Blurts

LastPass offers a service that I use and pay for. Recently, LastPass came under great criticism for changing its policy on free accounts. Some of this criticism is fair and some seem unfair. Here is the situation as I see it.

LastPass had a free service allowing users of phones, tablets, and computers to store complex passwords to protect their personal information. At some point, LastPass decided to monetize its service and backed away from its original free service. Rather than eliminating its free tier or perhaps limiting the number of passwords users could store for free, it made the free option available for only one type of device. So when a user might be able to access say 50 different sites from any type of device, now for example that user could access these sites from their phone. They would have to manually enter the passwords from their tablets and computers. This may sound reasonable until you consider the complex passwords that LastPass encourages are many characters long making them impossible to remember and even difficult to enter without error. In other words, the free option based on many complex passwords made it impractical for anyone using multiple types of devices. I assume LastPass recognized this disincentive and it makes the claim of a free option pretty much a joke for most users. Limiting the number of passwords across devices would have been a more reasonable way to encourage users to invest in a paid tier.

LastPass deserves criticism for this tactic, but I think other claims are unfair. It has been suggested that the service has made it difficult for existing users to export their accounts so they can import their data into another service. If true, this would also be a dirty strategy. Users would be forced to make the effort to transfer all components needed to launch a protected account (e.g., URL, name, password, service name) one site at a time. I tried exporting my data and the process was completed within seconds. Others agree that exporting from free and paid accounts has not been made more difficult.

I came across this post LLana Redstone titled the Fallacy of Equal Knowledge. The author, an academic who teaches sociology courses, suggests that many programs assume that by addressing issues with more accurate factual information undesirable behaviors should change. Sometimes, she argues these programs are doomed to failure. She notes that sometimes even an approach with strong information can generate more resistance rather than acceptance.

I guess I have come to the same conclusion, but find this very pessimistic and disheartening. The author suggests that differences in knowledge can contribute to some positions, but so can differences in values. I agree, but I have long felt that values have to be divided into what I would probably describe as consequential and inconsequential values. Differences of opinion (values as contrasted with fact) from a personal perspective are sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. Religious affiliation is an opinion that I can ignore. However, opinions on equity and even something like a COVID vaccination requirement are not negotiable. I think I see opinions held that impact only the self those I can accept even when I hold a different opinion, but not opinions held that produce consequences that diminish or endanger others. The COVID vaccination issue makes a good example. Some see this as a personal right of choice. I agree, but factually, it is also an issue that has an impact on others.

This story from NPR describes some of the steps states are allowing schools to take so that someone is available to fill in as a substitute for a teacher. In some cases qualifications have been reduced to someone with a high school diploma. The concerns for learning at a distance seem minor to me in comparison to whether any learning will occur when pretty much anyone can sit at the teacher’s desk. At some point, it appears that actions are taking to provide child care rather than education.

Schools and hospitals under present conditions share a common challenge. The capacity of these resources are not based on the number of beds or desks, but the staff available to fill needed functions.