11 ms·

We are long beyond that point, sadly. We are right now in the process of a) becoming legally required to own and carry a particular kind of device and b) bein

We are long beyond that point, sadly. We are right now in the process of a) becoming legally required to own and carry a particular kind of device and b) being legally unable to fully control said device and c) having that device explicitly working (again by legal requirement) against our own interests It will be interesting to watch how things will progress and whether governments or corporations will be the ones holding control over the devices. It will also be interesting to see how the mandatory usage and mandatory anti-user-services will be implemented in detail. I guess that mandatory usage will be a race between mobile payment and government services like eID and eLicense. Anti-user-services will take some time to be fully developed, but I guess the first thing will be content scanning in messenger apps, closely followed by a list of illegal words or names.

core-utility 5y ago
The TV show Upload [1] has a group of people dubbed the "Ludds" (i.e. Luddites) that refuse to be party to the turn that the technological revolution has taken and stick to traditional ways of doing things. I strongly believe if that were to happen in our world today, much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds", while a mass of non-tech people would happily welcome our new technological overlords. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7826376/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7826376/
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> I strongly believe if that were to happen in our world today, much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds", while a mass of non-tech people would happily welcome our new technological overlords. Which would be very interesting because it's the Ludds who are building that tech. But hey, it pays well...
  - core-utility 5y ago
    Indeed a plot twist.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds" Bullshit. Much of Silicon Valley likes to think they would be Ludds but they do so while hailing an Uber from their iPhone and hoping that their DoorDash is devlivered on time so they can eat while they watch a HBO Max show and they hope that nobody stole their Amazon Prime package.
  - core-utility 5y ago
    I think it applies more along the lines of "free" products where "you are the product" comes into play. It may entirely be biased based on who I know, but I know more tech people who refuse to have a Facebook because of tracking than I do non-tech people.
    - lukifer 5y ago
      In my experience, a disproportionate number of engineers also refuse to own Alexas.
    - paulcole 5y ago
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  The Silicon Valley clique is, after all, the only kinds of people who watched and enjoyed Black Mirror. So smart.
- DrBoring 5y ago
  In times of frustration with the modern Internet, I've often sympathized with the Amish. For those unfamiliar, the Amish are a religious-society that avoid the conveniences of modern technology. They live in houses without electricity, and travel by in horse and buggy. It's sort of like they hit a point in history and saw where the world was going and decided, "nah, we're ok, we like how things are now." When frustrated, I imagine a new-Amish. A secular society, who lives their lives (mostly) off the Internet. I'm not exactly sure what that would entail, nor do I think I'd actually want to live that way. It's just a fun thought experiment.
  - prometheus76 5y ago
    I submit that the Amish have been successful in their efforts because they have a unifying transcendent value system that gives their group cohesion and purpose. Secular efforts will quickly dissolve into warring sub-tribes.
    - DrBoring 5y ago
      Thanks for response. I agree, their religion probably does a lot to hold the Amish society together. It sets out a common set of rules that everyone plays by. There is also the strict punishment of social shunning for not following the rules. I wonder how fa I disagree that a societal value system _must_ be religiously-transcendent to be effective. I can't name any such system that has had 100% success, but I reject the notion that it's impossible for a a functioning secular society to work. To be sure, my idea of a new-Amish whose only rule is minimal Internet usage, would not work as a tight-knit community. There would have to be a bigger connection than a common disdain for the Internet.
      - wott 5y ago
        Religion is the only reason and purpose which motivate their minimal use of technology. There are many different sorts of Amish, each with different rules (in the tradition of protestant sects which split on a regular basis), depending on which amount and type of technology they believe would interfere with their devotion. It is not some sort of hippy community which rejects the excess of modern technology and wraps some spirituality around it. It is the other way round.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  > much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds" No, quite the opposite They're the ones who buy "smart locks" then get locked out of their place because they dropped their iPhone in a puddle or the lights went out They're the ones who come with genius ideas like reinventing the bus with Uber or fall for stuff like uBeam because they're too lazy to plug their phone into a charger
  - egberts1 5y ago
    That’s why Lockly.com has THREE methods of opening a smart lock. 1. key 2. iPhone 3. PIN pad.
    - core-utility 5y ago
      4. Hacker
    - raverbashing 5y ago
      It is a good solution, yes. But then they save the PIN on their phone instead of their memory because tiktok burned out their brain and they left the key home because "why do you need it since you have your iPhone!?11" and if this last point looks ridiculous remember this is exactly what happened with some Tesla owners going into areas of low cell service.
      - egberts1 5y ago
        PIN number of iPhone are stored within the Apple hardware security alcove and are not readable.
    - flyinghamster 5y ago
      4. Strategically placed magnet that either pops the relay controlling the lock or operates it directly. (You can tell I've been watching too many LockPickingLawyer videos.)
- titzer 5y ago
  > much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds" Much of Silicon Valley is just looking for a way to pay their exorbitant rent and/or become million(billion)aires. SV isn't going to take a principled stance on anything. Heck, the big players all know which side their bread is buttered on and the bigger they are, the more entwined in the corruption they are.
- SCHiM 5y ago
  I'm about as technical as it is possible to get. I fucking hate technology these days. It all sucks, it tries to insert itself between everything human and sane, and extract value for its masters. People are serfs in closed silos. They own nothing, just like the serfs of old: not their farmlands or cattle (laptops, phones and data), nor their homes (accounts in the 'cloud' subject to AI shutdown without human recourse). It will take a while of it getting progressively worse before an apathetic consumer class will finally be exploited enough to start demanding proper rules around all of this. I don't think progress will stop when the situation at it's worst. But I do think we'll have to get through that first.
  - sharikous 5y ago
    > It will take a while of it getting progressively worse before an apathetic consumer class will finally be exploited enough to start demanding proper rules around all of this. We'll see about that, I guess. Revolutions in the past were successful because you couldn't control people so strongly and you needed the to work to be able to tax them. With our new surveillance tech and automation I am afraid this has changed for the worse
    - SCHiM 5y ago
      I think it will be better for four reasons: 1) Initially, when a new technology is discovered and leads to a paradigm shift, commercial/capitalist ventures are most efficient at digging down and innovating quickest. A depth first search if you will: relentlessly driving down costs, improving the technology and consuming or destroying the competition. Then, once the time is right, the exploitation begins. No longer are the newest models of $TECHNOLOGY strictly better than their predecessors, any progress is incremental and genuine innovation is partially co-opted by marketing. When this happens the screws start getting tightened. Companies used to rapid growth due to merit try to maintain growth velocity by cutting cost, exploiting regulatory loopholes yet to catch up with the paradigm shift, and any other things not directly related to their new niche that the risk/reward calculators deem worth it (breaking laws, anti-patterns, etc.). The reaction to this is two fold: 1a) governments want to stick their hand in the newly-added piece of the pie, 1b) people don't like being more and more exploited. 2) People understand when they're being screwed. Our sense of 'justness' is about as evolved as can get, people might not always be able to pinpoint what is screwing them over, but the anger still builds. I believe (really can't justify any of the things I'm claiming here as truth, it's just my opinions) that trust takes longer to build than to destroy. I loved google for 2 years, I've hated them for much longer. I feel intuitively that I'm being exploited when forced to help their machine learning algorithm detect traffic signs that only a few people will profit off. I feel like I've never entered into a fair contract where I'm obtaining search results in exchange for some of my attention; I'm just forced to fill these things out every once in a while to access a site unrelated to google. Can you believe my GP's site has a google captcha page on the contact form? Where I enter medical data? I _HATE_ that. 3) People like me (and you?) spread the word. After the initial rush described in point 1. other ways of working gain speed. Technology, organization, open source, education, they all make it easier and easier to replicate what was an enterprise deployment a decade ago as a small group, or even individual, today. One day a matrix bridge will allow me to message all my friends from a single, polished place, with good UX. One day later a friend will see me using it, and the word will spread. The inherent nature of information favors the communicators, integrator and middle men. It's impossible for a silo to detect with certainty that you are not actually using a third party app, like a matrix bridge, to talk to your friends. A false positive will lead to more feelings as shown in point 2, a false negative is the natural result of progress in point 3. 4) Governments cannot afford a completely tech illiterate population. Security and military forces around the world have recognized for years already that information technology is another avenue to achieve their goals. Knowledge of the possibilities of information technology is a natural (but certainly not perfect) antidote to some of the ways an opponent might exploit your population. Organizations (in a liberal country) in this sphere will focus on education, partially to increase their own resilience against attack, and create a fertile recruiting ground for new recruits. We gotta hold on till we get there.
- nicholasnorris 5y ago
  It's my understanding that the Luddite movement was less about personal preferences or adherence to tradition, and more a labor movement that was opposed to losing their livelihoods to early forms of automation.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Well, they did not lose their jobs to automation for the most part. But tech enable rigorous surveillance so that taking a leak has to be a timed. Yeah, technology...
azangru 5y ago
This fills me with dread, resentment and anger. I wanted a future where I would be the master of technology, and what I am getting instead is more of the "I can't let you do this, Dave" vibe. I want to live in a community of individuals, not be subjugated to whatever happens to feed the anxieties and neuroses of society. Is there... will there be a way to resist this obscenity?
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Either support the inevitable neo-Luddite revolution (probably will happen in next 10 years), or move out of the reach of the technological system. Both options will be very difficult.
  - bacchusracine 5y ago
    >inevitable neo-Luddite revolution Butlerian Jihad represent! Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      There may have been an UFAI (UnFriendly AI) involved in the timeline there.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  > not be subjugated to whatever happens to feed the anxieties and neuroses of society. That’s awfully vague. Are specters doing this to you? Seems that some power analysis is in order.
  - weljlkjlkerg 5y ago
    Can anyone say the past 2 years of covid-19? Please don't feign naivety. It is a distraction to critical thought.
    - avgcorrection 5y ago
vanusa 5y ago
Specifics needed on (a) please.
- toss1 5y ago
  They don't require you buy the device - they merely require apps that run on the device to do certain necessary things, such as drive a motor vehicle, enter certain buildings, use public transportation, etc. The migration to "Oh we now have mobile enabled -- X" is already happening, with "X" being boarding pass, driver's license, building pass, payment method, etc. First, it's a convenience, then it becomes a requirement. At that point, we'll need two devices. One to act like a wallet does now, with all those various passes, permits, and payment methods. For those wealthy enough and who GAF about various issues, that would be a very cheap device and the second device would be your "real" one.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Since when was an app required to drive a car? Certain new models, maybe. Certain rental cars, maybe. But in the general case? And where in the world is one required to run an app to use public transportation? I just don't find this factual distortion from "could happen, might happen" to "is in the process of happening right now" to be very helpful.
    - toss1 5y ago
      As I wrote, it is not required YET. >>~First a convenience, then a requirement. It is starting at this stage as a convenient option [0][1]. The stage to be concerned about is when it becomes ubiquitious, then default, then mandatory. Might not be soon, but it is a large round rock rolling downhill. Might be stoppable, but that's usually the default progression. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/your-future-drivers-license-could-go-digital/ https://www.cnet.com/news/your-future-drivers-license-could-...
      - vanusa 5y ago
Quigglez 5y ago
What is the device required referenced in 'A'? My mind might just be missing something obvious, but I'm drawing a blank.
- digisign 5y ago
  A smart-phone of one of the two supported corporate-controlled OSs, iOS or Android.
  - growse 5y ago
    So then what's the law referenced in 'A' that requires me to buy and carry around a smartphone?
    - the-dude 5y ago
      In NL I have to show a QR code to enter certain facilities.
      - giantrobot 5y ago
        Which can be printed on paper?
        the-dude 5y ago
        This is true. I would need to print twice a week and I don't own a printer.
        growse 5y ago
        In the UK, you can have it posted to you, so you don't need a printer.
        the-dude 5y ago
        Does this work for a 'permit to enter' which is only valid 24hrs?
coding123 5y ago
a) That device seems to be a gun in my neck of the woods. b) The device is FULLY controllable by me I can guarantee that. c) I am glad it does, though this particular one isn't against my own personal interests.
3pt14159 5y ago
No we aren't. I don't have to buy a phone. Yes, the apps make the border easier for Covid, but don't be ridiculous. I can fallback to filling out a piece of paper. Furthermore, I can buy an [PinePhone, Librem 5, etc] phone and "fully control" that. As for c) that's been part of life since the government got the right to tap your phone or telegraph. Right now there are troubling signs for the direction of American democracy, but the courts have held up and life is still pretty good and, for some, getting better. I know mistakes happen and it isn't perfect, but we're no where close to being forced to own and carry a device.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  Did you try running banking apps on the PinePhone? My bank has made it (almost) impossible to make payments without a phone, btw. Either you need to receive SMS messages or use their proprietary app. I could receive SMS messages without a phone but I would expect this to be a solution that eventually gives me more trouble than it's worth.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    My bank has a mobile friendly website? I'm sure it would work on PinePhone. Either way, this is goalpost moving. I don't even need to own a bank account. OP said government.
    - choeger 5y ago
      In Germany, you indeed need to have a bank account to pay your Rundfunkgebühren.
      - 3pt14159 5y ago
        What does that mean? Is it broadcasting fee? I tried Googling it and I'm not sure. Anyway, Germany used to require people to join the military and kill other people. Now they don't. Progress.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwawaygh 5y ago
What in the world...?! What's in everyone's coffee this morning?
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  A life without a smartphone is already difficult. Possible, but difficult; it involves knowing people who have smartphones, and using fragile hacks, and doing without. With only “show the screen of your smartphone” proof-of-whatever being used, and the phasing out of paper documentation, it's not unreasonable to think we might end up in a situation like this. (Though, it definitely hasn't already happened; I don't think this is the case in any country.)
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    OP stated, verbatim, that smartphones are "becoming legally required". I understand the slippery slope argument, even if I think it's kind of alarmist, but... I mean, come on. Present tense?!?! We are sooooo far off from a legal mandate to carry a smartphone that I'm not even sure how to politely react to this statement. > it's not unreasonable to think we might end up in a situation like this. This is perhaps a good use of the double negative, because it's certainly not reasonable either.
    - vinyl7 5y ago
      It doesn't have to be written law passed by a government for something to be "legally required". Just like the government doesn't have to pass laws or implement systems for surveillance when they can just rely on FANG to do all the data collection for them.
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        > It doesn't have to be written law passed by a government for something to be "legally required". People who believe that smartphones are "legally required" in the US certainly do have a firm grip on "reality". Am I doing this double quote thing right?
yanmaani 5y ago
Was John of Patmos right? And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? ... And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

core-utility 5y ago

The TV show Upload [1] has a group of people dubbed the "Ludds" (i.e. Luddites) that refuse to be party to the turn that the technological revolution has taken and stick to traditional ways of doing things. I strongly believe if that were to happen in our world today, much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds", while a mass of non-tech people would happily welcome our new technological overlords. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7826376/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7826376/

phkahler 5y ago
>> I strongly believe if that were to happen in our world today, much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds", while a mass of non-tech people would happily welcome our new technological overlords. Which would be very interesting because it's the Ludds who are building that tech. But hey, it pays well...
- core-utility 5y ago
  Indeed a plot twist.
paulcole 5y ago
> much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds" Bullshit. Much of Silicon Valley likes to think they would be Ludds but they do so while hailing an Uber from their iPhone and hoping that their DoorDash is devlivered on time so they can eat while they watch a HBO Max show and they hope that nobody stole their Amazon Prime package.
- core-utility 5y ago
  I think it applies more along the lines of "free" products where "you are the product" comes into play. It may entirely be biased based on who I know, but I know more tech people who refuse to have a Facebook because of tracking than I do non-tech people.
  - lukifer 5y ago
    In my experience, a disproportionate number of engineers also refuse to own Alexas.
  - paulcole 5y ago
avgcorrection 5y ago
The Silicon Valley clique is, after all, the only kinds of people who watched and enjoyed Black Mirror. So smart.
DrBoring 5y ago
In times of frustration with the modern Internet, I've often sympathized with the Amish. For those unfamiliar, the Amish are a religious-society that avoid the conveniences of modern technology. They live in houses without electricity, and travel by in horse and buggy. It's sort of like they hit a point in history and saw where the world was going and decided, "nah, we're ok, we like how things are now." When frustrated, I imagine a new-Amish. A secular society, who lives their lives (mostly) off the Internet. I'm not exactly sure what that would entail, nor do I think I'd actually want to live that way. It's just a fun thought experiment.
- prometheus76 5y ago
  I submit that the Amish have been successful in their efforts because they have a unifying transcendent value system that gives their group cohesion and purpose. Secular efforts will quickly dissolve into warring sub-tribes.
  - DrBoring 5y ago
    Thanks for response. I agree, their religion probably does a lot to hold the Amish society together. It sets out a common set of rules that everyone plays by. There is also the strict punishment of social shunning for not following the rules. I wonder how fa I disagree that a societal value system _must_ be religiously-transcendent to be effective. I can't name any such system that has had 100% success, but I reject the notion that it's impossible for a a functioning secular society to work. To be sure, my idea of a new-Amish whose only rule is minimal Internet usage, would not work as a tight-knit community. There would have to be a bigger connection than a common disdain for the Internet.
    - wott 5y ago
      Religion is the only reason and purpose which motivate their minimal use of technology. There are many different sorts of Amish, each with different rules (in the tradition of protestant sects which split on a regular basis), depending on which amount and type of technology they believe would interfere with their devotion. It is not some sort of hippy community which rejects the excess of modern technology and wraps some spirituality around it. It is the other way round.
raverbashing 5y ago
> much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds" No, quite the opposite They're the ones who buy "smart locks" then get locked out of their place because they dropped their iPhone in a puddle or the lights went out They're the ones who come with genius ideas like reinventing the bus with Uber or fall for stuff like uBeam because they're too lazy to plug their phone into a charger
- egberts1 5y ago
  That’s why Lockly.com has THREE methods of opening a smart lock. 1. key 2. iPhone 3. PIN pad.
  - core-utility 5y ago
    4. Hacker
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    It is a good solution, yes. But then they save the PIN on their phone instead of their memory because tiktok burned out their brain and they left the key home because "why do you need it since you have your iPhone!?11" and if this last point looks ridiculous remember this is exactly what happened with some Tesla owners going into areas of low cell service.
    - egberts1 5y ago
      PIN number of iPhone are stored within the Apple hardware security alcove and are not readable.
  - flyinghamster 5y ago
    4. Strategically placed magnet that either pops the relay controlling the lock or operates it directly. (You can tell I've been watching too many LockPickingLawyer videos.)
titzer 5y ago
> much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds" Much of Silicon Valley is just looking for a way to pay their exorbitant rent and/or become million(billion)aires. SV isn't going to take a principled stance on anything. Heck, the big players all know which side their bread is buttered on and the bigger they are, the more entwined in the corruption they are.
SCHiM 5y ago
I'm about as technical as it is possible to get. I fucking hate technology these days. It all sucks, it tries to insert itself between everything human and sane, and extract value for its masters. People are serfs in closed silos. They own nothing, just like the serfs of old: not their farmlands or cattle (laptops, phones and data), nor their homes (accounts in the 'cloud' subject to AI shutdown without human recourse). It will take a while of it getting progressively worse before an apathetic consumer class will finally be exploited enough to start demanding proper rules around all of this. I don't think progress will stop when the situation at it's worst. But I do think we'll have to get through that first.
- sharikous 5y ago
  > It will take a while of it getting progressively worse before an apathetic consumer class will finally be exploited enough to start demanding proper rules around all of this. We'll see about that, I guess. Revolutions in the past were successful because you couldn't control people so strongly and you needed the to work to be able to tax them. With our new surveillance tech and automation I am afraid this has changed for the worse
  - SCHiM 5y ago
    I think it will be better for four reasons: 1) Initially, when a new technology is discovered and leads to a paradigm shift, commercial/capitalist ventures are most efficient at digging down and innovating quickest. A depth first search if you will: relentlessly driving down costs, improving the technology and consuming or destroying the competition. Then, once the time is right, the exploitation begins. No longer are the newest models of $TECHNOLOGY strictly better than their predecessors, any progress is incremental and genuine innovation is partially co-opted by marketing. When this happens the screws start getting tightened. Companies used to rapid growth due to merit try to maintain growth velocity by cutting cost, exploiting regulatory loopholes yet to catch up with the paradigm shift, and any other things not directly related to their new niche that the risk/reward calculators deem worth it (breaking laws, anti-patterns, etc.). The reaction to this is two fold: 1a) governments want to stick their hand in the newly-added piece of the pie, 1b) people don't like being more and more exploited. 2) People understand when they're being screwed. Our sense of 'justness' is about as evolved as can get, people might not always be able to pinpoint what is screwing them over, but the anger still builds. I believe (really can't justify any of the things I'm claiming here as truth, it's just my opinions) that trust takes longer to build than to destroy. I loved google for 2 years, I've hated them for much longer. I feel intuitively that I'm being exploited when forced to help their machine learning algorithm detect traffic signs that only a few people will profit off. I feel like I've never entered into a fair contract where I'm obtaining search results in exchange for some of my attention; I'm just forced to fill these things out every once in a while to access a site unrelated to google. Can you believe my GP's site has a google captcha page on the contact form? Where I enter medical data? I _HATE_ that. 3) People like me (and you?) spread the word. After the initial rush described in point 1. other ways of working gain speed. Technology, organization, open source, education, they all make it easier and easier to replicate what was an enterprise deployment a decade ago as a small group, or even individual, today. One day a matrix bridge will allow me to message all my friends from a single, polished place, with good UX. One day later a friend will see me using it, and the word will spread. The inherent nature of information favors the communicators, integrator and middle men. It's impossible for a silo to detect with certainty that you are not actually using a third party app, like a matrix bridge, to talk to your friends. A false positive will lead to more feelings as shown in point 2, a false negative is the natural result of progress in point 3. 4) Governments cannot afford a completely tech illiterate population. Security and military forces around the world have recognized for years already that information technology is another avenue to achieve their goals. Knowledge of the possibilities of information technology is a natural (but certainly not perfect) antidote to some of the ways an opponent might exploit your population. Organizations (in a liberal country) in this sphere will focus on education, partially to increase their own resilience against attack, and create a fertile recruiting ground for new recruits. We gotta hold on till we get there.
nicholasnorris 5y ago
It's my understanding that the Luddite movement was less about personal preferences or adherence to tradition, and more a labor movement that was opposed to losing their livelihoods to early forms of automation.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Well, they did not lose their jobs to automation for the most part. But tech enable rigorous surveillance so that taking a leak has to be a timed. Yeah, technology...

azangru 5y ago

This fills me with dread, resentment and anger. I wanted a future where I would be the master of technology, and what I am getting instead is more of the "I can't let you do this, Dave" vibe. I want to live in a community of individuals, not be subjugated to whatever happens to feed the anxieties and neuroses of society. Is there... will there be a way to resist this obscenity?

uejfiweun 5y ago
Either support the inevitable neo-Luddite revolution (probably will happen in next 10 years), or move out of the reach of the technological system. Both options will be very difficult.
- bacchusracine 5y ago
  >inevitable neo-Luddite revolution Butlerian Jihad represent! Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    There may have been an UFAI (UnFriendly AI) involved in the timeline there.
avgcorrection 5y ago
> not be subjugated to whatever happens to feed the anxieties and neuroses of society. That’s awfully vague. Are specters doing this to you? Seems that some power analysis is in order.
- weljlkjlkerg 5y ago
  Can anyone say the past 2 years of covid-19? Please don't feign naivety. It is a distraction to critical thought.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago

vanusa 5y ago

Specifics needed on (a) please.

toss1 5y ago
They don't require you buy the device - they merely require apps that run on the device to do certain necessary things, such as drive a motor vehicle, enter certain buildings, use public transportation, etc. The migration to "Oh we now have mobile enabled -- X" is already happening, with "X" being boarding pass, driver's license, building pass, payment method, etc. First, it's a convenience, then it becomes a requirement. At that point, we'll need two devices. One to act like a wallet does now, with all those various passes, permits, and payment methods. For those wealthy enough and who GAF about various issues, that would be a very cheap device and the second device would be your "real" one.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Since when was an app required to drive a car? Certain new models, maybe. Certain rental cars, maybe. But in the general case? And where in the world is one required to run an app to use public transportation? I just don't find this factual distortion from "could happen, might happen" to "is in the process of happening right now" to be very helpful.
  - toss1 5y ago
    As I wrote, it is not required YET. >>~First a convenience, then a requirement. It is starting at this stage as a convenient option [0][1]. The stage to be concerned about is when it becomes ubiquitious, then default, then mandatory. Might not be soon, but it is a large round rock rolling downhill. Might be stoppable, but that's usually the default progression. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/your-future-drivers-license-could-go-digital/ https://www.cnet.com/news/your-future-drivers-license-could-...
    - vanusa 5y ago

Quigglez 5y ago

What is the device required referenced in 'A'? My mind might just be missing something obvious, but I'm drawing a blank.

digisign 5y ago
A smart-phone of one of the two supported corporate-controlled OSs, iOS or Android.
- growse 5y ago
  So then what's the law referenced in 'A' that requires me to buy and carry around a smartphone?
  - the-dude 5y ago
    In NL I have to show a QR code to enter certain facilities.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      Which can be printed on paper?
      - the-dude 5y ago
        This is true. I would need to print twice a week and I don't own a printer.
        growse 5y ago
        In the UK, you can have it posted to you, so you don't need a printer.
        the-dude 5y ago
        Does this work for a 'permit to enter' which is only valid 24hrs?

coding123 5y ago

a) That device seems to be a gun in my neck of the woods. b) The device is FULLY controllable by me I can guarantee that. c) I am glad it does, though this particular one isn't against my own personal interests.

3pt14159 5y ago

No we aren't. I don't have to buy a phone. Yes, the apps make the border easier for Covid, but don't be ridiculous. I can fallback to filling out a piece of paper. Furthermore, I can buy an [PinePhone, Librem 5, etc] phone and "fully control" that. As for c) that's been part of life since the government got the right to tap your phone or telegraph. Right now there are troubling signs for the direction of American democracy, but the courts have held up and life is still pretty good and, for some, getting better. I know mistakes happen and it isn't perfect, but we're no where close to being forced to own and carry a device.

foxfluff 5y ago
Did you try running banking apps on the PinePhone? My bank has made it (almost) impossible to make payments without a phone, btw. Either you need to receive SMS messages or use their proprietary app. I could receive SMS messages without a phone but I would expect this to be a solution that eventually gives me more trouble than it's worth.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  My bank has a mobile friendly website? I'm sure it would work on PinePhone. Either way, this is goalpost moving. I don't even need to own a bank account. OP said government.
  - choeger 5y ago
    In Germany, you indeed need to have a bank account to pay your Rundfunkgebühren.
    - 3pt14159 5y ago
      What does that mean? Is it broadcasting fee? I tried Googling it and I'm not sure. Anyway, Germany used to require people to join the military and kill other people. Now they don't. Progress.
- throwawaygh 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwawaygh 5y ago

What in the world...?! What's in everyone's coffee this morning?

wizzwizz4 5y ago
A life without a smartphone is already difficult. Possible, but difficult; it involves knowing people who have smartphones, and using fragile hacks, and doing without. With only “show the screen of your smartphone” proof-of-whatever being used, and the phasing out of paper documentation, it's not unreasonable to think we might end up in a situation like this. (Though, it definitely hasn't already happened; I don't think this is the case in any country.)
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  OP stated, verbatim, that smartphones are "becoming legally required". I understand the slippery slope argument, even if I think it's kind of alarmist, but... I mean, come on. Present tense?!?! We are sooooo far off from a legal mandate to carry a smartphone that I'm not even sure how to politely react to this statement. > it's not unreasonable to think we might end up in a situation like this. This is perhaps a good use of the double negative, because it's certainly not reasonable either.
  - vinyl7 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be written law passed by a government for something to be "legally required". Just like the government doesn't have to pass laws or implement systems for surveillance when they can just rely on FANG to do all the data collection for them.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      > It doesn't have to be written law passed by a government for something to be "legally required". People who believe that smartphones are "legally required" in the US certainly do have a firm grip on "reality". Am I doing this double quote thing right?

yanmaani 5y ago

Was John of Patmos right? And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? ... And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.