It's a number of false choices. Google has complete control over Android and they could easily implement 1, 2, and 3 if they wanted. It's not as if they couldn't provide the means for certified secure enclave apps in addition to normal ones.
A digital ID not based on EU hardware should be taken down with prejudice. It's a direct threat to national security. US companies and, by extension, US government authorities have control over every popular endpoint (mobile phones, desktop OS).
Besides, if someone wants a digital ID, it already exists in many countries. Phones with NFC chips can read many passports, e.g. Germany has an "electronic passport" since 2005. It's barely used, though, because it's bullshit.
That's possible but would be completely and highly illegal, the EU regularly fines companies violating GDPR, and those fines are not trivial at all, they can be quite hefty.
I was talking about the reality of the US, but even if I was talking about Europe: how does the GDPR even enter this equation here? I was never asked for consent to have my face recorded when I get into a shop in Germany. Were you?
Its not. Especially when using US Cloud services. And people do that. Hell even government run schools us GDRP-violating software and force the students to BUY them. The law is nice, the reality is different...
Or, I should say, things are enforced after the fact, through the possibility of criminal charges or civil lawsuits. Enforcement doesn't mean that crime is made impossible, just that there is enough deterrent.
The big companies are still mining user data, they are just forced to use some extra dark patterns to trick people into compliance. Would-be criminals are not going to stop being criminals because of the threat of fines. And TLAs are not going to wait for due process to acquire access to data legally.
All that GDPR does is give the illusion that people are being protected and CYA for politicians and bureaucrats when asked "what are you doing about evil Zuckerberg?"
You're veering way off-course here. This started from "I was never asked for consent to have my face recorded when I get into a shop in Germany. Were you?", to which I replied that those recordings are radioactive and nobody's allowed to do anything with them except for intelligence agencies. We're not talking about generic web tracking and dark patterns.
Access to the server gives you access to the encryption keys, unless the server is just storing end-to-end encrypted material for someone else and doesn't do anything with the data.
Fingerprinting is done by servers, not by browsers, and it is already illegal in the EU when it is done without explicit user consent and according to the GDPR data handling requirements. The GDPR covers all of this, it doesn't matter where the data comes from.
This is a normal reaction to ground breaking technology but these reactions never had any noteworthy effect in history. There used to be Maschinenstürmer during the 19th Century industrial revolution. There were also violent enemies of cars in the beginning of the 20th Century, some of them were even willing to kill drivers with lethal wire traps.
I see a vast financial sector bubble, a flood of broken software at work, users who have incorrect expectations because they believed LLM summmaries, and a vast increase in bullshit everywhere in the public sphere; I am not seeing see the "groundbreaking technology" here. "Cheap bullshit at scale" isn't an advance, it's a disaster.
Sure, LLMs are "revolutionary". So were the Chicxulub impactor and the Toba supervolcano.
When I said "groundbreaking" I only meant it as "being perceived as groundbreaking." If it isn't perceived as a disruptive technology, then it won't spark widespread protests. People protest against it because they believe it will take their jobs away, not because they believe it's a harmless fad or a financial bubble.
The comparison to cars is apt given how destructive this technology has been to cities, and how dangerous it is to drivers and non-drivers alike.
But otherwise you are wrong. There has been plenty of successful resistance to technology. For example a many cities, regions, and even entire countries are nuclear free zones, where a local population successfully resisted nuclear technology. Most countries have very strict cloning regulation, to the extent that human cloning is practically unheard of despite the technology existing. And even GMO food is very limited in most countries because people have successfully resisted the technology.
Neither do I think it is normal for people to resist ground breaking technology. The internet was not resisted, neither the digital computer, not calculators. There was some resistance against telephones in some countries, but that was usually around whether to prioritize infrastructure for a competing technology like wireless telegraph.
AI is different. People genuinely hate this technology, and they have a good reason to, and they may be successful in fighting it off.
I think you're plain wrong. I have never talked to anyone in my life about phones who didn't want replaceable batteries and wasn't annoyed by the throwaway culture. It's a top priority for the people I know, though by far not important enough for most of them to go for something like a Fairphone.
However, these preferences don't really matter anyway because nobody is forced to replace the battery and not buy a new phone when their phone has replaceable batteries.
