5 ms·

I'm a HN denizen, have a PhD, can code in a multitude of languages, etc etc etc. I don't own a smartphone and it gets less and less appealing every year. I wil

I'm a HN denizen, have a PhD, can code in a multitude of languages, etc etc etc. I don't own a smartphone and it gets less and less appealing every year. I will fight 'smart passports' tooth and nail to my grave. It's insanity to imagine that if I'm not tethered to a computer chip I'm not a valid member of society. And I say that as someone who loves computer chips. There are complaints on HN every day about the impacts of invasive technologies and then a thread like this comes by where the "solution" is to assume someones identity is their smartphone. Yikes. Last year I was denied access to a concert because they only gave tickets by a smartphone app and the woman looked at me like I was insane when I explained how that wasn't possible for me. I'm an otherwise normal member of society, a healthy and fit 32 year old male. But apparently I'm an unacceptable outsider if I don't want to carry an always on cell-phone modem directly integrated with one of the most powerful CPUs in history with access to my GPS location that was made in a sweat shop in China by a company with no direct stake in my personal well being. She literally said 'but you look normal' when I explained that I didn't have a smartphone.

hammyhavoc 5y ago
You are so eloquent in explaining this!
quacked 5y ago
It is comments like these that make me want to form a separate nation. I don't want what everyone is selling, but soon the option not to buy will be taken away.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fsflover 5y ago
> I don't want to carry an always on cell-phone modem directly integrated with one of the most powerful CPUs in history with access to my GPS location that was made in a sweat shop in China by a company with no direct stake in my personal well being. If this is your main concern with the smartphones, and you love computer chips, you may be interested in the GNU/Linux phone with hardware kill switches produced by the company that wrote the article: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 https://puri.sm/products/librem-5.
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
Similar story here. Went from android to google-free android to nothing. But I had to go back and buy a shitty 50$ smartphone because my bank would no longer allow me to invest without their 2FA app. I called them to explain I didn't have a smartphone and didn't want one and the answer was basically "tough shit, you lunatic".
sofixa 5y ago
> I will fight 'smart passports' tooth and nail to my grave I don't know what your definition of a "smart passport" is, but the ones we have in the EU are pretty awesome. NFC chip on them that can be scanned to provide the biometric data - use cases are automatic identity checks at airports with passport+smart camera that compares, and the same via a government provided app where you take a video of your face, scan the chip, and the app compares them. Both are great, secure ( much more so that sending a scanned copy of your passport/ID card), practical, and can and are done with privacy in mind ( as much as privacy is possible for the airport scenario). I don't understand people like you. Making people's lives easier is one of the main points of tech. All such advances on that particular level should be done with old school backups for people who can't use the tech (old, disabled, etc.) but those should be the exceptions. If almost everyone can use a system which is more secure, takes less time, and requires less money/time to run, why not? Why not make it the default? Why not make life easier for 90%+ of the adult population?
- Majestic121 5y ago
  The underlying uneasiness of people fighting this kind of technology is that it is technology that gives more power to a government, and that power can be then used against you if the government gets corrupted one way or another : if a wannabe dictators gets to power and destroy democratic power balance, or fascists gets to power, etc... A common rebuttal to this is that democracy is strong enough to withstand this, and that if it happens, people will rebel. Another fear is then that the government gets enough power from the technological advance that the people rebelling will become not strong enough, or that the government will have so much influence in people's life that they will be able to squash rebellion before it even takes form.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    We passed that point decades ago. It's as insanely stupid as the thought that right to bear arms could stop government.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > The underlying uneasiness of people fighting this kind of technology is that it is technology that gives more power to a government, and that power can be then used against you if the government gets corrupted one way or another : if a wannabe dictators gets to power and destroy democratic power balance, or fascists gets to power, etc... If that happens, everyone is screwed anyways, what difference does it make if your passport has a machine readable chip?! All governments in developed countries know all of their citizens. Making that knowledge and verification more easily usable in specific scenarios ( like verifying your identity online for government services or at airports) doesn't change anything with regards to what the government knows or has. In both the scenarios, even with paper forms/manual checks, they still know who you are (when were you born, how much taxes you pay, parents, address, etc.) and what you did in that precise moment ( passed through airport or filled taxes online). IMHO refusing technological progress that makes lives easier for almost everyone on unfounded fears is wrong. Discussions should be had about how to do that progress in the best/most secure way possible, but refusing it outright? It's just being a luddite for the sake of it.
tester34 5y ago
I'm in early twenties and I too don't use them, but fortunely I haven't been denied on anything yet, but I'm still worried that some bullshit will force me to get one.
jonathanstrange 5y ago
Ironically, a major reason not to use a smart phone is that they become insecure so quickly. Buy any smart phone, wait a few years, and it will no longer receive security updates and be 100% hackable by any script kid.
ngold 5y ago
Good on you. That is great.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
> It's insanity to imagine that if I'm not tethered to a computer chip I'm not a valid member of society. Is it? What's special about computer chips vs. id cards?
- earthscienceman 5y ago
  I'll take this as a sincere question. An ID card is something I keep in my pocket when I need it and it serves one purpose and is close-to-free in financial and time costs. A computer chip is expensive, turing complete, and has enough data about me to do just about anything you might imagine.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    To nitpick, a low end phone is plausibly less expensive and easier to acquire than a license with a processing fee and physical dmv presence requirement. It's also not obvious to me why turing complete is a bad thing Would you object to the requirement if you were running on a phone that had open hardware and open software and you felt reasonably sure it wasn't doing anything you didn't expect?

hammyhavoc 5y ago

You are so eloquent in explaining this!

quacked 5y ago

It is comments like these that make me want to form a separate nation. I don't want what everyone is selling, but soon the option not to buy will be taken away.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fsflover 5y ago

> I don't want to carry an always on cell-phone modem directly integrated with one of the most powerful CPUs in history with access to my GPS location that was made in a sweat shop in China by a company with no direct stake in my personal well being. If this is your main concern with the smartphones, and you love computer chips, you may be interested in the GNU/Linux phone with hardware kill switches produced by the company that wrote the article: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 https://puri.sm/products/librem-5.

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago

Similar story here. Went from android to google-free android to nothing. But I had to go back and buy a shitty 50$ smartphone because my bank would no longer allow me to invest without their 2FA app. I called them to explain I didn't have a smartphone and didn't want one and the answer was basically "tough shit, you lunatic".

sofixa 5y ago

> I will fight 'smart passports' tooth and nail to my grave I don't know what your definition of a "smart passport" is, but the ones we have in the EU are pretty awesome. NFC chip on them that can be scanned to provide the biometric data - use cases are automatic identity checks at airports with passport+smart camera that compares, and the same via a government provided app where you take a video of your face, scan the chip, and the app compares them. Both are great, secure ( much more so that sending a scanned copy of your passport/ID card), practical, and can and are done with privacy in mind ( as much as privacy is possible for the airport scenario). I don't understand people like you. Making people's lives easier is one of the main points of tech. All such advances on that particular level should be done with old school backups for people who can't use the tech (old, disabled, etc.) but those should be the exceptions. If almost everyone can use a system which is more secure, takes less time, and requires less money/time to run, why not? Why not make it the default? Why not make life easier for 90%+ of the adult population?

Majestic121 5y ago
The underlying uneasiness of people fighting this kind of technology is that it is technology that gives more power to a government, and that power can be then used against you if the government gets corrupted one way or another : if a wannabe dictators gets to power and destroy democratic power balance, or fascists gets to power, etc... A common rebuttal to this is that democracy is strong enough to withstand this, and that if it happens, people will rebel. Another fear is then that the government gets enough power from the technological advance that the people rebelling will become not strong enough, or that the government will have so much influence in people's life that they will be able to squash rebellion before it even takes form.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  We passed that point decades ago. It's as insanely stupid as the thought that right to bear arms could stop government.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > The underlying uneasiness of people fighting this kind of technology is that it is technology that gives more power to a government, and that power can be then used against you if the government gets corrupted one way or another : if a wannabe dictators gets to power and destroy democratic power balance, or fascists gets to power, etc... If that happens, everyone is screwed anyways, what difference does it make if your passport has a machine readable chip?! All governments in developed countries know all of their citizens. Making that knowledge and verification more easily usable in specific scenarios ( like verifying your identity online for government services or at airports) doesn't change anything with regards to what the government knows or has. In both the scenarios, even with paper forms/manual checks, they still know who you are (when were you born, how much taxes you pay, parents, address, etc.) and what you did in that precise moment ( passed through airport or filled taxes online). IMHO refusing technological progress that makes lives easier for almost everyone on unfounded fears is wrong. Discussions should be had about how to do that progress in the best/most secure way possible, but refusing it outright? It's just being a luddite for the sake of it.

tester34 5y ago

I'm in early twenties and I too don't use them, but fortunely I haven't been denied on anything yet, but I'm still worried that some bullshit will force me to get one.

jonathanstrange 5y ago

Ironically, a major reason not to use a smart phone is that they become insecure so quickly. Buy any smart phone, wait a few years, and it will no longer receive security updates and be 100% hackable by any script kid.

ngold 5y ago

Good on you. That is great.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

> It's insanity to imagine that if I'm not tethered to a computer chip I'm not a valid member of society. Is it? What's special about computer chips vs. id cards?

earthscienceman 5y ago
I'll take this as a sincere question. An ID card is something I keep in my pocket when I need it and it serves one purpose and is close-to-free in financial and time costs. A computer chip is expensive, turing complete, and has enough data about me to do just about anything you might imagine.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  To nitpick, a low end phone is plausibly less expensive and easier to acquire than a license with a processing fee and physical dmv presence requirement. It's also not obvious to me why turing complete is a bad thing Would you object to the requirement if you were running on a phone that had open hardware and open software and you felt reasonably sure it wasn't doing anything you didn't expect?