“It is a question of having access to all the services of the State without having a computer, smartphone or tablet.”
As the world becomes steadily digitised, it is getting harder and harder to do even the simplest of tasks offline, while surveillance, control and censorship of the online world is growing. Access to essential services is increasingly restricted to a specific platform or app that is often linked to Big Tech platforms and services.
At the same time, many of those same apps and tech platforms are undergoing a process of rapid “enshittification” (or as we call it round these parts, crapification) — so much so that Macquarie Dictionary has crowned the Cory Doctorow-coined term as its word of the year. Here’s how the Australian dictionary defines enshittification:
“The gradual deterioration of a service or product brought about by a reduction in the quality of service provided, especially of an online platform, and as a consequence of profit-seeking.”
App-Controlled Lockers and Car Park Meters
Just yesterday, my wife and I tried to rent a luggage locker at a Mexico City bus station for a couple of hours to avoid having to lug our luggage around with us before catching our connecting journey, only to find that doing so required downloading an app and sharing our personal data and bank details with the app company — all to pay one dollar fifty in storage fees. Needless to say, we declined.
In Germany, the logistics giant DHL has introduced new, “lean” parcel lockers where customers can only collect parcels if they use the company’s “Post & DHL App” on their smartphones. As the European Digital Rights network (EDRi) reports, anyone who is unable to receive a parcel at home may be redirected to one of these lockers: “in this case, the only way to receive parcels without the app is to request a second delivery to the original address – an option that is time-limited and well-hidden on DHL’s website.”
Another example I’ve noticed during my recent visits to the UK is parking. For decades motorists using a car park in my home town had fed coins into a meter and got a ticket. Then, about ten years ago, a new meter was introduced offering a card alternative to cash, which seemed like a good idea at the time. Some years later a parking app was included. Yet more choice! Then a new meter was unveiled – payment by card or app only. Within a year, the meter had disappeared altogether. In its place stood a sign instructing customers to pay by app only.
The assumption was clear: every driver wishing to park their car has a smart phone and knows how to download and operate apps, and is quite happy to share their personal data and bank account information with an obscure, probably foreign-based app company.
To cap things off, the mobile coverage was poor and the price of parking had gone up to include an extra fee for the app company. Worse still, in many parts of the UK enterprising fraudsters have begun placing QR code stickers on top of the parking apps’ QR codes, directing unsuspecting carpark users to fake websites designed to extract their bank card or account details. Victims of these scams end up losing far more than the price of a couple of hours’ parking. The ultimate insult: many get fined for not buying a parking ticket.
So, what had begun as a process of broadening customer choice had ended up narrowing it to the point at which the only way for customers to pay for their parking was with a smart phone. And instead of costs going down, they were going up, so that the app company – a new 21st century middleman – could turn a tidy profit. Rather than being quicker and more convenient, this new system is making life more difficult for many customers, and is even making some easy prey for fraudsters. As the Sheffield Star reports, customers are not happy:
Anne Middleton, of High Green, said: “I’m not to keen on that idea actually. I quite like to put my cash in. I’m not good with the apps, I always get it wrong.”
She said she had used apps and had one or two on her phone. But she added: “Generally they go wrong, so we end up not bothering or we find one that takes cash.”
Briony Salter, from Wincobank, agreed parking companies only allowing apps was unacceptable. She said: “I wish they would do parking meters – it’s easier if people have got change.
“Not everyone has a smart phone so I think it’s a very new generation thing. There are a lot of older people who may not be very handy with a phone. Maybe just going back to old payment systems is a lot easier than it is currently.”
Sara and Ian Hobson, from Woodhouse, both felt app-only was unacceptable.
Ian said: “Most people don’t know how to do it with an app. You have to download the app, then you have to pay. It’s easier just to get some coins out and put them in.”
“Digital Coercion”
Unfortunately, governments, banks and businesses in many countries are doing everything they can to drive out the use of cash for basic services like public transport and parking, and replace them with purely digital payment means. They are also making it increasingly difficult to interact with government and receive state benefits without using smart phone apps. Ukraine’s “Diia” digital ID and governance platform, launched in February 2020, offers a perfect template, according to USAID, the European Union and the United Nations Development Program.
“Digital coercion” — a term I learnt from the German financial journalist and digital rights activist, Norbert Häring — is on the rise just about everywhere. As Häring reported in September, this should hardly come as a surprise given that one of the main organisations pushing for the rapid rollout of digital public infrastructure (digital ID, digital health passes, instant payment systems, central bank digital currency…) is the corporate-controlled, WEF-partnered United Nations.
In September, a Global Digital Pact was quietly adopted at the UN Future Summit. According to Häring, neither the UN nor the German government, which was significantly involved in the preparation of the summit, “made serious efforts to inform the public about what is planned, or even to have it discussed in parliaments and the media”:
It has also not been disclosed which corporations, foundations and hand-picked representatives of so-called civil society are allowed to sit at the negotiating table.
In the text of the treaty, we learn by way of introduction that digital technologies “offer immense potential benefits for human welfare and the progress of societies” and that we must therefore eliminate any digital divide between countries and within countries. The declared goal is “a digital future for everyone”.
What is important is what is not in the contract. The word voluntary occurs only in connection with the signing of the contract. For the citizens, however, there is no right to choose a future for themselves other than a completely digitised one. After all, that would open up a digital divide that must no longer exist. There is no provision for a right to settle many of one’s affairs in the traditional way in dealing with other people instead of computers. No one should be allowed to choose that their children are taught by teachers instead of computers, or that conversations with the doctor and treatments remain a secret instead of being packed into the servers of the IT companies. Nothing in the treaty indicates that such a right was even considered.
But digital coercion may soon be less of a problem for the residents of the Swiss canton of Neuchâtel. A few days ago, an overwhelming majority of citizens (91%) voted by referendum to adopt a constitutional amendment that guarantees its citizens a right to “digital integrity”. As Häring notes, the new constitutional law offers sweeping digital protections (machine translated):
This includes the right to protection against abusive data processing, to security in the digital realm, to an offline life so that the state cannot impose digital relationships, and to be forgotten online. The right to live offline is intended to ensure that people are not forced to operate exclusively in the digital world. The canton also undertakes to offer access to human contacts in the administration. Well worth imitating.
The cantonal government now faces the challenge of protecting these new rights. As RTS reported last week, the central government sees the right to digital integrity as primarily symbolic since the scope of its application is limited to relations between the State and citizens. This would seem to suggest that the cantonal government cannot force private companies to comply with the rules.
“The risk of such a symbolic provision, of very limited scope, is to create disproportionate expectations among the public that ultimately may not be met,” said Crystel Graf, the State Councillor in charge of digital affairs.
That said, it is usually local or central government departments or state-owned companies that are pushing digital-only options for public services. As such, making sure that government services can be accessed through non-digital means is a step in the right direction.
Neuchâtel is not the first canton to take this step, nor is it likely to be the last, with similar projects under consideration in the cantons of Vaud and Jura. Last year, the people of Geneva voted overwhelmingly (94%) to enshrine digital integrity within the canton’s constitution. According to the RTS article, a year later, the results are not yet visible to the general public, but they are taking shape behind the scenes (machine translated):
For example, all cantonal laws have been scrutinised with one objective: to ensure that they respect digital integrity.
…It is a question of having access to all the services of the State without having a computer, smartphone or tablet or, conversely, of ensuring the security of our data if we wish to go digital.
According to the spokesperson for the Geneva Department of Digital Affairs, it is difficult to draw a quantitative assessment following this vote. He specifies that this new article of law has the merit of creating a new fundamental right to be respected in any new action or decision of the State.
It will be interesting to see if this trend travels beyond Swiss borders. Earlier this year, Digitalcourage, a German privacy rights and digital rights organisation, launched a petition calling for a new fundamental law: the right to access basic services without being forced to use a digital solution. As governments in both the West and the Rest of the World, including all five of the founding BRICS nations, herd their populaces toward a Big Tech-controlled Digital Gulag, a bill of digital rights is needed more than ever before.
Enshittification: ‘Cory Doctorow-coined term’? I remember, some time ago, Lambert using the word ‘crapification’ to describe many present day realities. It all comes down to the same dismal decay we’re experiencing in real time, something like the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
I hate to be a stickler, but crapification is my coinage, not Lambert’s.
When I need to say crapification or enshittification in polite (or corporate) company I use ‘degradation.’
Yves, if I never thanked you for it before, let me thank you in writing now. Crapification has become one of my favorite words!
Thanks, Conor, for another excellent piece.
I’m 57 and have never owned a “shmartphone” – hell, I only keep the 20+yo Nokia in my desk – a hand-me-down from a friend’s daughter given to me ages ago – because I need it for 2-step verification for Paypal.
That said, I’m not “against” any kinds of phones, but I am vehemently against being forced to use smartphones for anything. Here in Berlin (Germany) I’ve managed to live over 28 yrs without a smartphone, and cash is still king, but it does feel as if the digital-dystopian walls are closing in. I’m carless, too, so need for parking (or: parking apps) but like so many other things here, the quality of public transport is declining.
Maybe one day, Yves, we’ll be neighbors!
@sporble: Nick Corbishley wrote this piece.
The same trend exists here. Some popular downtown businesses said they would charge for their parking and pay by QR. The city put in an unmanned boat rental kiosk at a downtown lake–pay by QR. The state park outside of town has parking lots asking you to pay a fee via QR. I doubt that many people do so (or that the park rangers in that instance care).
Indeed it seems likely that in all the above examples the dogs won’t eat the dog food and service fees ending up being ignored. Next up: robot meter maids?
I’m having trouble finding the results so as to share but Statistics Canada has a survey called Canadian Internet Use Survey which, I think, showed that 20% of the population did not use smartphones (and if I recall, that increases to 70% in the elderly). There are also homeless people of all ages, of course, who cannot use smart phones. And if the number of homeless is increasing everywhere, then so will the number of people not using smartphones. If you offer services which can only be accessed by phone or computer then you’re actively discriminating against those who cannot, and this would go against the Canadian Human Rights Act so the government must always offer services in non-digital format.
Mind, I’ve been seeing more and more homeless with both smart phones and laptops lately, I think even this demographic may be digitizing.
I have a smartphone. Doesn’t mean I want to use it for every blinking thing in life, nor to download an app and ‘go online for information’ for every parking lot and restaurant and agency which thinks I should. I should not be coerced into doing so.
And don’t get me started on stores which offer discounts for people wandering around with smartphones in the store, while normal shoppers, including the underprivileged, pay top dollar for the same items.
With respect to this:
...the Canadian Human Rights Act so the government must always offer services in non-digital format.
Which specific section addresses that assertion? Thank you. For your convenience please find attached an URL which contains a table of contents to that enactment: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/
Further, the principle of equality and freedom from discrimination is applied to all even regardless of the list of protected grounds, there can be other characteristics than the prohibited grounds. Section 15 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms:
(Bold mine)
In Jodhan vs Canada, the Government argued that because it provided in-person services, it did not need to make its online/digital services accessible to blind people. The Supreme Court ruled that online services are not just a convenience but an important aspect of participation in society, therefore being unable to access the Government’s online services was exclusionary and amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability. The government lost this case twice, but more importantly the SCC observed that the government has an obligation to serve all citizens. Notably, they also observed that forcing someone to use the an inconvenient option in lieu of equal participation, was degrading. This is for a digital service, it’s not hard to see it cutting the other way.
Indeed, in a similar case, VIA Rail vs Canadian Human Rights Commission, VIA Rail argued that providing taxi or bus fare in lieu of wheelchair accessible passenger cars was an accommodation, they also lost, along the same lines and the reasons given were the same as in Jodhan, if I recall the SCC cited the precedent.
Admittedly, in both cases the prohibited ground was disability. I’ll concede that the HRC or Charter don’t explicitly say “must provide digital services to all regardless of ability” (unless it’s to a person with a disability, in which case yes, it does), instead it’s implied.
If I were a lawyer, which I am not, I would argue these two precedents combined with principle of equality and Section 5 above allow the possibility of a new class of created disability. Where society is increasingly and fundamentally digital, and where due to some characteristic which is beyond my control I am unable to participate in society (e.g. I’m elderly, computer illiterate for whatever reason, homeless and unable to afford digital devices) then providing digital-only services actively prevents my participation, and if those services are essential, even more so.
Much appreciate the details. Thank you very much.
In 2015, David posed a 1982 Constitutional, aka Charter, question to the Canadian federal court and I supplied two case laws which dealt explicitly with the matters at hand.
At the federal court of appeal the bought and paid for justice took the two case reports out of context and fined David $25,000.00 for having the veracity to contest the fed’s violations of the supposed supreme law of Canada.
As I have been saying for decades:
A place which feels compelled to legislate justice and liberty is an unlikely place in which to find justice and liberty.
I was reading on NC here several months ago about these people trying to park their car. But then came the demands for mobiles and the installing of apps which refused to work and I think that they spent nearly an hour trying to just pay for parking. But it should be noted that doing banking on your mobiles is an inherently risky proposition, even if many people do it. None of the staff at my bank do so. If you had to use your mobile for payments, I would recommend having a dedicated bank account for such payments which you can top up from time to time with your real bank accounts at home. That way you can only ever lose the money in that one account. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest using a cheap mobile that is used only for such banking with none of your personal info, contacts, images, etc. on it and has nothing to do with your real mobile. Yeah, my motto is-
‘Paranoia. More than a way of life.’
Rev i agree and as a red line i never use a phone for more than calls, texts, map and pictures – would never scan a QR code and when i have no choice to use a card online i have a card i bought and filled – even with all of this i caught a $10 charge reviewing my card billing, a personal one used for gas and food, and i called Chase and was told that was a common method used to see if a small one could get through before they tried something bigger – as a rule i request a new card every 18-24 months to change numbers – paranoia is more than a way of life and cash is king – comes from 20-some years on the other side of that law-line – back in the day it was pagers and payphones with a bag of quarters always handy –
I’m surprised that cybercriminals haven’t caught onto this one yet. All it takes is a few fake QR stickers to place on top of the real ones on the parking meters. It’s like ATM skimming but for cars.
Eh, not enough profit relative to the risk and effort.
Mind, I received a parking ticket that I was pretty sure was a scam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWTttz3GQZ0&ab_channel=ABC7/
New scam: Fake QR codes on parking meters
One of many news stories….
Already happened here in Honolulu; city-reminds-residents-to-use-official-city-parking-payment-app-to-avoid-scams
Meanwhile they had the meters on a 3G cell connection and when the carriers turned off 3G we got four months of free parking before they could contract/install 4G meters.
Thanks for this. Hopefully the trend will travel outside Swiss borders and I will definitely be trying to make it so.
My kid has athletic meets that are held at a state college. The first couple years we went as spectators, the parking was free. Then not only did they start charging, but they started using this app system. The word I got was that people were outraged – I know I was not amused, especially since I’ve never owned a cell phone. Tickets for violations were close to $100.00.
I’m not 100% sure how the system works, but I heard that your vehicle’s plate is scanned on the way in and the system is able to tell if a certain vehicle paid or not. So people who drove in, dropped their kid off out front, and then left to come pick them up later were being ticketed even though they hadn’t actually parked. I’m not sure if these glaring bugs (more likely features) have been improved on yet, but we’ll find out soon when the new season starts in a week or so.
What I do know is there is a circle in hell waiting for the pissant digital chiselers who thought up this scheme/scam. I don’t know if ring four is sufficient – personally I’d throw them in the eighth. https://scholarlyo.com/the-nine-circles-of-hell-explanation/
So you carry a can of spray paint and instead of phone lensing the QR squiggle you spray over it and then take a picture with the day’s newspaper to prove that you couldn’t pay and problem solved.
Except they probably have cameras and facial recognition deployed for just such a possibility.
You do wonder if those popular downtown businesses are so popular they don’t mind pissing off their customers. At the time they said those objecting could use the city parking garage a couple of blocks away–now also run by robots. By doing so the city was able to fire a few parking attendants since charging nitpicking fees while eliminating the jobs to pay for them is clearly the trend.
Well, to stymie the plate readers, say like those at EZ Pass,
https://www.amazon.com/iodue-License-Invisible-Transparent-Long-Lasting/dp/B0DMNJNFZG/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?adgrpid=56399023579&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.zTxvSiGn6ry7dxfoUzBgsWB_qzCosyR44qEJTYnhVywsaR_6SXhzSNC8P2X9WtImGKtcgLRQhykfAXLGDHmKSH5AfZQAq8dbsRSLqZmDkBchguM3dYMLqyxtqOyHVKExRQP6BDOZ5rBU8lKvu4E7do_9Um2vWO9VwvsAed0xfLbFqf1VLu8J6cLbxgw3hkzjz_TUQQ3FquwmouQirUCe7Q.wvtZZmChK-dMYtcuXfSX0HeLMsuRYN-N7_fOiJngocc&dib_tag=se&hvadid=617002359249&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=9213575&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=7300187340005327833&hvtargid=kwd-300067295479&hydadcr=12157_13376093&keywords=license+plate+blocker+spray&qid=1732897056&sr=8-5
Does that ‘invisible’ spray coating actually perform?
My city uses plate readers to let drivers into the harbor parking area, but still needs an attendant to discern between those with annual passes and those needing payment assist when departing.
“Digital chiselers” has entered the lexicon and not a moment too soon.
I avoided paying on private toll highway 407 near Toronto that used licence plate scanners by having two bicycles on the back of my car. They blocked the scanner and I never had to pay.
So far nearly all UK street parking is run by Ringo on behalf of the local council, which, as the name would suggests, enables you to transact by telephone. I refuse to download apps.
However the train station parking is run by APCOA, a car park management company, and they only offer physical payment (usually out of order) or their app. I have had to download it or miss my train. The one good thing is I can pay for parking on the train, if I have to run for it or if my return train is delayed.
On a trip last weekend to the UK I found that if I wanted to avoid downloading an app to park in one town, I had to pay precisely in change. I still have several sticks of chewing gum in my pocket from buying them to get the pocket full of sterling change I needed not to get a ticket.
In NYC, you used to be able to get change from a panhandler (with an appropriate service charge, of course).
In the ‘old days’ you used to use security questions and answers to protect your online account. Now they force you to verify your account with a code texted to your phone.
I recently got locked out of an important account when my phone got destroyed. No phone – no access to my account. There’s an option to get the code via voice, but if you don’t have your phone, it goes to voicemail and the automated system is not intelligent enough to wait for the beep.
One of my suspicions with the push to do everything by phone is that phone numbers are unique and serve as a digital ID.
My local small town cop told me a story of someone who had their phone stolen. The thief managed to convince the phone service provider that it was his phone that was stollen (using information he got from the phone?) and had all messages forwarded to his own phone. This included authorization codes. Because the victim used only MFA and not passwords, he was able to get access to everything, and stole all the money she had.
I’m 80 and overwhelmed by all of this. The digital devices get continually more complex. My Windows 7 served me well, but the Windows 11 I had to get when my desktop expired is way too much for me. I have a 5G phone and a 12-year-old cell phone that I prefer. Why do they insist on putting news and “entertainment” in digital phones and PCs. I saw that Ford Motor wants to give you digital messages including advertisements in your car while you drive. I will keep my land line as long as they let me. So convenient. It is always on, just pick up the receiver and dial, no pauses, make the call and simply hang up. I avoid businesses like restaurants that insist on QR menus or where an ap is needed to park.
Overwhelming people is the goal. Overloaded senses and brain can not function properly, and can be manipulated easily. We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false (said some CIA guy a whle ago).
Another aspect of this involves credit cards. The Charlotte, NC, airport has removed the cash pay lane to exit parking. So if you don’t have a credit card, and many low income people do not, you can’t really use the airport, or not without a lot of trouble.