4 ms·

Why? It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen? We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites

Why? It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen? We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites to provide phone service with exactly the same pricing. Guess what the effect will be? Higher prices. The same is true with apps, some things make no financial sense without them.

eesmith 2y ago
I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen as there are disability reasons for why someone is unable to sign with a pen. Eg, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/250d63/was_using_an_x_as_a_signature_ever_legally/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/250d63/was_u... has "We used prints as my partner was dying and lost motor control." Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen? The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .
- invalidname 2y ago
  Accessibility is a great point. In that regard apps often exceed pens in their accessibility support and laws such as the ADA require organizations like banks to comply with accessibility regulation. Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case. Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    > Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers. Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those. My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems. So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
    - invalidname 2y ago
      You're right, accessibility and disability are large and complex subjects with a huge gradient of issues/conditions/situations. One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank? Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc? No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist? Yes. I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that: * Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly. * Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        Take a look again at rwmj's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137896 . * I think it's reasonable to requiring an app bad. * Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news. You replied "Why?" Since you and rwmj agree that calling is tyranny is too much, it comes across like the "Why?" refers to the objection to requiring an app. When you follow that up with "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?", it sure sounds like a statement that you don't think people would complain for an app-only requirement. Otherwise I can't make it make sense. > But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US? Somewhere in a 100 mile radius? When is it a problem, and what could be used to prevent it from getting there? Is 1 mile to the nearest non-app parking space a problem? Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not. The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere? > and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases. We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases. Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille. More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
cesarb 2y ago
> It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen? Every single time my bank requires me to sign something with a pen, they also provide the pen.
rwmj 2y ago
If the pen collected location information continuously and sent it to a insecure cloud endpoint, and sent me spammy notifications every day, then probably I would.
- invalidname 2y ago
  If it does you aren't forced to use it. You can ignore the service or use a different service. That's the point. Apps give discounts and there is a tradeoff. We can't demand similar benefits without paying the same price.
  - homebrewer 2y ago
    It's not always your choice. In my country, you're basically cut off from banking services if you don't own a smartphone. I lived without one for years and had to give in a couple of years ago (second hand but perfectly usable — thanks to LineageOS). The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
    - invalidname 2y ago
      Any banking or a specific bank? If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        I guess you're right ultimately, if there's choice. But the alternatives get more expensive. Basically all kinds of businesses have figured out they can get us to sell our privacy in return for a relatively cheaper product - and as this becomes the norm, it no longer even seems to be cheaper, it's just that resisting selling your privacy gets more expensive.
  - 2y ago

eesmith 2y ago

I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen as there are disability reasons for why someone is unable to sign with a pen. Eg, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/250d63/was_using_an_x_as_a_signature_ever_legally/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/250d63/was_u... has "We used prints as my partner was dying and lost motor control." Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen? The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .

invalidname 2y ago
Accessibility is a great point. In that regard apps often exceed pens in their accessibility support and laws such as the ADA require organizations like banks to comply with accessibility regulation. Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case. Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
- eesmith 2y ago
  > Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers. Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those. My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems. So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
  - invalidname 2y ago
    You're right, accessibility and disability are large and complex subjects with a huge gradient of issues/conditions/situations. One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank? Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc? No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist? Yes. I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that: * Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly. * Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      Take a look again at rwmj's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137896 . * I think it's reasonable to requiring an app bad. * Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news. You replied "Why?" Since you and rwmj agree that calling is tyranny is too much, it comes across like the "Why?" refers to the objection to requiring an app. When you follow that up with "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?", it sure sounds like a statement that you don't think people would complain for an app-only requirement. Otherwise I can't make it make sense. > But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US? Somewhere in a 100 mile radius? When is it a problem, and what could be used to prevent it from getting there? Is 1 mile to the nearest non-app parking space a problem? Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not. The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere? > and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases. We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases. Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille. More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.

cesarb 2y ago

> It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen? Every single time my bank requires me to sign something with a pen, they also provide the pen.

rwmj 2y ago

If the pen collected location information continuously and sent it to a insecure cloud endpoint, and sent me spammy notifications every day, then probably I would.

invalidname 2y ago
If it does you aren't forced to use it. You can ignore the service or use a different service. That's the point. Apps give discounts and there is a tradeoff. We can't demand similar benefits without paying the same price.
- homebrewer 2y ago
  It's not always your choice. In my country, you're basically cut off from banking services if you don't own a smartphone. I lived without one for years and had to give in a couple of years ago (second hand but perfectly usable — thanks to LineageOS). The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
  - invalidname 2y ago
    Any banking or a specific bank? If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      I guess you're right ultimately, if there's choice. But the alternatives get more expensive. Basically all kinds of businesses have figured out they can get us to sell our privacy in return for a relatively cheaper product - and as this becomes the norm, it no longer even seems to be cheaper, it's just that resisting selling your privacy gets more expensive.
- 2y ago