Hacker Read

dilap · 2020-02-17 23:28:32+00:00

barrier of entry too high and ease of use too low. it’s like saying we should write letters to avoid the telephone being tapped.

the_pwner224 | karma 2160 | avg karma 3.1 · | 2022-04-14 17:10:16

It makes it impossible for most organizations to use, not for most people to use.

chrismcb | karma 1952 | avg karma 1.05 · | 2015-12-25 20:14:48

The biggest reason not to use them is they are slow. It is a waste of our time, not to mention the cost to run them. And then, at least on the US they don't have the right to search me.

beervirus | karma 1911 | avg karma 1.46 · | 2021-01-05 17:11:44

>automated

I mean, it's better than nothing, and I suppose you can see whether it's open or closed. But having it automated is an odd choice--it's more expensive and less effective from a privacy standpoint.

reply

nwah1 | karma 4221 | avg karma 3.23 · | 2021-02-08 19:03:56+00:00

The inconvenience of existing services boils down mainly to issues such as ensuring that fraud and terrorism and such are prevented. Society intentionally added those hurdles.

A new technology that has ignored the regulatory structure is not apples to apples. Someone could ignore regulations with current tech and be just as "convenient."

reply

wildrhythms | karma 3937 | avg karma 2.76 · | 2023-07-28 07:08:39

Right, it's just another hurdle in a system that was intentionally designed to not give you the power/access you need to take action.

doopy1 | karma 330 | avg karma 1.14 · | 2020-09-22 00:44:02

The problem is that people blindly grant the access needed.

ForHackernews | karma 13152 | avg karma 2.54 · | 2018-03-25 00:22:35+00:00

Because they're slow as shit, difficult to configure correctly, and make you more conspicuous to most three-letter agencies.

wyldfire | karma 20828 | avg karma 4.03 · | 2019-08-25 14:42:27+00:00

Collectively "because they're too easy to misuse (and even if used correctly, complicate audits)."

dilyevsky | karma 5634 | avg karma 2.11 · | 2023-03-20 01:39:23

Too many details to communicate and it’s poorly structured (if at all). If you miss something important you’re paying the roundtrip which takes hours/days, if you try to communicate everything it’s too much overhead

ryukafalz | karma 5846 | avg karma 3.31 · | 2022-07-29 19:33:20

Right, “just don’t use that service” rapidly becomes unreasonable when the service is your bank, the DMV, your university’s web portal, etc.

Jtsummers | karma 23473 | avg karma 2.62 · | 2017-04-04 22:46:57

Certainly it's ridiculous. Just offering an alternative to entering with a blank slate device, or a device with all your information on it.

saagarjha | karma 56017 | avg karma 2.29 · | 2020-01-05 10:31:23

Plus I’ve heard that these make this difficult to use by “legitimate” entities too since they’re non-standard and hence require more legal scrutiny.

null0pointer | karma 1199 | avg karma 3.66 · | 2021-03-11 20:31:43

1. Trivial to bypass: Check

2. Further degrades the privacy of the general public: Check

Just another day in internet legislation.

reply

asib | karma 415 | avg karma 2.88 · | 2016-09-20 12:27:05

I don't like this idea because it sacrifices ease of use in order to make small savings during the development phase. You shouldn't subject your users to extra grate where possible, and I think this is especially true for a government site.

alex_anglin | karma 670 | avg karma 3.0 · | 2021-05-03 14:05:24+00:00

Agreed. It always seemed to me as analogous to the situation whereby one enters some identifying information in a phone prompt, only to have to spell it out again for a CSR. Both are just plain bad design.

Dah00n | karma 1788 | avg karma 1.37 · | 2021-06-22 23:37:30+00:00

Luckily most of the world isn't in the US. I can't even remember a single business that use it around here so easy to avoid.

theon144 | karma 1627 | avg karma 4.14 · | 2019-11-12 09:01:02

Right; it's somewhat silly to suggest standard compliance to a service obviously not meant for any sort of serious use, but this irked me too.

dap | karma 1604 | avg karma 4.1 · | 2016-05-02 15:30:49

I've been very tempted to apply for PreCheck -- it seems like a great deal -- but I find it deeply problematic that the government would create a security screening mechanism so onerous that people gladly hand over their fingerprints to avoid it. The fact that that's even legal incentivizes them to make the normal system as onerous as possible.

snowwrestler | karma 28901 | avg karma 3.63 · | 2022-05-26 19:48:39

I’m really confused by your objection. Can you be specific about what kind of user control you think is missing?

People know they are voluntarily filling out a form and for whom. It just doesn’t go to a server immediately due to lack of signal.

How is this any worse than voluntarily filling out a printed form on paper and putting it into a mailbox to get picked up later? A practice that has been socially accepted for decades?

reply