"Let's not do it because it has potential for abuse" is the exact reason a government shouldn't do most things. If they implemented an anonymous and/or privacy

"Let's not do it because it has potential for abuse" is the exact reason a government shouldn't do most things. If they implemented an anonymous and/or privacy protecting system, then sure this wouldn't be a problem. It has some slippery slope potential but as it is it wouldn't stand too likely to grant the government dangerous powers. They however are not implementing an anonymous or privacy protecting system. The system is supposedly anonymous because it doesn't record a name however it logs the user's phone number, all location data, and any Bluetooth device it detects. This is more than enough information to maintain a more or less complete record of all of the interactions and travel history of the majority of the population. The app is mandatory and is now required to be included on any phone before it can be sold in India. It is a criminal offence to have a cellular device without the app on it on your person. That is horrifying because all the government needs to do is not roll the decision back after the crisis is over and they have instituted a more or less complete surveillance state. A crisis is always the excuse for these types of power grabs. In the US it is often something like the "War on Terror", an attempt to stop paedophilia, or an attempt to stop school or inner city violence. Regardless of whether you agree with a particular policy, the first and foremost question should be "How dangerous would this be if it was abused?" and the second should then be "How much would it take to change this into something that could be abused?". To say that these questions are a cliche or should not be asked is ridiculous as they are one of the only ways that citizens can keep control over their government.