Kindly explain how this would work. Just to be clear, I don't believe any such technology exists and I don't believe there is any such non-border border anywhere in the world. I think the idea is a fantasy.

I'm old enough to remember John Kennedy declaring that the US would land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth.
This wasn't possible at that moment but he brought forth a political will that resulted in a technological solution to the problem.
Your comments could very likely flow from an EU negotiator. Can't be done, it's a fantasy, so I'm not even going to think about it.
The point being put is that once politicians provide a goal to be achieved and resources to achieve it, yes a rare event I concede, then whereas choruses of 'can't be done' that once filled the space suddenly become 'we can do it, but it'll cost!'.
The problem with the Irish border is that too many politicians don't see it in their personal interest to see the issue solved and like the Stormont power sharing problem are too happy to concede nothing at all.
If you provide leadership and resources then even a man can be returned from the moon, even where the technology needs to be invented. You don't know what you can do until you try... and it's this that's been lacking in brexit negotiations until now.
To misquote Chairman Mao, Even the longest march begins with a single step... but you must want to take that step.

So you don't know how it would work.

I don't believe I ever said that I did.. but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible.
Even I don't claim to know everything.

If it's possible then why not accept the truth that, if the WA passed, there'd be about two years (minimum) of transition period to develop it? The backstop would only kick when it becomes clear that no "technological" or any other "fix" will be available.

The only useful and foolproof fix is to revoke A50 and stay in Europe.

Ok, we are where we are.I don't pretend that I fully understand how we got here. It does seem to some that the losers in General election desire the authority to represent those that lost in a referendum making the promise of giving the losers of another referendum the opportunity of of gaining Independence whilst stomping on those that won the first referendum?
So now we have Boris suspending Parliament rubber stamped by Her Majesty. The remoaners are moaning enmass, reaching a crescendo, toys flying out of collective prams.
You couldn't make it up.....

Is not democracy in action fascinating?

I'd suggest that this is the wrong way around. Having the backstop as the default, like developing an equitable trade arrangement, doesn't introduce any sense of having to provide solutions satisfactory to both parties simply because the backstop is too one sided.
If, however, the WA was passed with a change that accepted that the backstop would be time limited to the two year transition. This would allow time for a technological breakthrough (even if it's imperfect when initially implemented) and would introduce a degree of urgency to actually getting it up and running.
But the backstop was conceived as a political fix, by politicians for politicians, and like a great many political fixes does absolutely nothing but roll that can along the road.

I'll tell you when we have it back.

It's interesting but I don't know that it's democracy. About half the population wants a radical change, the other half doesn't. 50%+1 might be a sufficient majority in choosing a pub for lunch but it doesn't seem to me to enough to warrant wrecking the economy and offering the national pussy to Donald.

Sorry Dave but that's gibberish. Limiting a backstop to the transition period isn't a backstop at all. It has to be the backstop if nothing else can be implemented in the transition period.

Eh?

How do goods pass across any border? When you order stuff from the US and it is delivered to you in Canada, what happens other than you have to pay a fee to a delivery agent? Why couldn't something similar be introduced to deal with the Irish border issue?

Who, really, gives a crap about people going back and forth across the border? One assumes that, if their status needs to be determined once they come to the UK, a simple border check when they do so could be easily implemented. That would resolve the "terrorist" issue of such a thing being so bad in the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland that people will resort to shooting one another and blowing things up again if a physical check is required.

With the right will, it could be easily resolved, me thinks!

I fetched goods from America last weekend. The procedure was fairly typical for an international crossing, I queued at a border post, chatted with the border guard, was redirected to an office, waited a hour or so, paid the taxes on the goods and went on my way. Had I been traveling with animals they would have been inspected. The same could certainly be implemented in Ireland as it will be at Dover. It's just the magic of the virtual tax payment and produce inspections without border posts that I can't imagine. How, for example, would the Irish prevent chlorinated chickens being trucked in if there was no physical border?

A few million people who voted for Brexit apparently.

What the backstop does is to ensure that the UK is secured to the single market until such time as a trade agreement agreeable to the EU has been accepted by both sides. Should the UK attempt to agree terms that the EU decides it doesn't want then the UK has no way to object.
It's clear that there is no incentive for the EU to agree to anything within any time frame and this cannot be in the interests of the UK.
The EU will only agree to a new trade arrangement when subject to an incentive to do so.
If the backstop must be implemented then it's simple common sense to coerce those involved to adopt other, as yet undefined, schemes that aren't so patently one sided when the backstop disappears.
But of course you'll know this already and are arguing as a europhile. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't get us anywhere.
So, you ask, what happens if at the end of the transition period we have no border arrangement that negates the need for a backstop?
No-Deal is the answer, but two years will have passed during which every man and his dog will know precisely what will happen, and could even, should the commons wish it, result in any number of brexit related antics, among which could be the revoking of A50. I simply don't understand why this isn't on the table.

From one of the other threads