[digisign]

It's a looking-forward statement... projecting current trends 5-10 years in the future. More likely will be a de-facto requirement to participate in society rather than a law. As I mentioned in another comment, many private companies are already requiring it.

[growse]

Another forward-looking statement might be that "governments will require constant 24-hour curfews 10 years from now". After all, that's just projecting and extrapolating from recent historical events (temporary movement restrictions, or lockdowns).

Anyone can make "forward looking statements". If they're going to be useful and not dismissed as hysterical fear-mongering, then it helps if they're actually credible.

[mdp2021]

> it helps if they're actually credible

In some societies, "ability and availability to install mobile applications" is now taken for granted. This comes from the fact that in some societies the vast majority of the members take sheepish "what others do must be right" behaviour as granted. Those mentalities are enablers for regulations that may claim to mirror alleged "de facto" situations - making relevant prospects credible.

Surely many state supported sacrifices to privacy of the recent times (in some regions) were "supported" with "Don't they have FB anyway?" (thing is, of course, no they don't - a few would never).

> projecting and extrapolating from recent historical events

When some of the «recent historical events» come in "support" of already established desiderata of some parts (say, cashless society - to be intended as option dropping), creating an acceleration towards said trends, then they get relevant.

[digisign]

Choosing to ignore clear trends is a strategy as well. I put away the smartphone for several weeks this year, was surprised how many things it discouraged and a few times prevented.

[vanusa]

Okay, so not in the present tense, like the commenter indicated. And not like actually "legally".

[digisign]

Yes, first line says this:

    We are right now in the process of…

"Legally" part looks like a stretch goal to me, however.

[ByThyGrace]

In modern republics there is the practise of turning custom into law[0] by the generalized social manifestation of said custom, without said law having been enacted by a legislative body such as congress. All it takes is one judge setting the precedent.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law

[vanusa]

In edge case matters not defined by current law, sometimes.

But precedents that simply overturn other laws -- or as applies to the matter at hand, in the United States at least: the 4th Amendment - no.