In relation to banking, personal health data,  judiciary procedures, the private sphere in general is getting eroded on a daily basis

• By  technocrats, on the pretext of efficiency,
• By the media under the guise of transparency and “duty” to inform,
• By some advocacy groups in order to establish a “new moral order.”

A deleterious atmosphere is created in which any information kept private is suspected to be so for dark reasons: tax evasion, cheating and other crimes, sins or deviant behaviors.

Everyone praises the principle of presumption of innocence, but few respect it.

It is essential to protect privacy because the public is not trustworthy.

Neither state officials nor the media nor health insurance inspectors shall have the right to access data from any person whatsoever without her express permission. And such authorization shall not be obtained under duress, as sweet or pernicious it would be.

Yes, there are exceptions to this rule: they must be decided by a judge. That is why, in democracy, powers are separated.

25 of the 27 governments in the European Union require an automatic tax information exchange. Why?
They claim a better work rationalization and a better fight against tax evasion: as a matter of principle the taxpayer is presumed guilty!

When this spirit prevails in government, the relationship between state agents and the citizen becomes the one of master to subject.
This is not surprising in countries having a history where the authority was always imposed from above.
But in a true democracy the citizen must be respected absolutely, unless there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may be acting outside the law, a task devolved to the judiciary power, not to the functionaries. And the administration, even the fiscal one, is at the service of the citizen, not the reverse.

Let’s not be naïve: tax competition between states is fierce, and by an automatic exchange of information one of the least controllable elements of this competition may be neutralized.

But is this takeover of government on the citizen’s private sphere legitimate? Should it be done at the expense of the principle of presumption of innocence and of the respect for privacy?

If the goal is to ensure the collection of taxes there are less intrusive and more efficient ways to do so, as for example the retention at the source of the tax on capital revenues, as it is practiced in some countries.

But if the goal is different, those proposing such exchange should explain themselves in a more candid manner: do they want to preemptively collect all data possible to be able to harass the citizen suspected of wrongdoing from the outset?

This would be an undemocratic exercise of power. To refuse in any language: non, nein, no, nyet, όχι!