The insidious take over of security by the smart phone is what worries me the most. I can't pay my taxes, access healthcare or even sign-on to my job without using my phone any more.
If somebody said 25 years ago that access to government services would be completely privatised there would have been uproar. Not only did we consent to this, we did it willingly in exchange for convenience. Now we are screwed.
Americans used to be all gung-ho about "those who give up freedom for security will not be free or secure" but it's much worse than that. We gave up security for convenience and handed everything about ourselves to an unscrupulous bunch of billionaires who are intent on replacing government wholesale, and we will be paying them while they do it.
>I can't pay my taxes, access healthcare or even sign-on to my job without using my phone any more.
Where is this? For instance the IRS still allows you to file by mail[1], and it's unclear why you'd need a phone to go to a hospital or walk in clinic. As for needing a phone to access your company networks, I don't how it's deserving of outrage anymore than needing a laptop to do a modern desk job.
That's why I asked OP for where he lived, and qualified my point about the IRS with "for instance". I'm not going to do an exhaustive search of all countries to validate the claim.
I understand your concern, but I think it's overly simplistic to frame this as a zero-sum tradeoff between convenience and security/freedom. Smartphones have undoubtedly made interacting with government services more accessible and efficient - especially for marginalized communities, rural populations, and individuals with disabilities.
That being said, I'm not convinced that access to government services has been "completely privatized" as you claim. Governments often partner with private companies to develop and provide these services, and there's usually some level of regulatory oversight in place. This collaboration has led to some really valuable innovations, like online portals for tax filing and telemedicine.
The Benjamin Franklin quote about trading freedom for security is still relevant, of course. But maybe we should also consider the flip side: by resisting technological change, we risk getting left behind. Finding a balance between convenience, security, and individual rights is the real challenge.
Rather than sounding the alarm about an "insidious takeover," perhaps we should focus on the practical steps we can take to ensure our rights are protected. Advocating for open standards, strengthening regulatory frameworks, and investing in digital literacy programs would be a good start. Let's try to have a nuanced discussion about this, rather than resorting to hyperbole.
I stand by the idea that it is insidious. It’s one thing for our governments to ensure access is secure, it’s entirely another to assume we all have smartphones and have aligned ourselves with Apple or Google. Being a digital serf is our new reality and we did it willingly. If we had to start up our Ford to access a government website it would be ridiculous but having to have your phone at hand is just as bad. Google and Apple both know exactly when and where you accessed a government service and stand as a gatekeeper to doing so. It is by definition insidious.
Plenty of people when I lived in Texas 25 years ago who would be pretty easy to get onboard with privatizing access to government services. Complaints about the DMV, for instance, are eternal. School vouchers were and continue to be hot in many influential circles, with people wanting to get rid of the government services entirely in favor of privatized ones. Pro-privatization, small-government ideas have been WILDLY popular since at least Reagan.
Giving up liberty for security, (or just convenience or religion) in the US goes back even further. Cold War policies and inquisitions, any number of vice laws, restrictive zoning, to name a few from the 20th century.
>And how the police can demand the video off our Ring door bells. What's next, my dash cams?
They always could. It's called a search warrant. The idea that your security camera footage was inaccessible to governments was incorrect to begin with.
If somebody said 25 years ago that access to government services would be completely privatised there would have been uproar. Not only did we consent to this, we did it willingly in exchange for convenience. Now we are screwed.
Americans used to be all gung-ho about "those who give up freedom for security will not be free or secure" but it's much worse than that. We gave up security for convenience and handed everything about ourselves to an unscrupulous bunch of billionaires who are intent on replacing government wholesale, and we will be paying them while they do it.