We clearly need a market solution. Competitive passports from private vendors fix will this problem.
The good companies will correctly recognise that paying for a passport is difficult, so they’ll respect us by providing passport-as-a-service instead. Small monthly payments are easier for the average Aussie to approach and many are so used to them that upfront payment might seem like a scam anyway.
To protect your privacy and security your passport may include third party pages from trusted organisations.
The government should provide a website to compare all of the passport providers, to make sure that Australians are finding the best deal that suits their particular needs. And don’t forget that every Australian does have different travel needs, shorter length passports would increase affordability to help the average joe. Of course if limits are breached it will inconvenience the vendor, so reasonable provisions will need to be made to assist them if this occurs.
The doublespeak of EULAs and business PR statements terrifies me, it’s like a legal language but it’s intentionally designed to misinform the average Joe. I’m a bit sad that I didn’t get to use all of these examples here.
When a company says they “respect” their users then it means “we really want to retain them but we’re scared they might realise we’re evil, so lets play the opposite character”. I think Optus recently said that giving free data would be more respectful than other options – it also turns out to be basically free for them to do so (their mobile broadband service will be a bit lower quality due to the higher load and maybe they’ll have to pay a little bit more for transit, but I doubt it’s much).
“We may share your data with third parties” means “we will share your data with third parties (constantly, because selling your information is our main business model)”. It’s dishonest but they love using it because at a casual glance the “may” makes this sentence seem unimportant. Just like how a computer repair guy “may see” your data whilst doing their job, but they are a professional and won’t mention or share anything.
“User security” is often stated as the motivation for some unpopular move, but what they really mean is “our financial security”. Just mentally substitute those words in every time a big company talks about security. It’s never about the users.
And finally: “meet the specific needs of our individual customers” means “trick the customer into thinking they don’t need something, so later we can rort them for it (or not have to provide it) when they realise they do need it”. Insurance companies that let you play roulette with “only pay for the services you need”. Man I better plan ahead for that bung leg in 2025.
The government should provide a website to compare all of the passport providers
Especially this bit. Like, somehow, a comparison website is meant to make all the difference for shitty government decisions to sell off public services & utilities in the first place.
We clearly need a market solution. Competitive passports from private vendors fix will this problem.
The good companies will correctly recognise that paying for a passport is difficult, so they’ll respect us by providing passport-as-a-service instead. Small monthly payments are easier for the average Aussie to approach and many are so used to them that upfront payment might seem like a scam anyway.
To protect your privacy and security your passport may include third party pages from trusted organisations.
The government should provide a website to compare all of the passport providers, to make sure that Australians are finding the best deal that suits their particular needs. And don’t forget that every Australian does have different travel needs, shorter length passports would increase affordability to help the average joe. Of course if limits are breached it will inconvenience the vendor, so reasonable provisions will need to be made to assist them if this occurs.
I appreciate your efforts in creating this satire.
I hate how plausible your roadmap to hell is.
Thanks Mountaineer.
The doublespeak of EULAs and business PR statements terrifies me, it’s like a legal language but it’s intentionally designed to misinform the average Joe. I’m a bit sad that I didn’t get to use all of these examples here.
When a company says they “respect” their users then it means “we really want to retain them but we’re scared they might realise we’re evil, so lets play the opposite character”. I think Optus recently said that giving free data would be more respectful than other options – it also turns out to be basically free for them to do so (their mobile broadband service will be a bit lower quality due to the higher load and maybe they’ll have to pay a little bit more for transit, but I doubt it’s much).
“We may share your data with third parties” means “we will share your data with third parties (constantly, because selling your information is our main business model)”. It’s dishonest but they love using it because at a casual glance the “may” makes this sentence seem unimportant. Just like how a computer repair guy “may see” your data whilst doing their job, but they are a professional and won’t mention or share anything.
“User security” is often stated as the motivation for some unpopular move, but what they really mean is “our financial security”. Just mentally substitute those words in every time a big company talks about security. It’s never about the users.
And finally: “meet the specific needs of our individual customers” means “trick the customer into thinking they don’t need something, so later we can rort them for it (or not have to provide it) when they realise they do need it”. Insurance companies that let you play roulette with “only pay for the services you need”. Man I better plan ahead for that bung leg in 2025.
Especially this bit. Like, somehow, a comparison website is meant to make all the difference for shitty government decisions to sell off public services & utilities in the first place.