One of the things about government is the quest to make things "better". Of course, the definition of "better" tends to change from election to election, but one thing almost all governments look for is "value-for-money", and that often involves cutting costs.
One of the ways that can be done, while also improving the delivery for many citizens, is good use of online systems - "good" meaning secure, respectful of privacy, and with effective allowances for the varying abilities and capabilities of citizens.
We don't get much of that.
Instead, we have had - at the national level - massive data breaches (some of which compromised the safety of groups of vulnerable people that the national neolib nitwits happen to despise [see Note 1] ), a set up that is so stupid someone thinks security questions are a "good thing" (quite major hacks have occurred after harvesting the answers to such questions off people's social media), and a set of basic questions that is out of touch with government duties and realities.
On government duties, my main concern is that service providers (what used to be government departments) seem to think we can be treated as if we were customers of a private industry company, where if some people can't get what they need it's OK - they can go to another company.
Citizens can't do that with government services - there is no other government we can go to (unless we emigrate - we can't even choose a different outsourced private industry service provider), but more importantly, as citizens we hold inalienable rights - there is an inherent obligation on the part of the government to meet those needs of its citizens (all of 'em, not those citizens considered suitable, or compatible with the values of the elected government of the day) that we have all agreed shall be provided - services such as education, transport, aged care, unemployment benefits (social security), hospitals and other health care (although the neolibs have certainly succeeded in undermining THAT one), and so on.
In fact, that's a convenient point for me to move in to my next point: it is WRONG to assume that all citizens have, sheep-like, all fully complied with all changes along the way.
For instance, when Medicare went online, as I did not trust the government's online systems (and with good reason, given the hacks - and that Medicare card numbers were sold to criminals) my choice was to only use doctors who bulk bill - which I have done ever since.
However, I had to order a replacement Medicare card a little while ago, and it was quite an ordeal to get set up with all the procedures that others went through at the time they were being good sheeple and sacrificing privacy to a highly questionable neoliberal organisation.
It wouldn't hurt those who set such systems up to remember that people may not have much familiarity - and for good, valid reasons.
I'm working on an article more or less along these lines which will touch on other areas - such as the fact that I can choose not to give my personal data (and possibly my passwords, in some situations) to a group of border security people who are, in my opinion, unfit to be trusted.
It seems fairly clear that security services are staffed by people with "conservative" views - which means they are also likely to be bigots (like the transphobic bigot in an Australia Post office I encountered a few years ago when witnessing a form for a friend), and also like the misogynistic porn-addicts portrayed in the film "Snowden".
Those people are, through their porn addiction, misogyny and other forms of bigotry, and disrespect for privacy, making themselves potential subject to blackmail - a very small chance, it is true, but apart from their moral unfitness, there is a questions about their professional competence / ability.
Edward Snowden and others show the truth has a habit of getting out - because there are also decent people buried in there.
So ... for a host of very good reasons, change is NOT compulsory.
You don't have to go along with all the changes your governments make - but you DO have to obey all laws.
And none of what I have chosen to do in response to callous, careless and cruel changes, breaks any laws.
Note 1 - see here (which illustrates the sort of PEBCAK problems I am gravely concerned about), here, here, here, here, here, here, here (which compromises our defence forces), here, here, here, here, here, here, and here - and that's just in the last few years!
