TBH most of these seem like minor complaints. I've been using Apple since system 5 and I don't really see the issues you highlight as valid, they're annoyances to you but they're for other types of user.
>Gatekeeping
It's a one button dialog, hardly the end of the world, and for users like my 80-year-old mother (An Apple user since the Apple II) who rarely needs to stray outside the App store it improves her security. It's not for you, it's for users like her.
They're tightening security because security needs to be tighter. My bugbear is the implementation of privacy and security permissions because I have to walk people through it continually, it makes no sense, but it's hardly a big deal.
>Liquid glass
It makes a lot more visual sense after my upgrade to a 17 Pro from a 13 Pro, but it also ran faster on the 13 pro than the previous edition. I'm not a fan, but I haven't always been a fan of Apple interfaces since the 1980s, I wasn't into the skeuomorphic era, and people love to have a moan.
It took 5 minutes to turn the all the features off on both mac and phone, the only bugbear is the 3D border, and the contacts background (solved by turning on high contrast mode).
It was a big release, they know where the bugs are, and have already said the next release is about bugfixing and streamlining.
>But not everyone has a credit card.
68% of UK adults have one, and there is an option to scan and upload an ID. IRL law is catching up to the internet at last, and as the father of a daughter who got her first dick pic at 12 this is a good thing. It's not for you, it's for her.
You're not always the primary user these features target so you may not see the logic behind them.
>Here, if the cop sees someone overdosing, they immediately call the ambulance, not walk by and do nothing.
This unevidenced claim is probably nonsense in any case, no police officer would simply walk by. They may very well walk by and talk into their radio to summon the right kind of help, or they may be responding to a higher priority call.
Just because your mate Bob claims they saw something, doesn't mean Bob had any real idea what was going on.
It's like the old saw about a window blind for a hospital ward costing £200, when you can buy one for £20 elsewhere. Thing is the one for £20 doesn't come with a specialised coating that eliminates bacterial or viral spread, or with a bloke that installs it according to the relevant safety regulations, or the supervisor who certifies the installation. It certainly doesn't come with a number you can call to fix the blind if there's a problem with it that includes on site service.
I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services".
If you happen to be running the UK panty wetters forum from your own server, then you have a problem, but grandma Jessie's knitting circle is explicitly not in scope.
YOUR link goes on to say
>the more onerous requirements will fall upon the largest services with the highest reach and/or those services that are particularly high risk.
Even if your forum falls in scope, you're only required to do a risk assessment, if at that stage you are likely to have a lot of underage users, then there might be an issue.
However, if you're not an adult site, you only need to comply by providing the lowest level of self certified check. Handily, most of the big forum software providers have already implemented this and offer a free service integration.
On arrest, you're required to provide your name and address, not proof. For the absolute majority of UK adults, it takes exactly 2 minutes to verify that data against public records - passport, driving licence, council tax, voter registration.
Lying in that situation is a separate criminal offence all of its own.
>satisfy some shit algorithm that misidentified you as some known threat
Matches with a confidence rating of <0.64 are automatically deleted >0.7 is considered reliable enough to present to a human operator, and before any action is taken a serving police officer must verify the match, and upon arrest verify the match against the human.
>What if your child falls victim to a false identification
The age of criminal responsibility is 10, and absent any personal identification parental identification is the standard everywhere.
>15-year-old Child Q
The good old slippery slope fallacy. Both the officers who strip searched that child were fired for gross misconduct. North of 50,000 children are arrested each year and this happened once.
>Do you really want more unnecessary interactions with the police for yourself or those you care about when your "suspicious behaviour" was having an algorithm judge that your face looked like someone else's?
Thing is 12 months on, 1035 arrests, over 700 charges, and that hasn't happened because the point of testing the scheme thoroughly was to stop that from happening.
>the copper could come up with some vague excuse for why they stopped you / want your ID.
In which case, their sergeant will tear them a new one, right after the custody sergeant has finished tearing their own hole because the careers of both of those people rely on supervising their coppers and supervising their arrests. If the custody sergeant has to release someone because the copper can't account for themselves, that is a very serious matter. The sergeant's can smell a bad arrest a mile away.
The copper has to stand up in a court of law, having sworn an oath, and testify on the reasonable suspicion or probable cause they had. If they are even suspected of lying, that's a gross misconduct in a public office investigation.
Assuming they weren't fired over that, any promotion hopes are gone, any possibility of involvement in major cases or crime squads, hope of a firearms ticket, advanced driving, or even overtime are gone. Their fellow officers will never trust them to make an arrest again.
It's not consequence free, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or that some officers rely on you not knowing your rights, but it is a serious matter.
You can't make an arrest on the basis of refusal to verify identity, unless a specific law is in play, or the Police officer has proof you are lying.
If the police have probable cause to suspect you've committed an actual crime, then you have to ID yourself, you are entitled to know what crime you are suspected of. Yes, facial recognition does count, but it has to be a high confidence match >0.7, verified by a police officer personally, after the match is made, and verified again on arrest.
If you are suspected of Anti-Social Behaviour then you have to ID (Section 50 of the Police Reform Act)
If you are arrested, then you have to provide your name and address (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2000).
If you are driving, you have to ID (Section 164 of the Road Traffic Act).
Providing false information or documents is a separate criminal offence.
Essentially, police can't just rock up, demand ID, and ask questions without a compelling reason.
Those 'niche' forums you mention are explicitly excluded from the Act.
Apple made the change to advanced security in advance of the bill being finalised, now the government has gone in another direction.
All the online safety act does is implement online the law as it stands IRL. British folk have been using the same ID verification systems to validate identity for nightclub admission, passport applications, driving licence applications, benefits claims, state pension claims, disclosure and barring checks, tax filings, mortgage deeds, security clearances, job applications, and court filings since 2016.
All the reaction is just pearl clutching - 5 million checks a day are being performed, the law itself is wildly popular with 70% support amongst adults after implementation.
There are three levels of checks - IAL1 (self-asserted, low confidence), IAL2 (remote or physical proof of identity), and IAL3 (rigorous proof with biometric and physical presence requirements).
IPA 2016 affords police access to your domain history, not content history, provided police can obtain a warrant from a senior High Court Judge. The box which stores the data is at ISP level and is easily circumvented with a VPN, or simply not using your ISP's DNS servers.
IPA 2016 doesn't exempt politicians from surveillance. It includes specific provisions for heightened safeguards when intercepting their communications. The Act establishes a "triple-lock" system for warrants targeting members of a relevant legislature, requiring approval from the Secretary of State, a Judicial Commissioner, and the Prime Minister. This heightened scrutiny is in recognition of the sensitivity involved in surveilling politicians, particularly given the surveillance of Northern Irish politicians and others in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (in force 1 October 2007), and Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides powers over encryption keys/passwords etc. Section 49, RIPA can be used to force decryption, Section 51 to supply keys or passwords. These are identical to powers the police have IRL over safes, deposit boxes etcetera, and the penalty for non-compliance is identical.
You cannot use encryption or passwords to evade legal searches with a scope determined by a court on the basis of evidence of probable cause shown to the court by the entity requesting the search. A warrant from the High Court is required for each use.
Notable cases:-
- Blue chip hacking scandal - corrupt private investigators were illegally obtaining private information on behalf of blue chip companies.
- Phone hacking scandal - corrupt private investigators were illegally hacking voice mail on behalf of newspapers.
- Founder of an ISP using his position to illegally intercept communications and use them for blackmail.
Overdosing is not a crime, it's not even the job of the Police to help, and possession of drugs is being ignored by most forces because an arrest takes two officers off frontline services for 4 hours, when it will most likely result in a caution.
All positives are verified by humans first before action is taken, all the system does is flag positives to an operator. Once verified, then the action movie starts.
Match quality below 0.64 is automatically discarded >0.7 is considered reliable enough for an enquiry to be made.
So far ~1,035 arrests since last year resulting in 773 charges or cautions, which is pretty good when you consider that a 'trained' police officer's odds of correctly picking a stop and search candidate are 1 in 9.
In the UK you don't have to provide ID when asked, appropriate checks are made on arrest, and if you lied you get re-arrested for fraud.
The system has proved adept at monitoring sex offenders breaching their licence conditions - one man was caught with a 6-year-old when he was banned from being anywhere near children.
Before anyone waxes lyrical about the surveillance state and the number of CCTV cameras, me and the guy who stabbed me were caught on 40 cameras, and not a single one could ID either of us.
>Gatekeeping
It's a one button dialog, hardly the end of the world, and for users like my 80-year-old mother (An Apple user since the Apple II) who rarely needs to stray outside the App store it improves her security. It's not for you, it's for users like her.
They're tightening security because security needs to be tighter. My bugbear is the implementation of privacy and security permissions because I have to walk people through it continually, it makes no sense, but it's hardly a big deal.
>Liquid glass
It makes a lot more visual sense after my upgrade to a 17 Pro from a 13 Pro, but it also ran faster on the 13 pro than the previous edition. I'm not a fan, but I haven't always been a fan of Apple interfaces since the 1980s, I wasn't into the skeuomorphic era, and people love to have a moan.
It took 5 minutes to turn the all the features off on both mac and phone, the only bugbear is the 3D border, and the contacts background (solved by turning on high contrast mode).
It was a big release, they know where the bugs are, and have already said the next release is about bugfixing and streamlining.
>But not everyone has a credit card.
68% of UK adults have one, and there is an option to scan and upload an ID. IRL law is catching up to the internet at last, and as the father of a daughter who got her first dick pic at 12 this is a good thing. It's not for you, it's for her.
You're not always the primary user these features target so you may not see the logic behind them.