http://www.senat.fr/rap/r20-673/r20-6738.html#fn37

an excerpt:

Finally, in extreme crisis, numeric tools would allow efficient, exhaustive and real time control of population’s compliance with restrictions, along dissuasive sanctions, and based on the exploitation of personal datas.

Those tools are more efficient, but also more restrictive to freedoms – but once again it would be irresponsible to not consider them, may it be to convice ourselves to do everything we can to avoid reaching that point. Numerous usecases are possible, notably :

– movement control : e-bracelets to control compliance with quarrantine, deactivation of said pass in public transportation, automatic detection of numberplate by radars, control gates in shops, thermic cameras in restaurants etc.

– Health status control via connected devices, which use would be this time mandatory, and collected datas used in order to control.

– Attendance control, for example go and meet with a vunerable family member while being contagious.

– Transactions control, allowing for example an automated fine, detecting medical purchases (that might suggest either contamination, or contraband during shortage), or illegal pursuit of profesional activity (trades, shops) during restrictions.

EDIT: Someone has found even worse:

Applied to confinement, the reasoning would be as follows: every exit from my home carries a risk, not only for myself but also for the health system as a whole. If, despite everything, I prefer to have my freedom to come and go, and that I actually leave my home, it is legitimate that I assume in return a fraction of the additional cost paid by society because of the epidemic , for example. in the form of a small increase in my social contributions if the number or duration of my outings exceeds a certain threshold.