That wasn't what I was asking. As I said, I don't agree with the idea, but I wondered why it was considered to be "lunacy" rather than simply a bad idea.
In part, I think, that's just journalistic hyperbole, but also because even if you're ideologically on the authoritarian end and inclined to impose laws and restrictions, it's a policy that makes no sense.
If the companies aren't supposed to be disciplining people for this ("it's not about getting people fired") then how is it going to be effective in any way? It might, if the companies were to share the information, give the authorities better data on the extent of the problem, but that's not going to fix anything in and of itself.
O.