I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult.
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.
> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.
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
Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.
That is a great analogy. There are countries where a police can throw you into a lifetime jail with zero option for justice unless you are a famous person from a well known western country.
Those countries are North Korea, Iran, Russia, Google and Apple.
Well the US can do it with CBP/ICE, but not for life. I was placed in a jail without being arrested or being accused of a crime and they were very clear at all times I was not even arrested, nor did a federal criminal history search show any record of arrest. No access to lawyer either.
US Citizen. Contacted lawyers, all informed me they'd given up trying to sue for these things because it's hopeless.
You should contact IJ. They recently took up a case like this.
https://ij.org/press-release/us-citizen-and-army-veteran-sub...
Looks like the statute of limitations has ran out.
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).
Assuming what you're saying is true, this is the kind of thing 2A was written for. I don't mean for you personally, but for society it's really the last line of defense against a rogue government. But, even if your story is totally made up it's completely believable. Scary times.
2A might have been written hundreds of years ago but it is now an instrument to sell guns. no amount of guns you buy will help you against rogue government
Hard disagree. Guerilla resistance has proven itself surprisingly effective against modern militaries. Multiply that by a military which would be going to war against its own citizens and you have a very uncertain situation.
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.
I think there are enough stories of armed religious groups raided by three letter agencies to prove otherwise.
Apples and elephants. I'm talking about a double digit percentage of the population fighting a guerilla resistance against a rogue state and you link me to like 50 guys in a house that's surrounded.
the only thing you might get double digit percentage of population to do is like a picture on insta :)
Not if the supreme court wouldn't enforce it!
The Supreme Court does not enforce laws.
how long were you in jail? How did you get out?
~12 hours in jail, a few hours shackled in prisoner transport vans, and then ~12 hours in cuffs at a couple different hospitals hospital (where I was touched by health care professionals without my consent and without a warrant) while they waited for signs of non-existent "drugs." Shortly before I was released they served me retroactive search warrant, signed by a judge after it happened, using made-up PC that did not even state the name of the person or animal they claim prompted it.
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.
The 100 miles "border zone" is where all this can occur. It's a very contentious issue (considering 2/3rds of the pouplation and cities are within the zone).
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.
>to be dumped at the border
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
US citizen, re-read the previous post. But great that we're now assuming "well they must have good reason for violating due process."
But that's the whole damn reason for due process. This shot.
if you're telling a real story and not just AI generating bullshit for karma you should go to the PRESS. this story, if it's real, should be something the press would eat up.
screw the lawyers. go public and name names
The press did an almost identical story for Ashley Cervantes, who had almost the same thing happen, except she was digitally (finger) raped by doctors as part of the process and was a young barely adult ~poor woman vulnerable minority so way way more public sympathy for her vs me (I'm a middle class white native English speaking boring white boy with a hick accent so basically at the bottom of the interest at ACLU, they do occasionally feature some people that have had it happen if they have sympathetic backgrounds).
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...
I looked at the final motion to dismiss document and boy did she get bad legal advice. The lawyer tried a Bivens case against the hospital... which any lawyer will tell you is an impossibility. Bivens cases are just about impossible to win under any circumstances, but trying to do a Bivens against a non-federal officer is a guaranteed loss.
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'm a middle class white native English speaking boring white boy with a hick accent so basically at the bottom of the interest at ACLU
This in itself should be shocking to us
> I'm a middle class white native English speaking boring white boy with a hick accent so basically at the bottom of the interest at ACLU
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?
Very similar stuff has been in the press often this year. Everyone mostly forgets each case after a couple of weeks (did that end up being a real gang tattoo or not?, etc.).
I think my case might have gotten picked up by someone if it happened under Trump or close enough it would have still been under the statute of limitations. There wasn't much interest in immigration law under Biden, lately IJ and others have become interested in defending CBP/ICE overreach.
- [deleted]
Try abrego garcia. Illegally detained. Now he's got a whole criminal conspiracy built around him with no independently verifiable evidence.
Founding fathers rolling in their graves.
First of all - add Israel. If you're a Gazan than this goes without saying, but even if you're a citizen, then - the General Security Service can and does people into custody without a warrant; often does not publicly disclose or admit said custody; and has "secret" detention facilities to hold such people (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_1391)
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?
The US has done just that to Abrego Garcia, and is now giving him the choice between confessing to a crime that he hasn't been convicted of (and likely didn't commit) and deportation to a country he has never been in.
Abrego Garcia has attorneys working his case through the US justice system. That is a key factor that the other entities lack.
He has already been illegally disappeared to El Salvador, despite theoretically having access to a lawyer. It took a national story for him to be brought back, only to get threatened by the exact same thing.
Lawyers only matter if the people with the guns think they should be bound by the law.
Very true. They are effectively a new type of non-territorial state with absolutely no separation of powers or rule of law or principle of proportionality.
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.
It's also used by the actual territorial state to project power through corporations, by influencing them to project their policies. I'm reminded of the story of the guy that had his google account shut down for "CSAM" because they took explicit medical pictures of their child at the directions of physicians, that were only privately shared solely for the purpose of aiding diagnosis. Apparently google works with the government to create these systems to scan your cloud images in the background.
Yes, I think governments love centralisation of control in very few hands. It gives them far greater powers than they would otherwise have, both technically and legally.
"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?
> governments love centralisation of control in very few hands
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 think these are separate initiatives by different parts of EU agencies and national governments. The markets and competition crowd does not coordinate at all with the law enforcement and security people.
I don't mind this being a bit chaotic. At least it shows that there are trade-offs.
Yes, I am feeling like technology is being used as a authoritarian trap.
Always has been... pertinent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Let's hope people remember this and don't cheer the precedent when it's set against "undesirable" like it was with Alex Jones.
It always starts like that.
Can you explain a bit more? As far as I was aware, Alex Jones was found guilty by a court of law.
I didn't really follow his case or anything about him though. Did he get banned from Google/Apple for no reason?
He was a high profile case of social media coordinated banning. Not just one platform but many and it wasn't about court orders at the time but simply the vague "policy" which we know gets applied selectively.
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.
I would argue that social media banning is much different than Google/Apple banning. If I got banned from Facebook or reddit or even HN then I'm not really missing out on much. Of course, for people who actually do business on these platforms, like Jones, then it sucks to lose a platform, but I don't think anyone has a fundamental right to post whatever they want on these platforms.
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.
I don't understand : in my experience it's still much easier to set up another email account than to deal with authenticator requirements, where you might be forced to use Google's Authenticator ?
This happens already in dating apps. https://www.vice.com/en/article/banned-from-dating-apps/
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.
The only solution I see is some decentralized way of governing. And even if this gains mass support, I still forsee some centralized way of how rules are enforced that can also cut off your relationship as well. Efficiency v.s privacy tradeoff I guess.
> Even more worrying
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.
I think this is the thing we need to change most. These big companies effectively have as much power as courts to break your life, but no transparency, oversight, appeals process or even a clear process in some cases. They can destroy a person or a small business without even noticing.
And just think, how people could stop using so many of their services. Say, not use GMail mailboxes and go for other providers. It's like most of us are actively putting ourselves in their prisons every day.
from an incredibly trivial perspective I was thinking about this recently when I discovered all games operate as saas products now, if for whatever reason you're banned then you can no longer play the product you purchased, what happened to third party mplayer servers?
Not all games. The options are ridiculously more diverse there than for smartphone OSes or even for social media.
I have to unlock my apple id on a daily basis "To continue to use facetime"
Say, if you're blacklisted by a fascist government, for example. Tim Cook's pledge of loyalty was disturbing on many levels.
It's esentially boolean social scoring, just think about it.
I don't own a phone, but the most shocking revelation came when my child's school required us to use an app to specify how our children will be picked up or ride the bus.
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.
We've reached the point where people without devices or common online services are so rare that society no longer accommodates them. It's similar to how we need legislation to ensure that disabled people have accessible infrastructure, except I doubt there will ever be legislation mandating offline/off-app accessibility.
File it under faulty assumptions organizations make about their clients or customers. If you live in a rural area in the United States it is still quite possible to have:
It can be very frustrating to deal with services that assume you have the ability to receive SMS messages, and almost anything requiring identity these days demands a phone number.* No cellular service * No landline service * No postal delivery to your property, and a physical address that isn't in any database * No public utilitiesI don't think its unreasonable for private companies not to bother to offer their services to these people. Why should they have to? Many services require nearby physical infrastructure. Electing to live in the woods is not really a disability. Plus you can just get internet out there if you want and thereby receive SMS.
You're right, it's not a disability. However, it's also not always elective. Sure, a private business has no requirement to serve people outside of the market they want to serve, but what if that business is providing a service that is de-facto required in order to access government services?
It's the government's role to serve everyone generally, so they should provide reasonable accommodations for people. I suspect there are such accommodations, but it's hard to say without looking at a specific, real scenario.
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.
But further up this thread you're responding to it says:
> 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"?
I think this highlights the two extremes. The grey area requires human interaction, such as, talking to the school leadership and explaining your phone-less situation. I guarantee they will accommodate some other solution. Like, “pickup for you is 3:15 every day” and just get used to your face. It’s a rare situation they likely didn’t consider, but it by no means is insinuating that if you don’t own a phone then your kids will go to CPS. It’s saying if you fail to pick them up they will, but if you fail to show up just because you can’t check in via app, that’s absolutely your failure and you’ve been warned about the consequences.
Maybe. Is it a public or a private school? Is this something they could or should have reasonably known? What is their duty to accommodate you? Is OP accurately describing the situation?
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.
This is how it happens that the appearance of a new option, which you are free to voluntarily choose or refuse (eg. buy a smartphone and an internet connection, maintain a Google account, accept everyone's ToS contract) gradually morphs into something mandatory if enough other people choose it.
Yes, but to me there is a very big difference between being forced to adopt a class of technologies (online services in general) along with the rest of society and being forced to contract with a handful of specific companies that impose extremely one-sided contractual terms on everybody, touching almost every aspect of life.
Yes, but both permutations of digital coercion suck, right? ^^D
General technological progress may well suck in some cases, but it's not coercion.
Well, many areas have banned app-only payment requirements (along with card-only) so it’s possible we’ll get some mandated alternatives.
This is not even about having a device but about forcing you into the duopoly with no choice, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092669
I work for some local governments in Belgium and with every system they put in place I keep insisting on a analogous version. Online forms? Great but if anyone chooses the should be able to send in a paper form or get assisted by someone who fills in the online form for them.
As the spouse of someone blind it's becoming increasingly difficult to get accomodations from doctors and govt things. Surprisingly so much so that even making ada complaints goes nowhere. Very few offices are willing to sit and fill out paperwork nor willing to provide an accessible version.
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'm sure the app is perfectly ADA complaint too. /sarcasm
What country is that in?!??
CPS is in the US I believe
That's pretty fucked. It should be utterly illegal to put parents in a triple bind like that. You have my sympathies.
I think I might enjoy the CPS scenario... let them call CPS, and wait for CPS to arrive, and then discuss with CPS who is endangering the child, the parent or the school. I'm pretty sure a judge will quickly decide whether their rule makes sense or not, and I think judges in child protection cases are going to quickly side with what's important for the child.
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.
Spoken as a non-parent? No parent I know would be willing to test fate in that manner.
Well the judge will likely rule the app is bullshit, but in the meantime CPS will argue they need to go into your house, look to see if you have a dirty dish, or the wrong proportion of snacks to vegetables, or maybe take notice your child is playing independently outside while they come around. Then they will portray that in the most insane way possible, and since it is a civil and not criminal process their is no requirement anything is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
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...
Damn. When I had a child in Germany, our version of CPS came over and told me what fun things the city offers for children and asked me about my plans for day care and how I can get help to get a spot.
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 wouldn't be so quick to equate differences in personal anecdotes with stark country-level differences (though it's plausible that everything is worse in America as usual)
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.
I'm so sorry that's the situation in your country. Another answer to your message from Germany is pretty close to my experience in France, child protection is way less combative and genuinely invested in what's good for children.
The danger is when solutions that are convenient, but require giving up some sort of freedom, are made mandatory even for those who would like to stay free. I hope this is a lesson we avoid having to learn the hard way.
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.
Add "can't participate in society without agreeing to user-hostile Terms of Service clauses, such as indemnities, behavior profiling, and opted-in marketing subscriptions."
It's amazing where those dark patterns are cropping up (government services, SPCA, etc).
I sometimes contemplate that this sort of incidental ToS should be 100% unenforceable.
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.)
>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.
Or just require retail businesses to accept cash. Which many jurisdictions have done.
Problem solved.
That doesn’t help if you need to use an app to order.
I don't know about you, but I don't have my device super-glued to my hand. In fact, if I'm going out to run errands in my neighborhood, I often don't bring such a device at all.
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.
To me the point where the law needs to intervene is the bank or the school. 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).
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.
If it is a public school, the state should “intervene,” but really it isn’t an intervention, it’s the state’s school they should fix their stupid policy.
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.
> For the bank, I don’t really see why it would be preferable to intervene with the bank vs the tech company.
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.).
You mean like if there were a standard (JSON, XML, whatever) format of document that you could cryptographically sign which would order a transaction to take place? Kind of like a digital teller's slip?
That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again.
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.
> That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again.
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.
Have you tried buying a Windows computer recently? Add Microsoft to your list of companies where it's nearly impossible to go without having a registered account. At least in the western world.
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.
> "can't participate in society without an apple or google account".
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".)
I think it is kind of levels:
"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.
Clearly the logical threshold is when a single private corporation becomes the gatekeeper to your life. The internet itself is decentralized so that's fine. Mobile phones as a concept is also fine.
Almost. Having access to the internet requires a device, or public computer if available. A just society would at least maintain ability to interact with all government services through in-person and through post office. Universal access.
At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution. I agree that it ideally shouldn't be required though.
This seems to be percieved as an explicit intended loophole. I've seen contests where they say "for free entry, go to website..." followed with "internet access can be obtained at libraries".
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.
> At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution
...for now, at least.
I hope people can see what I am saying here, but this is just what the Affordable Health Care Act was in the United States. The government forced up to buy health insurance from private companies, and no one saw a problem with that.
So having health care was dependent on a private third party.
I don't think it's an issue to require Internet to participate in society, just like it wouldn't be an issue to require a mobile phone if you can use any phone (including a Linux phone or degoogled Android).
The problem is that now you need a phone with Apple or Google software running it.
> not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong
This can't be more clear: Forcing to use the duopoly is against the competition and is totally wrong.
I meant a bit like: Let's say you have 2 mobile phone operators in your country ( duopoly ) we are ok that for example using SMS for banking interaction ( second factor etc )
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.
I think if we accept that market concentration for essential services cannot alawys be avoided, there must be an obligation for these companies to provide those services to everyone.
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.
Isn't this how utilities are regulated?
In the UK some utilities do have a legal duty to supply.
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.
Thanks. This matters a lot to me. I focus on it from the angle of not owning a smartphone, but it's even more urgent from your perspective. I want businesses to understand that some number of people, in order to avoid toxic behavior patterns involving social media or doom-scrolling, find a dumbphone to be the healthiest choice for themselves. And yet, the places you cannot park your car, the airlines you cannot fly on, the events you cannot attend... all because you don't have an app.
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."
This is one of the things I wish the EU would intervene. Requiring a smartphone and an app should be illegal for corps of a specific size and for public entities (see school example above/below).
I've been phoneless for 5 years, and I've experienced this too. I do have a google account, but I get occasionally locked out of it because I don't participate in 2FA. I fought my bank for nearly 5 months before they provided a code generating dongle to 2fa into there web portal. I had to stop using Amazon and EvilBay for exactly the same reasons.
Having either Google or Apple should not be an obligation to any human being and governments should do whatever is in their power to allow us to continue operating basic services without them. It should be as simple as that. So all companies that choose the "app" way must also offer a possible equal or better webapp solution for their customers.
Maybe the best solution is to get banned by these companies. At least then you have full rights to complain to government websites that require apple/google accounts.
If you live outside the US, it's even worse with WhatsApp.
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.
I never do business with those kind of companies, and it's not any problem in my life. If you can't reach them by email or phone, then they don't get any money.
In the Philippines everyone uses Facebook because you can use Messenger for free without data charges.
I think that may indeed be a less abstract, more understandable way to frame the problem for the public. But regardless of how you frame it the root cause is the same:
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.
+1 on this. This is a privacy tie in sale. You buy product x, but after the buy it turns out it only works when you also accept the terms and conditions of product y.
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?
You can use the majority of the banking apps without a Google Account on an Android through the Aurora Store:
* 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.)
For now, but Google wants to take that option away.
Actually, no, they don't quite plan to take that away yet. In this sub-thread, we're talking about installing 3rd-party apps without having an Apple Account or a Google Account as an end-user of the device.
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.
Aurora Store and FDroid are not verified apps. In a world where Google is restricting your ability to sideload apps, how likely are they to get verified, or remain verified?
This.
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.
Huawei isn't much better in terms of user freedom.
Which everyday things ?
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...)
We definitely need laws stopping companies from this lock in, especially companies that have no relation with Google/Apple. Countries should demand companies to allow access to their services with a sufficiently modern browser (let's say less than one year old) with a minimum of 3 supported browsers by different providers (so no, not only chrome). Everyone has browsers on laptop, phone etc, so it's the best middle ground.
I also don't like the push towards accounts with google / apple etc or using apps to do everything, or the walled gardens that are the apple and google app stores.
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.
Society needs to kill apps (by refusal to install/use) before apps kill the open Web.
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).
Just to point out, while everything you say is true, there are already similar life destroying mechanisms such as getting debanked.
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.
> all banks refuse to service him again because he created a massive amount of work
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?
The only thing protecting you from this is a strong government.
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.
Being disadvantage and not able to own multiple phones for different purposes is a problem.
my personal craziest example
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"
Remember those naive days when everyone was scared about Big Government running their lives? Remember how the Free Market™, unimpeded by government interference, was going to ensure our personal freedoms were never compromised?
Good times.
Franchise-Organized Quasi-National Entities (FOQNEs)
AKA Peter Thiel's utopia
Necessary but not sufficient.
The main issue is we’re not there today and it’s not obvious what that world looks like.
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.
Give Google and Apple anything they want, in exchange for a reasonable life.
When the majority of people want what you want, democracy is great.
When the majority of people don’t want what you want, democracy sucks.
Can you make an argument as to how this is different from having to have an account with, say, your ISP?
A few points:
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.
Your ISP is an utility, it doesn't hold your de-facto identity.
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")
You have many ISPs to choose from. There are not many "Googles" nor "Apples" to choose from.
My apartment, smack bang in the middle of Manhattan, has a single coax cable opened by Spectrum, and is the only option for me to get reliable internet connection. I have no choice but to (1) sign whatever their ToS are, (2) pay whatever they want to charge, and (3) have them do what they want with my metadata. I’ve decided it’s not the hill I want to die on, but no, I don’t have many ISPs to choose from.
You have at very least: * Mobile connection, a few carriers * Starlink/Eutelsat
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.
You also have the option to move. I mean, that's not ideal, obviously you don't want to have people up and change addresses to deal with a problem with a single company, but if you end up on both Google and Apple's shitlists, there's nowhere you can go to where Schmapple is a third option.
Starlink in an apartment in the middle of Manhattan? Suggesting Eutelsat is just funny frankly.
Eutelsat has pretty reasonable unlimited data package at $75/MO. Might only be available in Europe & Africa though.
>Might only be available in Europe & Africa though.
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]
Doesn’t Manhattan have radio based ISPs like 5G providers? Perhaps not ideal but far from a single ISP provider.
Depending on where you live, a lot of times you don’t many to choose from. Maybe 2-3, but sometimes only one with fast enough speeds that it becomes the only option.
Where?
Cellphone providers + Starlink mean there’s more than 3 options in basically every US home.
Even in places without those, there are a ton of little hamlets in BFE around me that have one guy that gets fiber from wherever is cheapest, then runs a point-to-point directional antenna relay system to a home-brew ISP.
We're talking about participating in society not Netflix. There are a lot more options for that, including mobile and even good old dial up.
So they are effectively utilities and must be regulated accordingly.
I have exactly one to choose from. Two thirds of americans households have exactly two, exactly the same number as the count of googles and apples.
Than your region has a problem that your government should work to fix. Just like the one with Google/Apple.
That's not a universal problem though, so random people on the internet won't relate.
Two thirds of Americans could connect to the internet via:
- 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).
If ISPs pose a similar problem, that still doesn't minimize the Apple/Google problem.
- [deleted]
This question is a non sequitur.
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.
> I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account".
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.
What's it like in Sweden? When I lived in Denmark the government had its own e-boks system for mail. I only ever accessed it via web, but I'm sure there's an app as well. Back then everything was authenticated via NemID which defaulted to the option of using codes printed on physical cards sent in the mail. I know they've moved to MitID now. Does anyone know if MitID can be installed on a de-googled device? Apparently there are a couple other options https://www.mitid.dk/en-gb/get-started-with-mitid/how-to-use...
In Sweden, we have BankID for one thing. You can't do anything at all without it, including (in many cases) buying things online with your Visa or Mastercard. You can't even do stupid things like look up license plates or other simple tasks. You certainly can't deal very well with the medical system without it. In many cases even mail can be a pain in the ass without it.
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).
Painful!
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.
He gave a copy of his bank card to his ex-wife who was living in Uganda and using it there. The card was under his name though, which is against their policy. He could have easily gotten a card in her name, but he's extremely irresponsible in general (and doesn't really care what the rules are). They banned him for six months. He hasn't even bothered to figure out if it's automatically re-instated or whether he has to appeal. I don't know how such people live to be 65 years old.
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.
Oh, not lifetime then. Good. Seems quite reasonable. Thanks for the details.
Does it? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to effectively ban a non-criminal citizen from the economy and from civic life, not even for "just" six months, no matter how "irresponsible" the citizen is.
Perhaps. It is a little hard for me to gage.
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.
BankID is owned by a cartel of our biggest banks but effectively, in real life, is basically mandatory. It's used with (mostly) everything here and it's hard to get a new one if you let some other things slip, like your passport or national ID card.
If you think it's bad now, just wait until passkeys are ubiquitous and best practice is to only trust a small list of providers. The only way to prove you're human will be to prove that you're Google's human.
To an extent, I already saw ads on various fora effectively asking for pretend humans ( you sign up to a list with your info and 'they' use it in your name ). It is going to be another cat and mouse game to track and I am getting tired.
Frankly I think it's a lost cause and sadly doesn't make sense to waste energy on it anymore. I eventually abandoned my de-googled phone exactly because I couldn't use my bank with it.
I don’t use a bank with a phone. What do you do with it?
(One exception, I used to scan checks five years ago, but thankfully that finally ended.)
Some banks require an app for pretty much everything other than retrieving cash from an ATM, because they don't have a web app anymore:
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.
Wow, I thought Schwab was bad because they don’t support true fido2 keys. But no website, crikey.
Same. I have a very old iPhone stuck on an old version of iOS that's incompatible with most apps these days. In the rare case I need to deposit a check there are banks like Ally that don't have physical branch locations but still let you deposit checks via their website.
I'm curious what people need a bank app for.
To send your money to someone else.
[dead]
> 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.
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.
Not sure if you're genuinely asking because there are a dozen proven ways to verify identity or residency either digitally and physically without being locked down to 2 mobile OSes owned and controlled by 2 American companies.
Exactly, as was demonstrated by GGP's "had to go through to second level support". That seems perfectly reasonable to me, yet seems somehow objectionable to GGP.
"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 of woe is surprising or interesting?"
What’s the alternative? The bank sending out a debit card to anyone who calls up and says “I’m @kristov, trust me…”
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.
Off the top of my head: going in-person to the bank, email, phone call or sms to a number that you previously informed to the bank (say when opening the account), otp a la authy or aegis. None of these require you to be on google or apple's walled garden.
Banks have been closing up their in-person services as fewer and fewer people use them.
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.
Nor did GGP's approach require them to be in google or apple's walled garden.
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.
the part you are missing is that this is the situation for now. Emphasis on for now. Google are already moving to restrict what software your phone can run i.e. they control your device.
Please, don't be so obtuse just for the sake of argument. Any rational, well-informed person can wee where this is going.
I think the upthread argument is the weak one in that regard. "See how terrible it is that banks offer a new method to get more convenient service for people who have an Apple or Google device? Because I choose not to, I had to use a perfectly viable method that people relied upon for decades and that still worked just fine."
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.
- [deleted]
Wait, how you being on the Google/Apple ecosystem help the identification process?
You need Google/Apple blessed phone to install most banking apps
Yes but that doesn't help the identification process itself, does it?
> opting out of the airport scanner
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.
Anywhere that US TSA runs the AIT scanners, you can opt out of them*.
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.
My understanding, which may be wrong. It's been a few years since I did this dance.
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.
It's clear that you can opt out of AIT (mm wave) scanning if you don't have SSSS and uncertain otherwise.
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."