Everyone going to World Cup must have this app, experts are sounding the alarm
nrk.no
nrk.no
I don't understand the Android permissions system well enough here, but I would be especially curious about which API version this is targeting as I don't know how far back you can still go currently to avoid some of the stricter file access permissions newer versions added. As far as I can tell the most problematic storage-related permission in modern Android would be "MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE" meant for apps like file browsers. And if the app actually requests this permission (or intentionally uses an older API level to get equivalent access) that would be a very clear and specific overreach.
But I would also not be surprised at all if this kind of app asks for excessive permissions, and then provides a lot of telemetry and analytics and sends them somewhere. And in a country where e.g. homosexuality is illegal this kind of stuff presents additional dangers beyond compromising your privacy.
What are the dangers if you respect the laws of that country? You are in danger in any country if you entry it with the intent of breaking the laws.
https://dohanews.co/report-qatar-fifth-highest-proportion-sl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#Slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_%28penology%29
In general I don't think punishments work. I can't imagine one goes back to being a productive, and wholesome person after 100 lashes in public. And other first world leaders seem to think the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#Internatio...
It's objectively wrong to punish people for being gay.
not to mention greater dangers to society
A couple might try to stay at a hotel in a room together, but because they are both men it could suddenly become a serious problem. Maybe they aren't even a couple and are two friends trying to get a cheaper room, but they get arrested and have to prove they are not gay.
A couple might want to enjoy dinner together at a restaurant, maybe that becomes a problem.
A couple might have "incriminating" pictures on their phone and be arrested.
Why this condescending tone and sense of moral superiority?
The problem is that then leads you to a strange place where you're ok with a government persecuting / murdering its own people because it's the law of the land.
In order to do that you'd need to know the laws of the country because ignorance of the law is not a defence. I imagine very few football fans are reading up on Quatar's legal system. So, really, trying to stay within the law is probably very hard, especially if you go there with a set of Western values.
As a simple example, Qatar has law about "public morals" where showing too much skin is considered indecent, which technically means wearing shorts or your country's football shirt is a criminal offence. Are you suggesting football fans don't wear their team's shirt out of "respect for the country's laws"?
It's very unlikely that the Qatar authorities will enforce that law, but they certainly could use it as a basis to question someone. If they then find out that person is gay, or if that person can't prove they're not gay, then you're in very murky "respect the law" water.
Maybe that's just a bad example, but without knowing exactly how much skin is tolerated, that's just a normal law pretty much everywhere.
Does your country allow public nudity on stadiums and on public streets? If not, you've got the same law in your country... without knowing the "threashold" it's hard to say the Qatar law is unusual even compared to the most liberal western democracies.
I'll counter that. I think it is a really good example. Everyone has public decency laws - but we probably don't think about looking them up. It is entirely possible many of us are currently breaking the law on that front without knowing it.
By handing the government a list of everything we have worn over the past X years, we are giving them the ability to prosecute us on all past violations.
This is what makes the app dangerous- we are handing them a list of many past activities that they can use to decide if they will prosecute us on.
That is true for any country. You better inform yourself what the laws are and what their customs are in order to not break the laws or offense the locals.
Nobody forces you to travel to that country if their laws and customs conflict with your particular set of values.
Read and Write to the file system - required to allow storage of a small encrypted file which holds a unique ID, QR code, infection status, configuration parameters, and proximity data of other devices using the Application.
Not much more than a cookie.
Hayya:
- control vibration
- have full network access
- prevent phone from sleeping
- run at startup
- run foreground service
- view Wi-Fi connections
- view network connections
- access sensor data at a high sampling rate
- access approximate location only in the foreground
- access precise location only the foreground
- listen to C2DM messages
Etheraz:
- access bluetooth settings
- control vibration
- disable your screen lock
- have full network access
- pair with bluetooth devices
- prevent phone from sleeping
- run at startup
- run foreground service
- this app can appear on top of other apps
- view Wi-Fi connections
- view network connections
- access approximate location only in the foreground
- access precise location only the foreground
- directly call phone numbers
I don't think these are really that extraordinary, but some are not obvious to me at least. Especially "listen to C2DM" seems odd, possibly a side effect of another permission. Of course with these permissions you can track and trace most of your life, but that is now the norm unfortunately.
> In particular, the covid-19 app Ehteraz asks for access to several rights on your mobile., like access to read, delete or change all content on the phone, as well as access to connect to WiFi and Bluetooth, override other apps and prevent the phone from switching off to sleep mode.
The statement about delete/change all content on the phone seems false tho. Also it doesn't "override other apps" whatever that should mean, but can draw over other apps.
edit:fix formatting
Also considering they're asking for a permission for a protocol that was shut down 7 years ago, the framework must be quite old. Android permissions were less granular back then.
I know someone in Germany and their covid tracking app tells you when and where you were close to someone who was last tested positive. So everyone does it the same way, recording location.
Not sure about Germany, but in France the app doesn't track location. It tracks nearby devices (with Bluetooth, rotating identifiers frequently), and when one marks oneself as positive, it informs the central server of the identifiers used in the last X days, which then other apps checks against their list of known identifiers that were close.
So there is no recording of location.
[He didn't get Covid this time, but off topic for this discussion.]
Edit: or maybe it's on topic because the location was at some amusement park outdoors. Since he knew where and it was relatively safe, he didn't have to worry much about the test results...
Obviously you can enter "library visit" in your contact diary manually, but even then there is no location involved, it's just a string of characters.
See https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/corona-warn-ap...
"Data which can make a person identifiable, in particular location data, is not selected, used or stored."
Too bad I can't edit the original comment any more.
Never trust friends :)
That’s not how PlayStore permissions work. You have to target a certain Android version to release update apps and that version dictates how permissions work. You can’t get around those requirements by using an old framework.
If that isn’t some terminator shit right there, I don’t know what is.
This seems an odd statement. You access sensor data at a higher rate for doing things like sports apps (eg, Strava) or many other scenarios. It's behind a permission at least partially because of the potential impact on battery life.
It can be an incremental decrease in privacy (although not especially concerning if the app already has low sample speed access) but it is unclear why this is some kind of terminator issue.
It's a permission designed for accessibility. Because it's so intrusive you usually have to go through a more complex flow to enable it.
"override other apps" is a defensible colloquial definition because it enables clickjacking. Clickjacking is when you overlay an opaque, innocuous overlay and then open something you maliciously want to trick the user into clicking behind it.
1 TRACKER
- AltBeacon
19 PERMISSIONS
- ACCESS_BACKGROUND_LOCATION
- ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION
- ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION
- ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE
- ACCESS_WIFI_STATE
- BLUETOOTH
- BLUETOOTH_ADMIN
- CALL_PHONE
- DISABLE_KEYGUARD
- FOREGROUND_SERVICE
- INTERNET
- QUICKBOOT_POWERON
- RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED
- SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW
- VIBRATE
- WAKE_LOCK
- BIND_GET_INSTALL_REFERRER_SERVICE
- GET_COMMON_DATA
For those wondering, the app was simply for storing, transferring, and displaying your tickets. A ticket being a QR code for you to scan at the stadium turnstiles.
Was the app required? Absolutely not, there was nothing specific that the mobile app could do that a simple website couldn’t (apart from the screen brightness jumping to 100% when displaying the QR code). I’m sure even a printed QR code would of sufficed.
Both UEFA and FIFA should reconsider their approach to ticketing.
Seen this many times with covid vaccination passes.
Even Costco has self-modifying barcodes now, so covid vaccination passes are behind on the times.
When producing a QR code, the signature could include the date that the QR code was generated, and the date that the phone was biometrically linked to the user (signed by a device-specific key in the secure enclave, itself signed by the manufacturer's key).
Venues could then require that you were using a phone that had been soul-bound to you since before the tickets were first available for purchase.
(For the avoidance of doubt, what I'm describing here is the basis of an Orwellian dystopia, not something that I think should ever be implemented.)
Second: the UK government does not have a death penalty for being LGBTQ (or blasphemy.) It's been decades since any form of official corporeal punishment happened in the UK, whereas in Qatar it's probably been weeks, at best.
I don’t know about that app specifically, but most of the major ticketing providers are doing dynamic barcodes[1] now that are effectively TOTPs for entry. You can’t do this reliably on the web for a major event because you can’t assume network connectivity, and obviously a printout or screenshot won’t work.
1. https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/16/ticketmaster-put-an-end-to...
I can't believe I'm saying this, but you could've use PWA instead (except for brightness).
Some of TicketMaster’s API docs for this are publicly available so you can get an idea of how it works - https://developer.ticketmaster.com/products-and-docs/apis/pa...
On iOS, at least, local storage for web apps doesn't have guaranteed persistence. Safari can and will "randomly" clean up, usually if the device is low on storage. This happens less frequently for pinned PWAs but still happens.
If you need to absolutely guarantee that your thing will work on an offline mobile device, you have to use a native app.
I haven't seen a paper ticket in a long time.
It seems like this would be good practice these days for any international travel.
Probably being bad is a feature here, because you won't be tempted to use the phone that's infected.
This is cheap enough to throw in the trash as you board for your flight home.
Connectivity is a slightly larger problem. In some places you can get a prepaid SIM card for less than a dollar, other places need some form of registration. Really depends on the country and local laws.
It's probably possible to go SIM-less and just hop between open hotspots.
Maybe you know this and it's just an expression, but just in case: never throw electronics in the trash. At the very least the battery is toxic and needs recycling, but other parts of it probably too.
If I travel for work, or if my employer requires me to have Slack (or similar) on my device and with me at all times, then they can provide me with a dedicated device for that purpose and that purpose alone. It's then their problem to worry about operational security associated with having work comms on a device that might have to be compromised by a foreign government.
Even the most basic android phone supports email and text (sms) out of the box. My country enjoys incredibly deep WhatsApp penetration, and subsequently it's become the default mode of communication for almost everyone. WhatsApp runs on almost anything. Back in the day they even had .jar files to download and install on your Symbian dumb phones.
I'm talking here about a "burner" device as it's sometimes called. The minimum viable communicator that you can take with you so that you can keep in touch with friends and family and be reachable in the case of an emergency.
But you make an interesting argument for not needing to go with a new device. A beat-up second-hand mid-ranger from a few years ago will probably work just as well. I have a drawer full of them, and if I don't have any, they can be had for very cheap.
However I found a much better use case is to keep your phone's os secure by putting all dodgy apps in "my knox". This way I could've had what's app and give it access to all my 1 contact I prepared for it etc.
These days I don't know if they still have "my knox" feature on the flagship models as, I decided to get a different phone.
However for going to an autocratic country I would just buy a burner phone (or not go there in the first place).
Does anyone else have any experience with this app?
This also seems like a great use case for privacy focused OSes for unlocked phones. I’ve been trying to get into CalyxOS or GrapheneOS for a while. Just waiting for either to come to the Pixel 7 Pro. I wouldn’t throw it afterwards, but probably wouldn’t connect it to any home networks without nuking it once or twice.
Qatar would be just a small player in this field. Other security agencies and security incumbents are surely having fun with the app. Prepare for a world cup full of advisories.
And this is an interesting case of that but this is wildly overblown.
I don't have to go to the world cup, it'll actually be really hard to go. I'd have to be desperate or wildly rich.
But I do have to use several government apps on my phone even if just installing them for a brief period. That's the really issue.
Installing an app on a luxury holiday in Qatar is such an absurd complaint given indebted servants bordering on our right slavery died organising it.
ANY time I go through US airport security, I don't take my phone. I take a burner phone that doesn't have any of my accounts logged in or personal data on it.
From my understanding, they can and will dd your whole phone image to some national security database while holding you for 'enhanced screening.'
this is not true, maybe at customs but not when traveling domestically. i had a dog sit down while walking through security and TSA had to swab everything i was traveling with. my phone was swabbed but nothing was ever connected to it.
(It will be an interesting experiment to see if that happens now that I have posted this here.)
It also has some apps installed, mainly games. I sometimes use it for casual internet browsing, especially if I want to visit a website with a bunch of Javascript of questionable provenance. But all my real stuff is on the other phone.
Do you know the worst part? Once you unlock your phone and give them your passcode, they take it away and tell you to wait. So now have no idea what they are doing with your phone. Would you trust that device? That is why a burner phone is needed, I guess.
Nobody asks me for my second phone because nobody cares about brief interactions that distract them
It happens everywhere
from the developed countries to the far east (makes large sweeping gesture representing entire planet)
you have zero rights crossing the border at immigration control in these awful countries I am continuing to not mention for some reason.
Tell us where this happens.
It can happen everywhere, but I don't think it is frequent. I travel fairly frequently and I've never had it happen to me, or seen it happen to anyone around me, or personally know anyone it has happened to.
It's true it happens, and you do read about it on the internet. But I think in every case I've read the person was already being questioned by immigration at a heightened level when it occurred.
Taking everything out of my luggage while I'm desperately trying to warn them that some of the socks are wrapped around a DSLR and lens I'm trying to protect from damage, fiddling through my phone camera (since there was nothing good on the new DSLR with like 40 photos of local insects). Evidently they were trying to find background evidence that my claimed objective-- visiting the Exporail museum-- was plausible. Who doesn't like trains (and it is, indeed, an excellent museum)? Fortunately, I had a photo of the Acela I took last year on my phone, and that seemed to satisfy them.
After all that, the agent chastised me because I followed my grandmother's advice and left CAD40 in the pocket of my suitcase in case I got my wallet stolen-- "It's very safe here". Is it safe here because you make random tourists feel like terrorists?
https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/03/29/are-bengaluru-cops-fo...
As always, it's a question of threat model, but if your opponent is a state, they definitely do this kind of thing.
In fact this should have happened years ago..
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/27/women-reportedly-subject...
Otherwise, what do we believe in? what do we stand for? Do we truly only car about money?
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...
"More than 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have died in Qatar since it won the right to host the World Cup 10 years ago"
"death records are not categorised by occupation or place of work"
"There have been 37 deaths among workers directly linked to construction of World Cup stadiums, of which 34 are classified as “non-work related” by the event’s organising committee."
"its 2 million-strong migrant workforce"
6500 deaths in a 10 year span, out of a 2 million demographic. Only 37 of those 6000 were workers actually linked to the construction of the stadiums. Only 3 of those are confirmed to be dead on site.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case#Hist... [2]https://sports.yahoo.com/news/14-reasons-qatar-world-cup-174...
The Qatari government is only being questioned about the 34 of 37 workers dying, and there's no evidence of a coverup either.
If your general point is "I don't like the Qatari government" that's fine. If your point is hundreds of workers died at work but was covered up then a lot more solid evidence is needed to back that up.
Their collar is so stained already, you’d be hard pressed to find a tiny peck of dignity there…
I have a smart phone and generally against telling people how to host their events... but requiring smart phones with tracking apps on them to do X or Y for the "pursuit of progress" is pretty dystopian.
> What if you don’t have a smart phone?
Remember, that you want something from them (entering the country). They can refuse you if they don't like your old-fashioned lifestyle.
On a more serious note: “Shit/Sorry, Outta Luck!”
From a quick check on my Android, that seems to be the case. How archaic. Why is it this way?
It never "denied" access, it just claimed that it didn't exist, or there was a fault so apps never actually knew they were blocked.
Other reasons why it's a terrible idea: they have a small population, little football culture (in terms of absolute size), no infrastructure (all the stadia are newly built and some will be demolished afterwards; there aren't enough hotels); they have many laws incompatible with what usually happens at World Cups. There literally isn't a single positive thing to be said about Qatar hosting the World Cup.
It wasn't righteous, it was over money (FIFA asking for too much).
> why don't they organise a football world cup instead
Because FIFA is the organising body of football, all regional (UEFA, CONCACAF, etc.) and country Football Associations are under FIFA's jurisdiction (and are members of FIFA). Countries couldn't participate in a rival event even if they wanted to, because many of the smaller association basically only exist on FIFA subsidies, and of course there are exclusivity deals. And i doubt many countries and players would prefer the glory of the "EA Cup". The World Cup has never been about money, and the prize pool is already significant.
As a former-kid who had his own dreams (Scotland winning the World Cup) which have had to be progressively scaled back as I grew up (Scotland qualifying for the World Cup) I sympathise, and I hope your Arsenal pal gets to see the tournament they dream of :)
EA dumping FIFA is a good thing to kickstart the mere idea of competition against FIFA's monopoly (and by extension continental bodies), but any actionable outcome is still decades away.
Do all the manufacturers of sports clothing, shoes, balls, goal posts, etc. have deals with FIFA? Yes
Does FIFA use bribes and any means necessary to prevent anyone from disturbing their racket schemes? Yes
Don’t forget you’re dealing with a lot of very powerful and dangerous people here that make really big money, are deeply intertwined with governments, and have a history of doing anything it takes to earn more money. You’re not going to cut them out of the deal, that simply won’t happen.
> Do all the manufacturers of sports clothing, shoes, balls, goal posts, etc. have deals with FIFA? Yes
FIFA will have a relationship with sponsors of FIFA events (the dozens of brands you see during the World Cup or the Club World Cup) and will select who provides the official ball during these events (usually Adidas) or who makes FIFA-branded merch (lame stuff, relatively small market). But each individual player chooses their own boots + equipment, each national team or club negotiates their own sponsors and kit providers. At Qatar you'll see a wide variety of them - Nike, Adidas, Puma, Hummel, Marathon, Majid, Le Coq Sportif, Kappa, New Balance - FIFA weren't involved in the selection of any of them. And I'm not sure what to say about the goal posts - they'll just be whatever is already in the stadiums in use at any given World Cup.
FIFA is a corrupt enough organization, we don't need to pretend they're also some sinister dictator controlling every level of the global game. Not least because it lets the different confederations and national football associations off the hook for their own mixtures of incompetence and corruption.
However, this is flat our wrong:
> FIFA isn’t involved in regulating the confederations or the members or the clubs
Of course it is. It makes the rules that are implemented by the federations (stuff like 5 subs, the new loan regulations), and it also is the one providing the main funding for the majority of smaller football association (so even if it didn't have any de jure power over them, and it absolutely does, it would have still had de facto power with financing).
No this is flat out wrong, since the laws of the game are governed by IFAB, of which FIFA is a member alongside the Football Associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And even then it seems they're flexible in some regards - for example the Scottish FA permitted five subtitutes before IFAB updated the laws and the English FA had a similar trial in the past permitting four subs - both have fiddled with extra stuff like VAR.
I'll grant that FIFA have brought in restrictions on international loan signings - though that's hardly controlling the game the way the original comment implied
I think you're mixing up two things:
1. domestic club competitions - Serie A in Italy, the Bundesliga in Germany, The Premier League in England etc - where players have contracts with clubs and where the most successful teams in each league will compete things like the Champions League.
2. the national game - where country-level football associations select teams based on various national eligibility criteria to compete with other countries in continental competitions (European Championship, CONCACAF Cup etc) and the World Cup.
FIFA are not really involved with #1, it is primarily concerned with the nation-level competitions. It does have a club-level competition between the winner of each confederations' Champions League equivalent, but only the non-European participants really care about that. Additionally, players can and do "just walk" at the national level - some choose not to play either because they don't want to be injured playing for their country in a 9-0 victory over San Marino when their domestic club is in a tight race for the title or they're on a Champions League run. Players also refuse to play for personal reasons - like due to a falling out with a coach (Roy Keane for Ireland in 2002) or with an association (like Duncan Ferguson for Scotland in the '90s). So they know they can refuse to play, but they continue to do so.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that an alternative World Cup would gain any sort of traction at all. Fans would be dismissive and the various national football associations would not take it seriously either. Additionally, the footballing calendar is already quite full so you couldn't run it in parallel with the existing tournaments, meaning that you couldn't slowly develop and grow the competition gradually, you'd need to replace the world cup from day one.
As shitty as FIFA are, they're here to stay.
it’s fashionable to make the case against tech by arguing the privacy angle. i sometimes wish we could raise the discussion one level of abstraction and speak about control more broadly (privacy being the control over which information you make public). you can make this app as private as you want, but i’d still be upset that its mandatory use is contradictory to my desire for agency.
HN can't hide behind the argument that this doesn't affect iOS. thats a very elitist argument. the majority of the world uses android.
My point was that this is an indictment of the Android ecosystem, not a snooty nod to why everyone should use iPhones.
Second, Qatar is one of those places that you should realize what you're getting into by going. It is a religious monarchy with essentially sharia law. Insulting the ruling family will get you in serious trouble. Drinking will get you in serious trouble. Homosexuality or even out-of-marriage sex will get you in serious trouble. There are lots of rules and the punishments are harsh. Personally I wouldn't go. If you do, you have to accept a bunch of things you wouldn't wherever you're from most likely.
Yeah, sharing location's not great, but you have to accept that if you're connecting to cell towers they pretty much know where you are all the time anyway.
THey make people install an app. OMG the humanity!
So even if the current version of the app "doesn't do anything" the next version could do whatever it wants within those.
You still have nothing to hide ?
- Install it on a burner phone, not your real device.
- Install it on an Android emulator (e.g. Nox Player) on a laptop PC.
The only difference here is that they were able to build an app to do all the tracking in plain sight. I'm sure governments in the US and Europe would love to be able to force all visitors to install a similar app.
Yet, we do not because unlike in Qatar, the UAE and other religious dictatorships, we are a democracy and we have the ability to change our government.
You can do better than whatbouatism.
American democracy commits heinous crimes across the world. Being a democracy doesn't absolve them of the moral degeneracy.
Variations of:
"Hey can I get back that $50 I lent you? I always pay you back and thought we had a mutual understanding, what gives?"
"Nice whataboutism, quit trying to make it about me."
Also your example isn't even whataboutism which is defined as "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."
What other accusation or difficult question is being raised in your example? It's person A asking for money he lent to person B back and pointing out what when person B lent him money he paid it back.
That's why claims of hypocrisy against the other party, backed up with examples of the same behavior in other situations from them instead of you, can be cheaply dismissed as "whataboutism".
However... visa V mastercard , using whataboutism is valid in this situation. Bringing up something the US government did in the past to silence the criticism of a US citizen to another countries actions is wrong.
EDIT: Just another thought about your example. There isn't even hypocrisy. Person B lent money to A and A paid it back, then Person A lent money to B and B didn't pay it back.
- B doesn't pay back money
- A pays back money
There's no contradictions in their actions.
What has this parent done that makes them ineligible to criticize others?
It's a method of deflection.
"Whataboutism' is a rhetorical device that involves accusing others of offenses as a way of deflecting attention from one's own deeds."
Whataboutism: "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue"
Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."
You can't be a hypocrite for something another person, group, or country has done. Even if you are a member of that grouping*. Notice how the definition clearly states "one's own behavior".
-----------------------------------------------
* I'm sure there's an exception here if you represent that group or control that group, like the CEO of a company or a spokesman. However just being a citizen of a country doesn't apply.*
Are you bloody serious? For real real not for play play? Some other poster made the comment that "whataboutism" is deflection. Considering every country has done some amount of bad things, either in the past or now, according to you and other parents, no one would be allowed to criticize any other country's govermnet. That's the ultimate deflection.
I'm guessing you only figuratively mean literally. You have the option of starting your own party that does care about privacy (and then voting for yourself), and you have the option of "contributing to the election campaigns of" (i.e. bribing) politicians who will then vote for legislation you want.
More practically, you can campaign within an existing party (presumably the Democrats) for them to support electoral reform (e.g. RCV or Approval Voting, at least for state elections) so that new parties can emerge, and so that the existing parties become more reflective of the actual wishes of voters.
I’ve never encountered this when crossing a border and don’t even know how I would sensibly answer any of this. I don’t use social media and don’t travel with a smart phone. So what now? Would they make me buy one in the airport and sign up for Facebook there?
Huge, massive amounts of people are like this. Huge. Twitter, Facebook, others have massively inflated usage numbers.
I suspect people with social media logins are the minority in the US, for example.
Doubt me? Do you think most people's 68 year old parents, or grandparents, all have logins?
Either way, how can you make it a requirement to provide, what is not a requirement to have?
You simply make it a requirement to provide it if you have it. That is not the same as optional. If its optional then you aren't lying to immigration if you leave it blank. If it is not optional then you are.
Wherick, the inverse of Waldo.
Nareick, always says nope.
Tearick, always rips up newspapers.
Hairick, ironic, guy's bald.
Lairick, dude is a shut in.
Stareick, stop looking at me!
Pairick, it's a chick.
Mareick, this chick is a centaur.
Fairick, redhead.
If you want to extend your excuse to "a country did something bad 50 / 100 / 500 / 1000 years ago (and later regretted it)" then you need to provide extra reasoning for why that still works as an excuse for what a country is doing now.
Edit: I'm guessing from the downvotes that I didn't make my comment clear enough (or I didn't understand the comment I was responding to). My intent was to point out the logical gap in an argument that could be seen as justifying China's genocidal policies.
There isn't a lot of evidence of China doing that (your X). I expect Xinjiang will jump to front of mind for people, that is largely a "Mass Incarceration of an ethnic group"... which while not at all what my original point was, there is definitely an element of hypocrisy from the US here... But unlike travel restrictions, I don't think my original point holds.
I don't think I would trust a device that ever had these apps installed.
The only permission that is problematic is the storage access one, but that too has been addressed in later Android versions with scoped storage.
>NRK has submitted the findings about the apps' security holes to FIFA. They tell us that they do not wish to comment on the matter.
- Do you have a Debian package?
- I beg your pardon?
- My Pinephone runs a modified version of Debian, the Universal Operating System.
- ... What is that?
- Oh fine. I'll settle for a Flatpack then.
- I'm not sure I follow.
-Does Qatar's Law require me to have an Android phone xor an iPhone?
- No ... ?
- Well your Law specification is incomplete and buggy.
you get arrested for obstruction of justice
"Vote with your feet" applies to jurisdictions just like it applies to technologies. Of course, like with technologies, making such a choice has the potential to limit you in other ways.
I cannot wait to have a social credit score! It is a wonderful idea and I am only disappointed that our wise un-elected WEF and UN leaders are being so shy in rolling it out.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...
... for about 3 years, before one of the ultra wealthy elites presses the wrong button and the AI ends up putting them in the zoo (or paperclip raw materials hopper) too.
- Sir, you have to install this application, it's available on both iOS and the Google Play Store.
- Do you have a Debian package?
- Give me a moment to check our database of alternative OSes.. Why yes, yes, we do have this as a Debian package.
- ... Well... is the app truly compulsory?
- Yes Sir, indeed it is I'm afraid. Security, safety and all that.
- ...
Naturally, this certification process would ban apps which could spoof the UI of any official apps, but the ban would have to go further and include any apps which users have built from source themselves. End-to-end encrypted messaging apps (without backdoors) would similarly be banned.
At that point, the fact that you have the source code for all of the software running on your surveillance device isn't much comfort. What good is a phone when you are unable to speak?
You're right, Debian "supports" such a set of restrictions, in the sense that a manufacturer could build devices that would comply with these hypothetical laws while only using vanilla Debian packages, but my point was that such a device wouldn't really feel like Debian, since the moment you installed an unapproved application (or removed a mandatory application) half the functionality would stop working.
As long as users can update the signing keys it's all good.
If not, it's tivoization, and it breaches GPL.
That's assuming the hardware supports it. I'm imagining a (very likely) world where devices will either no longer support self-generated keys, or where using such keys makes your device unable to access the mobile network or the internet. (The latter sort of device might in theory be buildable, and run Debian just fine, but I don't think it would have enough buyers for a manufacturer to waste money on producing it).
> If not, it's tivoization, and it breaches GPL.
Contracts (and software licences) cannot override the law. If a government wants to ban self-generated keys (and/or make anti-Tivoization clauses unenforceable), then it can easily do so, and make all "Debian phones" either not feel like Debian, or not feel like phones.
I never said they could.
> If a government wants to ban self-generated keys (and/or make anti-Tivoization clauses unenforceable), then it can easily do so
Wrong. That would require abandoning copyright enforcement.
Tivoization breaches the GPL. When a license is in breach, integrators, developers and users have no right to use such software.
Who do you think writes copyright laws?
Obviously I'm not suggesting a government would just abandon the entire concept of copyright, but it could amend its copyright law to say that a copyright holder cannot claim (in court) that their proprietary rights were breached solely due to a defendant applying "security measures" to prevent software tampering.
That would be grossly unfair to people whose code is then used in ways that go against their wishes, but government policies don't have to be fair. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not accusing you of saying that they have to be fair, I'm just providing some obvious context to help make my position clearer to anyone reading this).
Crazy how our lives are becoming so dependent on private company techs.
Or: try arguing about the fourth amendment, human rights and the constitution when a uniformed thug wants to seize your phone when you fly into the US. It does not sound that clever in the real world.
The article is pure fiction, as no app has any possibility of ever being granted those permissions on iOS.
No such capability even exists for any app on an iPhone.
I was addressing the specific claim that “everyone” had to give these permissions.
I have no idea I never got interested in iphones.
It’s still not ideal; mobile platforms are not designed to protect you from state actors.
[edit]: so I did some brief research and it seems you can't. For the curious, here is what I think is the full list of possible MDM restrictions/permissions on iOS https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/dep0f7dd3d8...
Seems to be the best solution.
I heard of a software called Pegasus but couldn't tell if it was legitimately that powerful.
It doesn't change the fact that tracking your detailed location and who you are around in combination can be used to determine your affiliations or sexual orientation. If you, with your secure iPhone, are located around numerous people with Grindr installed, they may jump to conclusions.
They are capable of targeting gays or political opponents with this, which is the point of the story.
Who now blames anyone but Germany and its incompetence for Black September’s actions in the 1972 Munich Olympics?
I am not going, but I guess players do not have this choice?