Another risk of CBDCs that I hadn't thought of before will be the temptation for governments to (automatically) impose certain kinds of temporary restrictions o

Another risk of CBDCs that I hadn't thought of before will be the temptation for governments to (automatically) impose certain kinds of temporary restrictions on people who aren't individually suspected of a crime but who do match some combination of fuzzy location-based, political, religious, socio-economic, ethnic or health-related filters as a dragnet response to certain events (which the public may not even be aware of). They can then remove these restrictions seconds, minutes or hours later, citing system problems (they could easily push the blame on to the people on the other end of the transaction; they will probably make this a condition of operating CBDC services) or maybe even without acknowledging that restrictions have been in place, and with the details of them being subject to gagging orders and National Security legislation. This could also be gradually smuggled in under ambiguous wording and mission-creep. And then even one major event that made the headlines "that we had the technology to stop!", and which occupied the public consciousness could do a lot to bring people around to the idea that maybe the government should be doing more than just handling payments, and thus changes could be made without announcement once public sentiment had shifted towards tolerating more "proactive safeguarding".