6 ms·

When does this end? When do our useless governments put a stop, once and for all, to these ridiculous lax security practices in corporations? I feel like I'm b

When does this end? When do our useless governments put a stop, once and for all, to these ridiculous lax security practices in corporations? I feel like I'm being forced to become a luddite--not because I don't love technology but because it's being used for such evil and potentially life-destroying purposes.

caeril 5y ago
This situation could be greatly improved if these companies didn't have or need to have this data in the first place. Prepaid mobile plans carry a lot of stigma with them - perceived to be "low-class", or even criminal by many. But at least your SSN and address won't be in their database.
- _rs 5y ago
  With AT&T at least if you want the highest priority on their towers you have to be on their Elite plan (QCI 7 I believe), which is post-paid only
  - hypothesis 5y ago
    Yikes. Is that something that AT&T openly advertising?
  - trasz 5y ago
    What does the “priority on the towers” do?
    - brewdad 5y ago
      If you want to use your mobile data, you get sent to the back of the queue. Higher priority users might get 50mbps. You will be lucky to get 1mbps and in some cases less than that. I don't know if there is an impact on call availability as well.
- gizdan 5y ago
  I don't know about the US, but here in the UK prepaid mobile isn't necessarily looked down upon, but it's significantly more expensive than a contract. It's the main reason why people just go with a contract despite being locked in for 2 or more years. Even sim-only contracts are considerably cheaper.
  - brewdad 5y ago
    In the US, prepaid is a much cheaper option for all but the highest volume users. The drawback is that you get deprioritized on the cell towers making mobile data nearly unusable in many cities or at large gatherings like sporting events.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  I've been using Liberty for a while now and it's been fine. It's 2G but I'm like 90% of the time always around wifi I trust so not a major deal. No reason to blow tons on data I don't use.
briffle 5y ago
A converstation earlier this week pointed out the EU system: eIDAS [0]. it looks pretty interesting how its decentralized. I could see something like this running from each state's DMV (or the postal service if you didn't want to use your local state DMV) to help ensure you are you. It would be interesting to hear what people that use it say, because i'm sadly stuck in a very US world :) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS
- Forbo 5y ago
  We already have systems for notarization, perhaps we could try to leverage that, updating it for more modern purposes. I could see them issuing things like smart cards. Then again we have some pretty hardcore religious zealots who refuse to do anything even remotely resembling a national ID system, so it will continue to be fragmented and subject to each state's implementation.
throwaway98797 5y ago
if the cost of identity theft, i mean bank fraud, was put on the banks this would be less of an issue. all companies do not need better security. banks need better processes so my ssn and address cant be used to mess up my life. the banks have the money to fix this.
hncurious 5y ago
Our government is run by a gerontocracy born decades prior to PCs and the internet. They have no idea what the root problem is or how to fix it. How many of them even know the absolute basics? What a for loop is? Or Postgres? Or http vs https? Anything they actually do will be written by lobbyists on behalf of tech giants and other multinational corporations and big donors. Between that and the increasingly fundamentalist, censorious, puritan, social justice takeover of tech companies, I also feel like I'm being forced to become a luddite despite my life long love for technology.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Of course they understand. The issue is that they don't care. They don't care about you or me. They don't care about whether you have Internet access and if you do whether it is slow or fast. They don't care whether you are homeless or rich or if you are high on drugs or a personal trainer to the stars. If you make a big enough issue about how they apparently don't understand, they will create a committee to study the issue then ignore the findings. They don't care about you or your problems.
  - kjkjadksj 5y ago
    I think the takeaway is that government represents too many people and you cant satisfy everyone, so leaders listen to citizen action groups and lobbyists who are able to aggregate all these different viewpoints into more broadly popular legislation and show with their supporters that these ideas would be popular among a given electorate.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      After having interacted with politicians, I am firm in my belief that most of them don't care about their constituents.
      - EvanAnderson 5y ago
        At the federal level I think the care is chiefly about re-election. At the state level I see a mix of people who are involved out of a sense of civic duty, and people who have designs on moving up and acquiring more power. If politicians represented fewer constituents I think they'd be forced to care more about their constituents, if only because each individual voter wields more power. I certainly think that I have more power to influence my local politicians than I do my state representatives (let alone my federal representatives). My local politicians also live more proximate to me, and share more in the physical problems of the region. My US Senators live in my state, and that's about all they have in common with me.

caeril 5y ago

This situation could be greatly improved if these companies didn't have or need to have this data in the first place. Prepaid mobile plans carry a lot of stigma with them - perceived to be "low-class", or even criminal by many. But at least your SSN and address won't be in their database.

_rs 5y ago
With AT&T at least if you want the highest priority on their towers you have to be on their Elite plan (QCI 7 I believe), which is post-paid only
- hypothesis 5y ago
  Yikes. Is that something that AT&T openly advertising?
- trasz 5y ago
  What does the “priority on the towers” do?
  - brewdad 5y ago
    If you want to use your mobile data, you get sent to the back of the queue. Higher priority users might get 50mbps. You will be lucky to get 1mbps and in some cases less than that. I don't know if there is an impact on call availability as well.
gizdan 5y ago
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK prepaid mobile isn't necessarily looked down upon, but it's significantly more expensive than a contract. It's the main reason why people just go with a contract despite being locked in for 2 or more years. Even sim-only contracts are considerably cheaper.
- brewdad 5y ago
  In the US, prepaid is a much cheaper option for all but the highest volume users. The drawback is that you get deprioritized on the cell towers making mobile data nearly unusable in many cities or at large gatherings like sporting events.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
I've been using Liberty for a while now and it's been fine. It's 2G but I'm like 90% of the time always around wifi I trust so not a major deal. No reason to blow tons on data I don't use.

briffle 5y ago

A converstation earlier this week pointed out the EU system: eIDAS [0]. it looks pretty interesting how its decentralized. I could see something like this running from each state's DMV (or the postal service if you didn't want to use your local state DMV) to help ensure you are you. It would be interesting to hear what people that use it say, because i'm sadly stuck in a very US world :) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS

Forbo 5y ago
We already have systems for notarization, perhaps we could try to leverage that, updating it for more modern purposes. I could see them issuing things like smart cards. Then again we have some pretty hardcore religious zealots who refuse to do anything even remotely resembling a national ID system, so it will continue to be fragmented and subject to each state's implementation.

throwaway98797 5y ago

if the cost of identity theft, i mean bank fraud, was put on the banks this would be less of an issue. all companies do not need better security. banks need better processes so my ssn and address cant be used to mess up my life. the banks have the money to fix this.

hncurious 5y ago

Our government is run by a gerontocracy born decades prior to PCs and the internet. They have no idea what the root problem is or how to fix it. How many of them even know the absolute basics? What a for loop is? Or Postgres? Or http vs https? Anything they actually do will be written by lobbyists on behalf of tech giants and other multinational corporations and big donors. Between that and the increasingly fundamentalist, censorious, puritan, social justice takeover of tech companies, I also feel like I'm being forced to become a luddite despite my life long love for technology.

IncRnd 5y ago
Of course they understand. The issue is that they don't care. They don't care about you or me. They don't care about whether you have Internet access and if you do whether it is slow or fast. They don't care whether you are homeless or rich or if you are high on drugs or a personal trainer to the stars. If you make a big enough issue about how they apparently don't understand, they will create a committee to study the issue then ignore the findings. They don't care about you or your problems.
- kjkjadksj 5y ago
  I think the takeaway is that government represents too many people and you cant satisfy everyone, so leaders listen to citizen action groups and lobbyists who are able to aggregate all these different viewpoints into more broadly popular legislation and show with their supporters that these ideas would be popular among a given electorate.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    After having interacted with politicians, I am firm in my belief that most of them don't care about their constituents.
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      At the federal level I think the care is chiefly about re-election. At the state level I see a mix of people who are involved out of a sense of civic duty, and people who have designs on moving up and acquiring more power. If politicians represented fewer constituents I think they'd be forced to care more about their constituents, if only because each individual voter wields more power. I certainly think that I have more power to influence my local politicians than I do my state representatives (let alone my federal representatives). My local politicians also live more proximate to me, and share more in the physical problems of the region. My US Senators live in my state, and that's about all they have in common with me.