this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
276 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
84256 readers
3608 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This makes perfect sense since we have a government that does not spy on its people or political opponents, or change laws that can let you verify that they are actually spying on you.
FYI, we have a pretty much mandatory government application that recently applied the google verification api and does not work if it has not been installed from the playstore. The application is of course closed source, has google analytics and can now only be obtained with a google account that basically requires a phone number that cannot be anonymous.
You cannot enter a football match for example without this application. You could use a second phone and take a photo of the QR (screenshots do not work).
In one breath you are saying you trust your government because it doesn't spy on you but at the same time your government is trusting Google (a corp) and that companies black box technology to not leak any of your information.
No offense but, doubt. There is no way this system can't be taken advantage of. How is the government protecting that data? Who is responsible as steward of that data? Who do you sue when that data is compromised in a data breach?
Sometimes it's not about the government using that data against you (although that's still in the realm of possibilities). Sometimes it's about bad actors using it against you.
It was sarcastic. It has been proven in court that they spy and they have for a fact, changed the law a few years back. I would not, at any chance trust this corrupt government.
Thank you for giving further information.
I think the first part was sarcastic
There's a reason we started using a "/s" to denote sarcasm in written speech on the internet.