It works well enough if everyone considers the best of their society as more important than their own freedoms. So it's pretty easy to extrapolate where this might work and where it would be fruitless.
"The best of society as more important than their own freedoms" is a false choice here. I believe very strongly in working for the best of society which is why I bring up this very point. This kind of effect is also borne out in safety literature. If you want this to succeed to you have to remove consequences for reporting (and this means ensuring you are not overreacting to initial reporting or concerns)
There is surely a compromise option here as well where the government does not get the data and/or you do not give everything up in order to achieve this outcome?
Even a strict agreement about what specific data goes to the government, for how long, or having private companies or a purposely formed non-profit entity handle this would be better than handing your phone to your government.
I'm hardly a libertarian but I do think it's important to consider how best to protect hard won freedoms before running toward the expedient, safe-feeling choice.
As a "libertarian type" well out on the left, I see the simple resolution to this that if you're prepared to risk the health of others, you're free to do that as long as you do it with other consenting adults apart from the rest of us, and expect not to be allowed contact with the rest of us until its safe.
Freedom for everyone also means freedom for people to band together and decide not to want anything to do with those who don't want to follow their rules.
Especially in this case, where the health risk arguably makes it aggression to try to force contact on others.
