So far I've been able to avoid using apps for pretty much anything, but when the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time, that puts you in a real fucked up situation.
* No cellular service
* No landline service
* No postal delivery to your property, and a physical address that isn't in any database
* No public utilities
> the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will "call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time"
Is it reasonable for a school to "call CPS and have your kids seized" because the school couldn't "bother to offer their services to these people"?
Let's say they let you fill it out with pen and paper, but you have a moral objection to using pen and paper. Perhaps you don't like the environmental cost of paper or the policies of all the existing pen companies. Is this reasonable? Where is the line on what should be accommodated? The government really only has an obligation here under ADA. Private firms have no real obligation. Not wanting to use a certain technology is not a disability, it is a preference. If you want your preference to become the law, there is a mechanism to do it, but it involves convincing a large number of people that you are correct.
Also, not always elective? I'm not so sure about that. You decide where you live. If you're a minor, your parents decide where you live. That's elective in a meaningful sense. You might have reasons you are personally weighing that make sense for you to live in a certain place, but accessibility of services should be part of that calculation, and ultimately it is still up to you.
The government isn't obligated to pay for your gas or provide you a car to get to the nearest post office to pay your taxes, for example. If you choose to live in such a way where it is difficult or impossible for you to comply with the law, there is not much the government can or should do about it.
The only saving grace has been be my eyes and other apps that allow for some level of access without needing another human available. It really sucks though as back in the early 2000s strides were being made for the blind community but now it feels like things have regressed because of technology and basic human dignity and kindness has lost out.
I HATE this kind of nonsense, and threatening you as a parent is only making things worse. Why not offer a way to handle this on a simple website? It would have lower cost to the school and be more accessible to anyone with any device able to access websites. Nonsense.
There's also the problem that once they have your kid, the tables are completely turned, rather than them showing why they should take them, now you have to show why you should get them back and that is a process that can be dragged out for over a year.
Unfortunately CPS has wide latitude, secret courts, and the ability to unendingly fuck with you, so it's better just to not "invite" them in your life if you can. And if they do manage to snatch your kid, note they give so little fucks for the kid that their contractors will leave a kid in a hot car to die because apparently that's safer than being with their parents.[]
[] https://abcnews.go.com/US/3-year-dies-hot-car-custody-contra...
I once called them because the day care lady of a friend‘s kid is a bit of an idiot and kinda scared us about mass closure of day care centers and it was probably the nicest interaction I’ve ever had with a government agency.
But from what I’ve heard, America in general is a whole other beast both regarding expectations for parents, trust in the kids and the trouble you can get in for minor things.
I grew up in a low income neighborhood in the Netherlands and many times saw people be utterly terrified of CPS. In many cases these were households where outside help could've been really useful, but even in the worst cases where heavy CPS involvement was the only option (real "take the child away" cases), the child's situation often unfortunately hardly got better, just different. In less intense cases CPS involvement often just seemed to thrust a compliance burden on households without offering much real support, mostly just leaving people feeling guilty and stigmatized. Overall still better for them to exist than not, and budget cuts and restructuring really hurt the situation later, but still an organization with very real odds of making the situation worse, sometimes catastrophically worse.
Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed
Those countries are North Korea, Iran, Russia, Google and Apple.
US Citizen. Contacted lawyers, all informed me they'd given up trying to sue for these things because it's hopeless.
I was released after an HSI guy showed up, took a quick look at me, decided I wasn't a terrorist or whatever, served me the retroactive warrant, and then I was sent on a prisoner transport van to be dumped at the border with my all my shit (including my shoelaces) in a plastic bag.
For the hospital part I was sent a ~$1k bill, which is still in collections.
screw the lawyers. go public and name names
Nothing changed. Same port of entry, same hospital network, same everything (I don't think she was jailed like me though). Lawsuit failed and public press did nothing. Later the ACLU won some kind of suit that forced all involved parties to be warned, which they promptly ignored, and that was the end of it.
https://www.southernborder.org/woman-suing-border-patrol-ove...
https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/woman-sues-cbp-over-bo...
This in itself should be shocking to us
To have won this case against the agents would have required piercing qualified immunity which is very tough (you have to prove intentional misconduct... just being incompetent isn't enough in most cases).
She would have been better off pursuing a medical malpractice case against the hospital and/or doctor to be able to get any kind of relief.
I would assume they would be jumping at a few of these cases too, as a) it may be easier to bypass any ingrained bias in the system if you aren't necessarily matching people there may be bias against, and b) establishing case law is important for changing ambiguous legal situations.
Are you assuming they wouldn't be interested or did they communicate that they weren't interested?
does this mean you were originally on your way into the US and that's where they nabbed you, and then when they finished with you they took you back to where they picked you up?
i'm not here to debate or defend in either direction, i don't know enough about any of it, but i believe that i have heard from a lawyer podcast that whether you are a US citizen who is entitled to enter or not, the rules (including your bill of rights status) are different "at the border" because you are not in the US yet
But that's the whole damn reason for due process. This shot.
The ACLU is very interested in this issue on 4th Amendment grounds but they have not had much luck with it in the last decade. Lots of cases but it's still not a settled issue.
Yes, if the military was targeting you individually you'd almost certainly be fucked. But a guerilla resistance spread out over a continent would be very difficult to eradicate. Just look at Afghanistan.
https://ij.org/press-release/us-citizen-and-army-veteran-sub...
I typed up a ~100 page document with very thorough records of the retroactive warrant, what happened, and medical records to try and hold at least the "medical care providers" accountable but the board determined that the medical care providers were performing a (warrantless) law enforcement search and not medical care so their license wasn't in jeapordy. Not sure how they determined this since they were in no way deputized nor were they employed by the government, and in fact I was personally being billed for it.
The CBP argued the opposite, that medical care was rendered and not a search so CBP was not liable for extending the ~12 hours during which they "detained" me with no evidence. CBP argued they held me for my own safety because I could die of non-existent drugs.
The challenges to this have all failed (see Ashley Cervantes, basically identical legal facts) so it seems the courts are pretty satisfied with the catch-22 of any challenges of the criminal aspect to be ruled as medical care (thus unchallengables) and then any challenge of the medical care to be ruled as a detainment for a criminal search (thus unchallengable).
Lawyers only matter if the people with the guns think they should be bound by the law.
I also wonder about the US: What about the secret imprisonment mechanisms it set up after the 2001 attacks on the twin towers (9/11)? Were those ever dis-established?
What makes this difficult though is that they are under constant attack from highly organised and automated criminal operations that create and exploit accounts en masse.
Any solution to the tyrannical state of affairs we are subjected to (even more so as developers) needs to balance better protections for real people (including as you say for people who have committed some transgressions) with fighting organised crime.
"Harmful" content has significant overlap with freedom of speech, so governments find it hard to ban directly. But when there's a big corporation facilitating access to that content, then it becomes a clear case of "evil capitalist profiting from harmful content - corporations need to take responsibility!".
When a government doesn't like end-to-end encrypted photos and cloud drives, all they have to do is issue a secret order telling Apple to disable it.
And when people find workarounds for intrusive and insecure age verification methods, what's better than a total sideloading ban to regain control?
Honestly, that was one of the things that shocked me about the Digital Markets Act in the EU. It gives them less power over their citizens, not more. (Of course, they also passed the Digital Services Act around the same time, and now they're looking at age verification and breaking E2EE, so I guess they figured they had to balance things out...)
I don't mind this being a bit chaotic. At least it shows that there are trade-offs.
It always starts like that.
I didn't really follow his case or anything about him though. Did he get banned from Google/Apple for no reason?
The particularly interesting thing was that the sentiment of unpersoning someone online and "one service banning you" being a good reason for others to do so, was used by politicians later on to suggest more proactive unpersoning of different government critics which, they obviously called conspiracy theorists. Obviously different politicians call for the ban of people from opposing political parties, so it's not something about a specific party or political compass quadrant, as much as people want it to be.
This was sometime after Trump's election, when the "all out war" on the US political landscape was happening.
You could probably find numerous less extreme and easier to defend cases, where people get banned from one or many linked services, with no recourse but the Jones one was one of or maybe the first high profile one across several sites.
It's very easy to think that these powers will only be used at someone we dislike or find politically abhorrent but it will always point back to us, the moment we are the nuisance, no matter if it's because we are against the new freedom (TM) war or "save the children" civil encroachment.
If I got banned from Google, then almost 20 years of emails, 1TB of files on Google Drive, are gone. Many of the services I use that use email as a second factor, I'd be locked out of. (And before you ask, yes, I use an authenticator whenever I can, but for some reason some services decide to still only let me use email as a second factor). If I forgot my password at any site, can't reset it. Not to mention that I can't use my Android phone out of the box without installing custom de-Googled firmware.
I suppose the same argument could be made that I don't have a fundamental right to use Gmails mail servers, but as I pointed out above, it is more than just an inconvenience, it could actively be harmful to my digital life, because Google has its hands on almost all things digital.
The logical answer might be to just not use Sign in with Google but some services don't even let you use username/PW, it's sign in with Google/apple/Github etc.
The sites also shouldn't be 'lost', don't they have a way to register another kind of login from the same one ? And you can always make a new, platform-free account − better do that sooner than later !
Please name and shame the websites (like Advent of Code and Rebble) that only allow a login through platforms. And services that only allow Google Authenticator.
> I don't think anyone has a fundamental right to post whatever they want on these platforms.
You don't have a right to anything if you fall for the bullshit of "they are private companies".
These private companies exert tremendous power and are also an arm of the government when the government wants it. The government uses them to censor things and hides the hand. It was very obvious before different US elections and during covid policies authoritianismathon.
> I suppose the same argument could be made that I don't have a fundamental right to use Gmails mail servers, but as I pointed out above, it is more than just an inconvenience, it could actively be harmful to my digital life, because Google has its hands on almost all things digital.
So you get my point but want to hiper focus on your exact circumstances. There's no need. Think of the worst case scenario and fight to protect yourself and others from that. Don't support it when it's "the bad guy getting the stick".
Lol.
Plus it's ridiculous to apply collective guilt in any form by blaming later IBM management, given that anyone involved with 1940s German IBM is long dead by now.
Your post does not repudiate the parent post, nor my post.
Date didn't go as well as the other person was hoping? They can report you to the app, some tired and overworked support person in an emerging market bans you, they keep whatever cash you already spent on bonus likes and your multi-month subscription, no refunds.
And you can never sign up from the same Google/Apple account, the same phone, and with the same face, because of course now you have to verify your biometric information with some of these apps (Bumble is introducing submitting your id or taking verification photos).
Or their AI misfires and deems you as having said something inappropriate, again, off you go. You have no recourse, hope you know someone who works at that company who can flip the bit in their database.
Want to know the reason why they banned you? Sorry, that's sensitive information, you will never know, only that you "violated the terms of service". Which one? Sorry, we can't tell you, goodbye.
Oh, now 60% of society meets through datings apps? Too bad, you don't get to anymore, shouldn't have violated our terms of service. Oh, and most of these apps are run by the same company, so you get banned on one, you likely get banned from all on them at once. Have fun.
This is untrue.
It's a case of A leads to B and B requires A.
The most common antidote to anti-consumer behavior like this, is for the established parties to pull a dumb stunt and for competitor to eat their lunch.
If you can't bank without Google or Apple, all competition is dead on arrival.
If we have to politik the deplatforming rules of companies because they've taken complete control of the gates, we're doing the wrong politiking at the wrong place.
Similarly, if the school is going to have control over your kids, the school should be prohibited by law from requiring you to use an app that's tied to a particular company. They should be required to provide you functional access using any client that supports the appropriate open standards.
In any case, that's not what I was suggesting. I was simply suggesting that banks shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to get access to your money. Similarly, schools shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to take proper care of your kids.
I suppose you could print your public key as a QR code on a piece of paper, or display it on a phone, or use a USB security key device, and physically give it to an authorized employee at a local bank branch. Or if there is a way to electronically open an account you submit it then, along with whatever other proof of identification is deemed acceptable. I think root of trust has been, and always will be, a hard problem. It's just about finding the acceptable level of risk. Security is weaponized inconvenience.
Edit: Just to think down that road a little further, I expect the issue exists because the solution chosen by the school/bank/gov't/business will not be the optimal one for users, but the most expedient for the org. They're going to do the lazy thing that works for 80-90%, because there currently is no better alternative that they can implement with minimal effort.
If we look at the past we see that postal mail and telephones became standard methods of communication, but you could always walk into an office somewhere and handle business in person. Now that last default is quickly being phased out. So what should be final fallback method of communication?
So I see two problems: there is no better way, and there is no required minimum. Both need to be solved.
For the bank, I don’t really see why it would be preferable to intervene with the bank vs the tech company. Either way the state will have to impose on a private company.
> You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you to an app from a particular company, whether it's Google or Apple or anyone else. You should be able to access their functions using any client that supports the appropriate open standards (such as web browsers).
Really this is an interoperability problem, so the government would have to impose on both sides. An OS should be mandated to come with a browser than supports some locked down functionality—a subset of HTML, nothing fancy, no scripting or anything like that. The bank should be required to provide a portal that speaks that language.
Because the bank has a fiduciary responsibility to its customers. The tech company doesn't. The bank can't just deny you access to your money because you don't want to have a Google or Apple account. That should already be the legal framework, but apparently it needs to be clarified and enforced better.
> Either way the state will have to impose on a private company.
Banks are already not "private companies" the way tech companies are; banks are already agents of the state in a number of important ways (such as being required to report all kinds of transactions, follow know your customer rules, etc.).
What for? Online banking worked perfectly fine on standard web browsers over HTTPS for years before smartphones became popular, why should that change now?
I have done some backpacking these past two years, and it is worrying how easy it is to get into big trouble if you lose your phone or payment cards.
As an example, my debit card got eaten by an ATM on my way to Argentina, and after my 6 month travel, the backup credit card I had brought was about to expire.
Despite my card working as a means of payment, I was starting to feel the effects of this corner case in every aspect of modern life. I could not use our equivalent of cashapp, I assume because my card was about to expire. I could not ride public transit, or trains, or do things like book a yoga class with my friends, all because all these institutions basically only let you interact with their service through their apps, where I had no way to pay.
I spent some time visiting friends in the capitol on my way home, and tried to sort the situation out with my bank. They thankfully were able to order some new cards to their office, rather than to my home address. But immediately after my talk with them I found that my one remaining card had been cancelled.
Then I tried bringing my passport to withdraw some cash, but the bank teller almost laughed at me, before explaining that you can't just do that anymore. The bank isn't even allowed to let you get your money in cash and leave. You can get bits of it in bills at the ATM for a fee the price of a coffee, but also that requires a card, of course.
Electronic payment solutions are so convenient, for the public and for institutions, for law enforcement and control, that we've forgotten how much we need to give up in order to use them, and now they're being made mandatory as we trudge along into a cashless society.
Now I couldn't even get food or shelter, if not for my friends. I remember half stumbling out of the bank with my passport in my hand, half dizzy with shock and anger. This, along with lots of other small mishaps like losing my phone and encountering trouble, kind of radicalized me on these topics.
It's amazing where those dark patterns are cropping up (government services, SPCA, etc).
Here’s what I mean: suppose I want to order a cup of coffee at a cafe. I’ve made a choice to go to that cafe, and it’s at least generally reasonable that the cafe and I should agree to some terms under which they sell me coffee, and those terms should be enforceable.
But if the cafe requires me to use an app, and the app requires me to use a Google account, then using the app and the Google account is not actually a choice I made — it’s incidental to my patronage of the cafe. And I think it’s at least interesting to imagine a world in which this usage categorically cannot bind me to any contract with the app vendor or Google. Sure, I should have to obey the law, and Google should have to obey the law, but maybe that should be it. If Google cannot find a way to participate without a contract, then they shouldn't participate.
I might even go farther: Google and the app’s participation should be non discriminatory. If the cafe doesn’t want to sell me coffee, fine. But Google should have no right to tell the cafe not to serve me coffee.
(For any of this to work well, Google should not be able to incorporate its terms into the terms of the cafe. One way to address this might be to have a rule that third parties like Google cannot assert any sort of claim against an end user arising from that end user’s terms of service with the cafe. If Google thinks I did something wrong (civilly, not criminally) in my use of the app, they would possibly have a claim against the cafe, but neither Google nor the cafe would have a claim against me.)
Or just require retail businesses to accept cash. Which many jurisdictions have done.
Problem solved.
If I walk into a cafe (which is what GP was talking about), I'm going to (horror of horrors!) speak to the nice person standing behind the counter to ask them to make me my coffee.
I'm certainly not going to go full on passive aggressive and stand in front of the person taking orders and place my order on an "app."
In fact, if a retail establishment attempted to require that, I'd just leave.
Which I've done several times at restaurants who, when I ask for a menu, am informed that I should "scan the QR code" on a label stuck to the table with my phone to get the menu.
No thanks.
We all had junk drawers of useless charging cables, everyone agreed it was stupid, hence a universal charging connector standard along with the promise that the charger junk drawers will be freed.
Even if we mandate the “POSIX of smart phones”, for lack of a better term, what problem today, for everyday users, does it solve? It might even make interactions with various government technology worse as that API will likely only be begrudgingly supported, which won’t win any hearts or minds.
Basically until you have a one line slogan that most people can relate to which, and is a problem they have today, movement will be very slow.
Also, in the short term, if these various site are AI coded, and thus follow existing software patterns, expect this to get worse.
When the majority of people don’t want what you want, democracy sucks.
"can't participate in society without a mobile phone" "can't participate in society without internet" "can't participate in society without google"
not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong. because we all accept maybe people not participating without internet.
...for now, at least.
Obviously, the idea of "you don't have to pay to participate" has a strong legal footing, but I have to wonder if they can find a way to pivot that to "I don't have to acquire an Android/iOS device". Maybe they would develop a kiosk-mode version of the OS that will run apps tethered to a placeholder library account.
So having health care was dependent on a private third party.
This can't be more clear: Forcing to use the duopoly is against the competition and is totally wrong.
I think this is a process; and somehow slowly people accepting those levels, and in a society it becomes normal ( to have whatsapp for friend group, to have facebook for family photos etc etc ) and you are being left out eventually if you are outside of those norms.
So it is not so different for bank to require something like google provided software.
The difficult part is how to guarantee this right without opening the floodgates for all sorts of scammers and organised criminals.
We need some sort of due process proportional in cost to the effects of account terminations (or rejections) on people's lives.
I'm not familiar with the details though, so I have no idea what happens if someone is accused of having violated their terms of service. I think there are different rules for different utilities.
The problem is that now you need a phone with Apple or Google software running it.
I really liked Huawei phones and I wanted to keep using them after the US forced them to part with Google, but after doing some research and finding out some of the everyday things I wouldn't be able to do due to not having the Google Play Services (I'm not even talking about not having a Google account!), I just gave up.
At this point we programmers should make our voices heard and make it very clear that people still using platforms, or worse, forcing platforms on others, are collaborating with / are totalitarian extremists.
(Yes, this also means those of you still using GitHub, Discord, Reddit, YouTube...)
If for whatever reason you dislike WhatsApp, you just can't also be a society's functioning member.
Some companies have decided to deprecate email and phone support and only have a WhatsApp chat, potentially with AI slop. I've had to discontinue my services with some of these companies because of that.
Even some government services are going through WhatsApp; I've had to be there in person, among senior citizens just because of their tech choices.
I pretty much vouch for "vote with your wallet," but I am running out of alternatives.
This won't work out for you. It just turns into technically being able to, but it being practically impossible. In Sweden (i.e. basically your future), we're already there.
Then we have another problem. Cashlessness. There are fewer and fewer places that accept cash for payment and even if they do some of them won't have change (since it's so rare that other people are paying in cash).
I have a friend now who was cut off from the BankID (and thus cashless) system and it's quite a struggle for him. He has to constantly have other people (i.e. us) do things for him, or drive 40km to one city or another during specific hours to do things (since all the local outlets for everything closed since 99% of people do 99% of everything online now).
How does one get shut out?
Perhaps a story of his life now could be told to whatever politician may make sense? (I just do not know that for your part of the world)
Seems to me there must be some basic government run thing to manage this. Using corporations has too many problems.
And you may tell me BankID is government! Hope not.
The government isn't requiring BankID except for on their own services (where sometimes other options are provided). It's kind of just the most convenient thing that all agencies and businesses end up using. There's no laws around it, I mean. They all opted into it. It's run by a private consortium of banks.
The non criminal part in all this does carry serious weight with me, and on that basis I agree more with you.
It is harsh. It does not need to be.
Google and Apple increasingly become the entity required to identify yourself, either directly ("login with Google/Apple to participate") or indirectly ("use our App on iOS/Android to confirm your identity and participate")
1. It's not necessarily different. Your ISP has monopolistic power over you, and it should be regulated more aggressively.
2. A non-mobile ISP is currently much less important than an Apple/Google account for interacting with modern society, and less important than it was even a decade ago. If all 1.5 of my available home ISPs turned evil I could manage just fine without them.
3. Given the relative public perceptions this feels weird to say, but Comcast and their ilk are much less problematic than the Apple/Google monopolies. You can largely just pay for internet (plus an extra 10-40% from scammy business practices) and do whatever you want to do, with the analytics they're selling about you being less invasive than those which Apple/Google use.
It's not perfect, but nowhere near Google/Apple duopoly. Also this is very local US issue, solvable on city level regulation, while smartphones are everywhere.
Yep. We just need to move Manhattan there. Problem solved.
It's crazy how some people think there's no solution when the solution is "clear as an unmuddied lake...As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer."[0]
Cellphone providers + Starlink mean there’s more than 3 options in basically every US home.
That's not a universal problem though, so random people on the internet won't relate.
- Starlink
- AT&T wireless
- T-Mobile wireless
- Verizon wireless
The choices of fixed ISPs is often more limited (in my area, the physical options are AT&T copper, Xfinity cable, Monkeybrains wireless).
No one is arguing for using ISP-hosted accounts as an alternative.
The core problem isn't even rooted in identity per se, it's about platform owners actively working to limit access to essential information from platforms they cannot profit from.
Even granting the most cherubic motives, this ongoing behavior is atrocious on it's face and should be prevented by any means, including competition, rule making and legislation.
Good times.
AKA Peter Thiel's utopia
(One exception, I used to scan checks five years ago, but thankfully that finally ended.)
I'm curious what people need a bank app for.
1. Transfer money to another account. The alternative is to waste half a PTO to go to the actual bank (because they only open at working hours) to make that transfer.
2. Make an online payment. Most new cards no longer have a CVV (3 digit code) and instead require you to use the app to get a dynamic number. Many banks do not offer that option in their web app.
3. Forced 2fa for in-person payments with your card.
Today it's still possible to workaround many of these issues but they're closing these workarounds little by little.
What’s the alternative? The bank sending out a debit card to anyone who calls up and says “I’m @kristov, trust me…”
You were not able to served by the standard path, because you couldn’t authenticate yourself via the standard mechanism. You still got service by an alternate path. No different from opting out of the airport scanner; it takes longer and is a little less convenient, but you still get service.
"Can you believe that I had to prove my identity to the support group in charge of requesting replacement cards in order to get a replacement card?!"
"Uh, yeah, that makes total sense; what part of this tale is surprising or interesting?"
That's exactly the point: there's an easy and common method that many people choose to use, but there is still a perfectly working method for people who choose to not use apple or google.
Please, don't be so obtuse just for the sake of argument. Any rational, well-informed person can wee where this is going.
That's an example of how the banks are continuing to accommodate customer preference, not the other way around. As to "where this is going", ATMs and debit cards are nearly pervasive and, yet almost 60 years after their introduction, I can still choose to bank with a teller if I insist on not having a debit card.
https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/banking/is-your-l...
> Since 2020, the rate of bank branch closures in the U.S. has doubled. The majority of those closures come from large and very large banks, contributing to an overall 5.6% decline in total bank branches nationwide since the start of the pandemic.
Are you under the impression that this wasn't a solved problem for the half-century before "apps?"
Yes, there was some tiny fraction of fraud, but it's not like adding all these layers upon layers of technology has fixed anything. The difference is that instead of getting ripped off by one of the people in your own town, anyone anywhere on the planet can rip you off now.
slightly OT, but where can you opt out of the scanner?
Every time I've tried they told me I won't be allowed through security unless I subject myself to the scanner, despite me protesting that they can search me however else they please.
That is domestic US airports plus airports like Toronto and Dublin where you, for practical purposes, clear into the US on foreign soil and land in the US as a domestic flight.
* - I think this only doesn't apply if your boarding pass got tagged with the dreaded "SSSS" enhanced screening tag, but that's a fairly rare corner case for most passengers.
You can opt out of the millimeter wave radar.
Opting out means you go through a metal detector, a 20-second pat-down and perhaps a hand swab for explosives sniffer.
If you have SSSS on your boarding card, that means the pat-down, hand swab and digging through your carry-on luggage happen whether you opt out of the mmwave or not.
From the TSA website, https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/technology , "Most passengers have the opportunity to decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening. However, some passengers will not be able to opt out of AIT screening if their boarding pass indicates that they have been selected for enhanced screening."
Wow. You nailed it. Thank you.
When desktop operating systems were dominant, the need for the freedom to control your own software installation was beyond obvious.
But now our phones are an even more dominant/necessary computing/communication tool.
Apple and Google's appeal to security is such a fig leaf. They can continue to lock down our phones, add even more security.
BUT, simply provide a way for users to mindfully bypass that. They could make the pass through screen as scary as they feel they need to. That's it.
(If they did that, customer pressure would naturally build over time, for less draconian warnings, as other verifiably/clearly responsible sources became popular.
Another benefit. Apple would soon put its considerable resources competing to delivering the most robust security of a more valuable kind. The kind that enforces the walls between unpermissioned/dark behavior without limiting desired behavior and innovation. That would create healthier quality-loyalty based "lock in" that their vertical integration and high focus DNA already gives them advantages to "win".)
Normally tie in sales are illigal, but because it happens in the digital world, we/they fail to notice...
Its banks, but also government and health (the dutch digi-d app), food markets, schools, more and more
If there is a EU DMA, where is an independent app store?
I do think the personal mental health angle matters a lot, but it adds urgency to consider school, banking, etc being dependent on private company memberships.
My local gym did something wonderful. They retained a keyfob-based access system instead of using an app, specifically because the owner knew "someone's going to have a dumbphone and complain they can't get in."
Bur if you look around theres a lot of money going into defacing democracy and electing morons, by the same business forces.
You aint getting a fundamental freedom by individual contributors, the same way bitcoin is turning into a centralized scam bank.
To play the devil's advocate though, hasn't this always been the case when new technology gains widespread adoption? e.g. going backwards in time, at some point not having an email address wasn't a big hinderance, nor was not having a phone number etc. Telcos got regulated, maybe that's the next step for google, apple etc.
* https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/
I've tried it, it works.
With Apple, it's all far worse. On iOS, I've discovered that even some preinstalled premium apps, like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, GarageBand, iMovie, don't work unless you add an Apple Account to the system.
But with Android, it's relatively easy to set it up without any accounts, through Chrome, F-Droid, Aurora Store. (And I usually uninstall Chrome after installing F-Droid, too.)
What Google has recently proposed to trial next year in just 4 countries, is blocking of unverified apps, but all apps you install from Aurora Store are verified and signed directly through Google, so, they will not be affected.
Basically, even if the 2026 trial succeeds, and becomes worldwide in 2027 or later — both huge ifs to start with — as an end user, you could still install F-Droid, Aurora Store, and then any Google Play Store app without providing an ID, as long as F-Droid and/or Aurora Store developers themselves would be willing to undergo the procedure.
First of all, it's simply a trial, a whole year from now, in Sept 2026, and only in 4 mid-sized countries around the world.
Second, they'll only be verifying developers, not users. They won't be reviewing the apps any more than they already do today. They already do scan all third-party apps, which is partly why people are upset about the needless doxxing of the devs.
Also, as far as I understand it, an app store like F-Droid already does app signing on behalf of other developers, to ensure funny stuff couldn't simply slip through undetected, so, as such, F-Droid probably already "owns" the Aurora Store and all the other apps you can download through the F-Droid app store, so, it would be my expectation that even in those 4 countries in Sept 2026 during the trial, you could still sideload the same apps the same way I do today.
In turn, the apps installed by Aurora Store are signed by the Play Store; this ensures that the private data cannot be hijacked through modified updates of the app, since the developer profile won't match. So, there's no concern there, either, since everything is signed.
Basically, it's not a good precedent, but at the same time, nothing will really change at least for my own workflow (as a non-publisher), where I don't install anything outside of F-Droid or Aurora Store anyways.
Keep in mind, it's still just a trial. And even if it goes worldwide in 2 years in 2027 (which is still a big if), it's still FAR more consumer-friendly than anything Apple has ever allowed on iOS in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.
A friend of mine owns a hotel in southern Italy, long story short during an investigation into mafia-related businesses his operation was also checked (and fully cleared as 100% unrelated to any wrong business whatsoever, it just ended in a cross examination).
Since those examinations involved quite a lot of checking/investigating money trails all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work for their legal, compliance, etc offices, really massive.
As banks are privately owned entities they can refuse you services, or simply make your life that miserable that even if they comply with law (e.g. open you an account), they can still deny you any services that they aren't mandated by law of offering (payment processing is a simple one: no credit card processing, you can't work as an hotel) or just be as slow as possible when it comes to everything.
There are multiple things that are absolutely life-impacting as of 2025 that go beyond being tied to a handful of operating systems and their rules.
I don’t get this line of reasoning. He certainly didn’t create that massive amount of work. The investigators did.
What is this, guilt by association?
in taiwan you can't pay customs dues without a half broken government app
this is necessary for ANY shippment from abroad
no website, no phone number, no office you can drop into. You can technically file a paper form to some office in taipei, but it made clear its for large commercial import shippments and not "normal people"
Why can't you participate in society without an Apple or Google account? Because you need an account with them to install apps on your phone. (Or soon will, with the direction Android is now going.) Why do you need an account with them to install apps on your phone? Because you don't control what code runs on your phone, Google/Apple does. Comprehensively solving the latter problem also solves the former, and I think it's best to tackle problems at their root, not just address symptoms.
It's a different story in other parts of the world. Chinese brands like Beelink and Minisforum still sell Windows 11 PCs that provide you with a local account. That's because their primary market is located in a jurisdiction that has historically allowed PC users to engage in mass piracy without legal consequences, for better or for worse. Old Windows 10 installs are also not going away any time soon.
While you can install whatever software you like on a standard Windows 11 PC, the lack of a software signing certificate from Microsoft require users to fight the built in browser, SmartScreen, and Windows Defender before they can run your software. The end result is closer to Apple and Google than people realize.
Another conversation to be had is the effect of messenger apps to exclude those that do not use them (socially, commercially, and soon politically if governments introduce "ID apps" and force their presence to vote). Each proprietary app creates its own communication silo, and people start not talking over email anymore, which is a fantastic open protocol that excludes no-one.
I have been refusing to use WhatsApp for years and out of all people I know, only one friend sends me "VIP vintage" email invitations when everyone else gets things via a Meta-controlled proprietary channel, everyone else ignores people not on these platforms. (Almost even more worrying is what people talk about on these platforms when you do get on there; when accidentally overlooking what a random person on a bus chats about, then I'm happy to have reduced usage of such proprietary platforms over the last couple of years.)
Parents should not permit their childrens' data to get onto these platforms under any circumstances (in Europe, GDPR helps).
For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via a physical auth device, but they are actively pushing for login only via their app. I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. If they get their way, eventually an apple or google account will be mandatory to have a bank account with them.
My kid goes to a school that outsourced all communication via an app. They have a web version, but it's barely usable. The app doesn't run without certain google libs installed. Again, to participate in school communication about my kid effectively requires an apple or google account.
I feel like the conversation we should be having is that we are sleepwalking into a world where to participate in society you must have an account with either apple or google. If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.