, as a whole, isn't serving shareholders wants over privacy/security.
It certainly means an authoritarian government could abuse the system more easily, but its a mistake to think that an authoritarian government can't already abuse the current system to the same extent.
Whether the US adopts their own stablecoin and bans/doesn't ban other crypto, and whether this digital ID thing is the harbinger of that, it wont change what the vast majority of people reach for at the end of the day. Which, pending massive societal upheaval, will be whatever the government backs.