What happens if you don’t own a smartphone? You’re disenfranchised from society.
My grandmother is 81, makes about $23k in pension and SS income. Why does she need to invest in a device the she cannot use?
My grandmother is 81, makes about $23k in pension and SS income. Why does she need to invest in a device the she cannot use?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
In case it happens, the lack of always-on, uncontrollable surveillance can help you to become a dissident and fight the corruption. Otherwise you will get in jail or killed immediately if you try.
`the lack of always-on, uncontrollable surveillance`
And even if it somehow did, you leave the device at home while you go out on your dissidence business.
Again, this is hugely overblown.
This is not so simple at all. Mobile phones are required everywhere now, from reading a menu in a cafe to entering a building with QR-codes (against corona, of course). I am not even speaking about importance of communication with other people.
Also, no government turns into a tyranny overnight. It happens slowly and most people will not be aware of it until late, including dissidents.
The difference it makes is that with such tech, I wouldn't have been born because my grand-parents would have been executed and my mother sent to a KZ, for they couldn't have easily forged various more or less believable identity papers and they couldn't have benefited of hard to cross-check databases.
But what is it, in regard of the convenience of going 2 minutes faster through customs check during the yearly holiday across the ocean, after all?
> But what is it, in regard of the convenience of going 2 minutes faster through customs check during the yearly holiday across the ocean, after all?
It's not 2 minutes, it's the whole flow - having seen it implemented in some airports, the automatic queue is much faster than the one with physical border police checking your ID and looking at you.
And you're conveniently ignoring the other main use case, verifying your identity securely to be able to do bureaucratic stuff from the comfort and convenience of your home, without having to take time and queue up in an office somewhere.
Is it? What's special about computer chips vs. id cards?
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.
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?
> Beginning today, you can now completely remove the password from your Microsoft account. Use the Microsoft Authenticator app, Windows Hello, a security key, or a verification code sent to your phone or email
So if your grandmother has a Microsoft account and can't use a phone, she'll have the alternatives of using face or fingerprint recognition, using a hardware key, … or just continuing to use a password, since this whole thing is optional.
Not that there isn't a real concern that society is becoming harder to access without a smartphone, in general. But it's pretty much unrelated to what Microsoft is doing.
If this idea gains traction then Microsoft will roll over the objections of those who can't/won't use it, and tough luck.