@marcosthecuban, here’s the difference: no one is (or at least should be) using the information you list to actively monitor people’s activities unless they are already under some significant suspicion, determined by state and federal law.
What I understand you are proposing is to be able to tie a person to their online identity, which would be a lot like requiring everyone to wear name tags & be embedded with GPS enabled RFID chips.
First, the people who would commit these crimes would find a way around your tracking system, either through a brute force network intrusion, or by stealing an innocent person’s online identity. Alternatively, as I mentioned, the easiest way to get confidential data is to let someone with legitimate access hand it to you. For those reasons alone your suggestion is absurd to me.
Also, we would have to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world’s internet because the rest of the world would be essentially anonymous to your tracking system. Either that or you’ve got a big hole in the system that defeats the purpose of tracking.
Finally, the fact that my car is registered with my state does not allow any practical tracking value. Now, if I wrote a scathing article about some organization and was pulled over, only then to be threatened/harasses by the police about the article, I would then be worried. The fact that the state knows that I have a car, and that I owe $x in registration fees is not the same caliber of “tracking” as you are proposing.
Is your latest argument basically – “since big brother is already watching us eat, we should also let him watch us sleep”? Seriously? Because that’s how it reads to me.