Discussion

Fedware: 13 Government Apps That Spy Harder Than the Apps They Ban

drnick1: You could not pay me to use any of these apps. All of my own devices run some form of Linux (Debian for servers, Arch for desktop/laptop, GrapheneOS on phone). I generally refuse to use non-free software, the main exception being Steam on a dedicated gaming rig.I really don't understand why everything has to be an "app." My phone only has a handful of apps, including two web browsers, through which other things are accessed. No app gets access to location, sensors, the camera, or the microphone.

joshstrange: Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations? I find this site incredibly difficult to read with things re-playing as you scroll up and down and the articles I've read from here are often light on details. The graphics seem very AI-generated (overlapping text and other little issues) which makes me think the whole thing is from an LLM.While this post does have some interesting information, I have to wade through distracting animations that seem "off" which makes me questions all of it.

beejiu: I didn't even realise it was an article. I thought the grid thing at the top was just an index page linking out to other pages.

saadn92: The closing point is the one that should get more attention — every single one of these apps could be replaced by a web page. And from a product standpoint, there's really only one reason to ship a native app when your content is just press releases and weather alerts: you want access to APIs the browser won't give you. Background location, biometrics, device identity, boot triggers — none of that is available through a browser, and that's by, unfortunately, design.

alephnerd: > Background location, biometrics, device identity, boot triggers — none of that is available through a browserMost browsers do in fact offer that level of granularity, especially for PWA usecases [0].[0] - https://pwascore.com/

EA-3167: Speaking for myself unless I know the site and like how they do things, my default these days is a reader view.It helps a lot!In this case it helped me lose interest in the article within about 20 seconds.

graemep: Apps cannot gather data, and there are lots of things that requires apps now.

shevy-java: There is currently an attempt going on by several governments to crack down harder against the people. While before it was "only", say, California and their age-sniffing laws infiltrating and tainting Linux - thus declaring war against the people, as revealed by Meta acting as primary lobbyist here - today I read that now that age-sniffing was also approved in some european countries (in one EU country the parents are required to install a sniffing app and thus verify the age of the kids; I think it was in Greece. I'd never help any government act as fascist sniffing proxy trying to control and monitor by kids, that is an act of betrayal of such a government), their next line of attack is against VPN. Suddenly the picture shifts, because if VPNs are targeted, how does finding an excuse such as "but but but think about the kids", make any sense? That is very clearly governments becoming increasingly fascist. Add a few lobbyists here and there who benefit financially from this and now we suddenly understand how democracies are undermined. See also:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...Democracy needs to be adjusted - right now private interests can too easily sabotage and undermine it.

graemep: Exactly what big businesses do, and governments think what businesses do is good practice. Fore everyone to use an app.The UK's Companies House (required for anyone who is a director or has a shareholding of more than 15% etc.) requires a Onegov ID now. They offer a web version with a scan of a photo ID (passport or driving license). I tried it. I thought one of those would work. Apparently the web version needs to ask security questions (reasonable, as the app used NFC to read your passport) but despite the vast amount of information the government has on me (to issue those IDs, to collect taxes, etc) it cannot do that, so i had to either use the app or go in person to a post office in a different town.Similarly I got an email from Occado saying that if I used the app I could change orders without checking out again. If I do it on the website i have to checkout again. Why?

tolerance: > Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations?I don't think so. It's more likely that they're upvoted as a signal-boost; convene here to talk about bad government tech.Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general. I've found this to be the case when the content is AI-generated.

drnick1: Apps obviously gather data. In fact, on common phone operating systems, they tend to have access to an insane amount of information, including what other apps are used, hardware identifiers, information related to Google/Apple accounts and more.As for things "requiring" apps, I am happy to do without those. If I cannot access something through a website on a device under my control, I will not use it. No convenience is worth more than my freedom and privacy.

nickburns: [delayed]

JumpCrisscross: > there's really only one reason to ship a native app when your content is just press releases and weather alertsThe flip side is there are real people downloading these apps. Maybe it’s a kid interested in a career in the FBI, or the family of someone who works there. Idk. But I am willing to entertain that there is a legitimate reason for an app to exist without conceding that it should be a pile of trash.

maest: FYI, regardless of election outcome, the next government is highly unlikely to roll this back

zdragnar: > And from a product standpoint, there's really only one reason to ship a native appI have worked on several applications where the product managers wanted to make our web app something that could be installed through the app store, because that's how users expect to get apps.I know people who don't even type search queries or URLs into a browser, they just tell the phone what they want to find and open whatever shows up in a search result.I've tried pushing back against the native app argument and won once because customers actually reported liking that we had a website instead of an app, and other times because deploying an app through the stores was more work than anyone had time to take on. Otherwise, we would've been deploying through app stores for sure.Marketing gets plenty of data from google analytics or whatever platform they're using anyway, so neither they nor product managers actually care about the data from native APIs.

CobrastanJorji: Most of this is bad, but I think it's reasonable for the FEMA app, whose purpose is to help you get to the nearest shelters, to have access to your location.

This thing also has a "Text the President" button that auto-fills your message with "Greatest President Ever!" and then collects your name and phone number.

john_strinlai: >This thing also has a "Text the President" button that auto-fills your message with "Greatest President Ever!" and then collects your name and phone number.when is the onion going to go bankrupt? it has to be soon, i imagine. no way it can compete with reality at this point.(the rest of the article is a bit too depressing for me to comment on at the moment, other than saying "wow, gross")

malfist: It's ming boggling just how....cringe... these billionaires that want to run the world are. Makes you wonder if the personas that seek billions are correlated strongly with mental illnesses.

sumtechguy: I do not think it is the money that made them terrible. I know all sorts of terrible people that would do the exact same things. The only difference really is they do not have the money to execute on those ideas.Money does not make you a good or bad person. It just makes you more of who you are already.

bigyabai: They are perfectly aware of their own optics and do it because you can't escape it. See Elon with his cringeworthy Twitter takeover that still hasn't collapsed, Larry Ellison buying up the media or Tim Cook gifting the gold trophy to Trump.Nobody has the guts to boycott them anymore. Billionaires know that you depend on them for news, social media and smartphones too.

fhdkweig: To get moderately rich doesn't require a special personality type, but obscene wealth requires breaking laws and asking forgiveness later (throwing lawyers at the problem). Not caring who you hurt while reaching for a goal is a trait of sociopathy.

nancyminusone: Of course the money doesn't make them terrible. Being terrible makes them money. Lots of money. There aren't really other ways of obtaining so much money, which is why if you see someone that has that amount, they should be viewed with suspicion.

malfist: I specifically did not say money makes them mentally ill, but rather the type of person that seeks to hoard so much wealth that they have billions is correlated with mental illness.

JumpCrisscross: > the type of person that seeks to hoard so much wealth that they have billions is correlated with mental illnessDo we have any actual evidence of this? I know plenty of exorbitantly wealthy people who aren’t hoarding anything, they just didn’t sell their piece of the closely-held business they started, and they spend their time skiing, reading, travelling and taking care of their friends and family.

john_strinlai: >Do we have any actual evidence of this? to be fair, the original comment by malfist started with "makes you wonder", so i dont think they are asserting this as fact.>I know plenty of exorbitantly wealthy people who aren’t hoarding anything,some people would see this sentence as contradictory, and they would suggest that the thing those exorbitantly wealthy people are hoarding is money. (i am not commenting my opinion either way, just noting it)

JumpCrisscross: > they would suggest that the thing those exorbitantly wealthy people are hoarding is moneyAnd I’d say they’re literally wrong. They may be hoarding capital. And yes, some wealthy people do hoard money per se. But outside the Epstein class there are lots of people we just don’t hear about because they aren’t on social media talking about how rich they are. Because while it’s fun to postulate that the rich have mental illnesses, it’s documented that social-media addiction causes them.

john_strinlai: >They may be hoarding capital.while this distinction may be important to you, i dont think it really changes anything about malfists question/point.>Because while it’s fun to postulate that the rich have mental illnesses, it’s documented that social-media addiction causes them.and cigarettes cause cancer. not sure what this has to do with the conversation, but yeah, social media is bad (smoking, too).(please note: i am not arguing for or against what you or malfist have said, just thought there was a little something lost in translation re: you asking for evidence after a conversation that started with "makes you wonder")

JumpCrisscross: > i dont think it really changes anything about what malfist question/pointOf course it does. Turning capital into spendable or transferable wealth takes work. Plenty of rich people are just enjoying their lives in the same way retirees do.> not sure what this has to do with the conversation, but yeah, social media is badI’m saying the folks we tend to get upset about being rich at are also the rich who are prominently on social media. The problem isn’t that they’re rich. It’s that they’re on social media so much. I think there is a genuine argument to be made that even Elon Musk would have been a better-liked person, maybe even a better person, if he never got on Twitter.> thought there was a little something lost in translation re: "makes you wonder"Perhaps. And appreciate your clarifying for them. In 2026 I’m just sceptical of the “just asking questions” bit, particularly when it comes to cultural tropes.

psadauskas: Right? If I had enough money that I could make a serious dent in local or even global poverty without noticing the change in my lifestyle, and I just... chose not to, I have no idea how I could sleep at night.

surgical_fire: If you had that amount of money you would also be a sociopath. It's a precondition.Good news is that you would sleep fine at night. No matter how destructive your existence was, and how much of a net negative you were to the world, you would still think very highly of yourself.

th0raway: It comes down to two things. One is the well documented issue of how, when you are that rich, you are treated differently, and how that will ultimately modify your behavior. The other is the prerequisites to get to the job. Chances are you aren't fully self-made, receiving no investment. From convincing investors, to having immense faith in a project that cannot be obviously good, as otherwise you'd be building what already exists, to the personality to handle the road upward.This second effect happens in all kinds of places where you have to jumps througha lot of hoops to just get to get there. Every hoop discards candidates, and promotes different things. Sometimes in ways that make sure that nobody capable of attaining the job is fit to actually do it well. You can see the issue all over the place, once you track people's careers. Sometimes things that should be disqualifying for a role are actually requirements in practice.

fhdkweig: You aren't the first one to notice the correlation. It is a heavily studied subject.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wealth+and+sociopathy