Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They don't require you buy the device - they merely require apps that run on the device to do certain necessary things, such as drive a motor vehicle, enter certain buildings, use public transportation, etc.

The migration to "Oh we now have mobile enabled -- X" is already happening, with "X" being boarding pass, driver's license, building pass, payment method, etc.

First, it's a convenience, then it becomes a requirement.

At that point, we'll need two devices. One to act like a wallet does now, with all those various passes, permits, and payment methods. For those wealthy enough and who GAF about various issues, that would be a very cheap device and the second device would be your "real" one.




> they

Who does any of the things you listed?

AFAIK we're actually in exactly the opposite situation. I can be imprisoned for not having a physical copy of my driver's license while operating my vehicle!

> First, it's a convenience, then it becomes a requirement.

What requires a smartphone app?

> At that point, we'll need two devices.

So, just to be clear, you're going to carry two smartphones. One that has a PNG of your driver's license on it and another that doesn't.

...why? What's the "win" here? And if you're so concerned with privacy why on earth are you carrying around that second smartphone? Just carry around the first one with the appropriate PNGs/QR codes and leave it at that.

I mean, all of this is kind of beside the point, but I'm asking for clarification because I'm genuinely bewildered about your threat model.

> For those wealthy enough and who GAF about various issues, that would be a very cheap device and the second device would be your "real" one.

If by "wealthy enough" you mean "has 40 bucks, or any friend who bought a smartphone in the last 3 years and doesn't want their old one."


>>Who does any of the things you listed? 1) Any of the states/countries who uses vaccine passports. 2) Any employer using smartphone badges [0]

>>why? What's the "win" here? The win would be that the one carrying all your 'required' stuff is not the same one as the one you use for telecommunications & other work. Separation. The one with all your licenses, accounts, etc. has ONLY that stuff.

And sure, if you want to carry only one with the minimal stuff, go for it.

>>If by "wealthy enough" you mean "has 40 bucks..." Yes, I'd make the license/pass/etc phone a cheap one, but it still might require a separate plan, which is monthly maintenance, etc...

>>I'm genuinely bewildered about your threat model.

I'd say the main post described it rather well.

Just the combination of nice-to-have options becoming mandatory/primary, the underlying device thus also becoming mandatory, and the device explicitly working against our interest.

While 'I've got nothing to hide', I still don't like my devices gathering data on me that isn't also useful to me.

E.g., right now, it's pretty optional to be tracked - just leave the smartphone behind, bring cash and your license/badge/whatever. We can't do that when all those passes are on the same device, along with our communications history and more...

[0] https://blog.dormakaba.com/this-is-why-smartphones-will-repl...


Since when was an app required to drive a car?

Certain new models, maybe. Certain rental cars, maybe. But in the general case?

And where in the world is one required to run an app to use public transportation?

I just don't find this factual distortion from "could happen, might happen" to "is in the process of happening right now" to be very helpful.


As I wrote, it is not required YET.

>>~First a convenience, then a requirement.

It is starting at this stage as a convenient option [0][1]. The stage to be concerned about is when it becomes ubiquitious, then default, then mandatory. Might not be soon, but it is a large round rock rolling downhill. Might be stoppable, but that's usually the default progression.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/your-future-drivers-license-could-...


Your language said "they require [that you run] apps" -- in the present, not future tense.


Okay, but that was speaking in the abstract context, and you're right, I was assuming the future tense and not unambiguously forcing it there in that line.

That said, another part of it was clearly in the future tense. >>At that point, we'll need two devices.

So, thanks for the alert, I'll try to be more clear next time.


All good, thanks for clarifying.

My main concern was the assertions made in the comment I initially responded to, several layers up. Whose author seems to have ghosted us, since making them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: