Bill Introduced To Require ID When Purchasing "Burner Phones" (house.gov) 556
insitus quotes a report from Speier.House.Gov: Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced the Closing the Pre-Paid Mobile Device Security Gap Act of 2016, which would require people to present identification when purchasing "burner phones" and other pre-paid mobile devices, as well as requiring merchants to keep records of those purchases. "Burner phones" are pre-paid phones that terrorists, human traffickers, and narcotics dealers often use to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement because they can be purchased without identification and record-keeping requirements. This bill would close that legal gap.
"This bill would close one of the most significant gaps in our ability to track and prevent acts of terror, drug trafficking, and modern-day slavery," said Speier. "The 'burner phone' loophole is an egregious gap in our legal framework that allows actors like the 9/11 hijackers and the Times Square bomber to evade law enforcement while they plot to take innocent lives. The Paris attackers also used 'burner phones.' As we've seen so vividly over the past few days, we cannot afford to take those kinds of risks. It's time to close this 'burner phone' loophole for good."
So no used ebay phones any more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So no used ebay phones any more (Score:4, Insightful)
Presumingly they mean burner simcards
Re: So no used ebay phones any more (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that, or prepaid phone+sim kits, which are fairly popular.
They tried this shit in Ukraine for a while (even before the whole Russia thing) - ID was required for sim cards and even currency exchanges. So while this did pass at first, eventually it got rolled back because it was a pointless pain in the ass.
IMO anonymous communication is an important part of our society and banning prepaid phones is a stupid idea and the congressperson should be ashamed for coming up with this crap.
Re: So no used ebay phones any more (Score:5, Insightful)
The IMEI has the same magical immutability as the MAC of an ethernet adapter.
Re:So no used ebay phones any more (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill is straight up 100% stupid. Obviously the phone on it's own is nothing, it is it's connection to the network that counts. So the bill should target the connection ie no connection are allowed to mobile phone network, without the user personally fronting the network representative, showing ID and a photographic record taken, so basically an operators licence, where all pass but must be identified. Then you hold the licences operators of that phone accountable for the actions sourced from that phone, you of course lose accountability on proof of hack or report of theft of the phone.
The incumbent Telecom lobbyists would have blocked this because of cost. They do not give a crap who suffers what as a result of criminal activities being conducted via that all too easy access, that just want more money with fewer responsibilities. The bill needs to target connections to the network and that people are identified and recorded when establishing that connection and held liable for criminal actions initiated from that device to the network.
Re:So no used ebay phones any more (Score:5, Insightful)
What of stolen phones? What if the phone owner is "stolen" and then phone taken from them?
I recall a similar law being proposed in Mexico to address children of wealthy families being kidnapped and taken for ransom. The common response was that the kidnappers would just call from the child's phone.
This bill will do nothing.
This reminds me of a lot of gun control laws meaning to control crime as a lot of the same issues apply here. A background check only checks for past behavior, and any contact information is also from the past. Future behavior may be predicted by past behavior but it can only do so much. ID and pictures are worthless if the phone or gun is stolen. Attacking the phone service is like having to show ID to buy bullets, people will just have a straw buyer, go to a black market, or steal.
Also like gun control a bill like this will increase costs and create an inconvenience for many but do next to nothing to actually prevent the activity it is targeting. I can say this because for every one criminal that uses a phone or gun in a crime there are millions of law abiding people that will have to show ID.
I don't know which best applies, needle in a haystack, witch hunt, wild goose chase, or all the above.
Re: (Score:3)
So if I'm kidnapped and my phone taken from me then I'd be considered an accessory to my own kidnapping? What if the people stealing the phone just kill me instead?
I believe that you didn't think this through before replying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So no used ebay phones any more (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill is going to be useless unless the used phone market is eliminated.
Not just used phones but battered women shelters.
Also travelers... If I was traveling to various parts of the world
I would take a prepaid phone and not risk getting hacked.
Companies do this for some of their employees.
N.B. You must have ID to get an ID.
Then they will have to track all phones (Score:3)
Re: So no used ebay phones any more (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Leave Slick Willie alone. The man just wanted to bang the young pussy running around. The sad part is he's the best President we've had since Reagan's first term.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, no-one has ever faked ID. Or paid a kid $20 to go buy a couple of phones.
And where will it end? ID to buy box-cutters to close the box-cutter loophole? ID to buy nails because they're used in nail bombs? ID to buy pressure cookers?
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
When it passes, we'll have major crack downs on straw purchases for 30 minute tactical assault ghost phones with things that go up. Not exactly surprised this is coming out of San Francisco.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, no-one has ever faked ID. Or paid a kid $20 to go buy a couple of phones.
Or stolen a phone. Cheaper and easier than buying one.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sleeper cells specifically do NOT want to attract any unneeded attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Or any computer with a radio attached: They will start requiring ID for the purchase of computers. Such a bill cannot but 'go there' eventually.
That is FUCKED.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
ID to buy nails because they're used in nail bombs? ID to buy pressure cookers?
Why don't we just cut to the chase already? Mandatory scanning of an ID and reporting to the government by all retailers, for any transaction where the payment method is by Cash or Personal check.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better, much better, than nothing. (Score:2)
I mean, no-one has ever faked ID. Or paid a kid $20 to go buy a couple of phones.
That still gets you to the Point of Sale. Time and date of purchase. It may get you video of the buyer, copies of the fake ID, and so on. Do you still want to be the kid who fronts for the buyer of a burner phone? I can't say I like the odds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ID for everything but voting. Because even if you need it for everything from buying food to mass transit, we can't get in the way of voting!
Conservatives often mention the need for ID when buying booze or picking up prescriptions as their argument for why they think that requiring certain form of ID for voting doesn't violate voter rights. Well guess what, neither those nor any other need for ID is not only a Constitutionally protected right but a duty for all citizens that is essential for the functioning of our Democratic system
Re: (Score:2)
ID for everything but voting. Because even if you need it for everything from buying food to mass transit, we can't get in the way of voting!
Conservatives often mention the need for ID when buying booze or picking up prescriptions as their argument for why they think that requiring certain form of ID for voting doesn't violate voter rights. Well guess what, neither those nor any other need for ID is not only a Constitutionally protected right but a duty for all citizens that is essential for the functioning of our Democratic system
Then why do I need to present my papers to exercise my 2nd amendment rights?
Re: (Score:3)
In plainer (contemporary) language, the 2nd Amendment is saying: "Though we acknowledge the inevitability of a formal standing military presence, the existence of that military doesn't mean the government can prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing arms." The founders REALLY didn't want a standing army, but they recognized that at least local militia units were going to
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to change the Constitution that's fine but there's this amendment process you have to go through. The end of all those things you mentioned went through a legal process, they didn't just magically change one day.
More bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Different day, same old bullshit line from the progressive propaganda playbook. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Read the Federalist papers, read the Declaration of Independence, read memoirs and biographies. Nowhere do they say it's for only an army, or because they hate the army, or anything else you want to pull out of your ass as a fairy tale. Tyranny is a repeating theme throughout all of written history, you should really spend time learning and repeating history instead of propaganda.
The founders were extremely intelligent, each studied Political Philosophy and contributed to the creation and method of maintaining a Republic. All of the "They never saw this one coming." is pure bullshit. Just because you are a sucker that fell for the lines does not mean other people should be tricked into that way of thinking.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Conservatives often mention the need for ID when buying booze or picking up prescriptions as their argument for why they think that requiring certain form of ID for voting doesn't violate voter rights. Well guess what, neither those nor any other need for ID is not only a Constitutionally protected right but a duty for all citizens that is essential for the functioning of our Democratic system.
It's not just conservatives--a solid majority (usually 60%+) in just about every poll I have ever seen, be it Rasmussen, collegiate, PPP, etc, shows widespread support for proving identity when voting.
Voting is a right that is mentioned in the Constitution, and like all other constitutional rights, has limits. For instance, it's universally agreed that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not ok. That is a limit on free speech, but we still have the right to free speech. Likewise, for voting, felons are regularly denied the right to vote. Non-citizens do not have a right to vote. Laws in different states vary about when people can vote and how they can vote (e.g. absentee only!). The constitution, after all, does not say that "voting has to follow the exact process that Dorianny feels happy with." One can also take the argument that by allowing a system that is so clearly broken and open to abuse as many current voting schemes, that other people's right to vote is diminished by fraudulent activity.
An old friend of mine lived in Portland for several years (20-something wanna-be-journalist lesbian--where else would she move after college? :-)) and was always totally candid about how she would gather up ballots--dozens in one case, I gather--from more apathetic friends, fill them in, and mail them in. This kind of fraud would be very hard to catch or prove either way. This example is also tangential to the voter ID debate (since you don't need ID for mail-in ballots anyway) but I think it does just show one way how it's easy to cheat.
Personally, I want everyone who wants to vote to be able to vote, but in general I would prefer lower turnout. I'm just as happy with high-information, motivated voters rather than schlups being bussed in by whatever advocacy group has the best get out the vote effort.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not afraid of terrorists (even though I live in a power point that they'd probably love to attack). The government, otoh, and don't give me that BS about "if you ain't got nothing to hide, you needn't worry". EVERYBODY has skeletons in their closets.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Funny)
Not everybody. Some of us mash the bones up, mix them with clay and make sculptures with it. Or plates.
Ummm ... that's what, yeah, a guy said, who was on the creative writing course I took.
BRB, door.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Funny)
And require ID to get it!
Re: (Score:3)
You're more likely to be killed by your own toddler with your own gun than be killed by terrorists.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
The old understood contract of just sit tight during a hijacking and get let off in Cuba or wherever was ripped to shreds as evidenced by Flight 93 in PA. NOBODY is going to sit idly by anymore.
I've always wondered about burner phones for this specific reason though. In a world where every 'number' should have a person assoc with it, it seems odd that it would be allowable to have completely anonymous phones able to be used. I understand the myriad of reasons why LOTS of people might want and legitimately need a burner phone, but that ability comes with societal costs such as people using them for 'bad' (TM) reasons; same obviously go's for crowbars and baseball bats.
A burner phone is a tool that can be used for good or ill and should we ban 'tools' simply because it can be abused? In most cases, I'm firmly in the 'no' category and deal with it. In this case, I'm conflicted...
Re: (Score:2)
You live IN a power point?
Oh, I'm so sorry.
last month (Score:3, Interesting)
> When was the last time a US government agency massacred dozens of people
Last month, I suppose.
> here in the US?
In the US, I'm not sure when was the LAST time, but I sure remember when they did so a few miles down the road from me, in Waco.
> a school or theater and shot dozens of folks?
Ever notice those virtually always happen in "gun free" zones (aka defenseless victim zones)?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everybody always remembers the Kent State massacre because it was white middle class students.
The Jackson State [kenyon.edu] massacre happened ten days later, but it was at a Black college, where they were protesting racism, not the Vietnam War.
Many people don't remember or even know about Jackson State.
Re:last month (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to say "right, you never hear about a mass shooting at an NRA meeting" and then.... my "neighbors" held a 'Draw Muhammad' event. To your point though, despite an attempt, idiots with guns vs idiots with guns ended quickly with one wounded security guard and two dead would be mass shooters.
Maybe more idiots with guns would prevent mass shootings more effectively than only criminals with guns. But you have to ask what is worse, the rare mass shooting in the headlines that statistically has no relevance to your personal safety or the far more statistically relevant suicides and accidental deaths.
I know that's a pretty cynical and wishy-washy stance to take, so where am I coming from? I grew up around guns. At my local farmers co-op store, the natives would gather round and discuss the weather over coffee while their unlocked pickups with guns in the racks sat outside unlocked, windows often open and sometimes with keys in the ignition. Nobody would think of stealing a vehicle knowing there were fifteen old hunters with no better dream scenario than a chance to shoot a deserving stupid thief. There are two mitigating factors to temper my comfort with an armed populace. First, the accident, and second the depression. I'd want more details if I was reading so I'll share.
The Accident. I was in my mid to late teens, I don't remember exactly. I do recall the gun. It was a bolt action gun I'd never seen before in my grandma's closet. The bore was way to big to be a rifle and it had an adjustable choke, which would make sense on a shotgun, but shotguns are single shot, pump action, and double-barrel. I mean, I've never used an over-under but I would have recognized that! Bolt actions, like lever are just for rifles. Even semi's could be either, but a bolt? That's not a shotgun, it can only be a rifle, but the smooth bore, huge barrel size, and adjustable choke could only be a shotgun.What's a young teen to do? Obviously, I had to examine it. Grandma's closet had guns for as long as I can remember, but they were never loaded, cause that would be irresponsible and nobody in my family would be irresponsible with guns. Cool, I could play with it and find out exactly what kind of gun I'd discovered. Despite my confidence and comfort with the situation, I know how to handle a gun safely. I always treat it like it is loaded until I confirm otherwise for myself. As I searched for the safety and tried to work a bolt stiffer than I'd ever worked before I must have brushed the trigger because it went off. Did I mention it was at a family holiday gathering? That kind of sound, in house, even if in a closet, draws attention. I mention this because you might worry somebody was hurt and the only thing hurt was my confidence and pride. Also a ceiling and a luckily placed two-by-four in the attic. Turns out, it was loaded and not everyone in my extended family had the same "it's always unloaded in the house" rule.
So the moral of The Accident is that with proper training and experience even kids are protected from dangerous gun situations. The second factor has a shorter story. I've experienced depression. It sucks. Not having a gun probably isn't responsible for my survival, but I can't absolutely rule it out.
So I guess my stance is that guns aren't the problem, education and safety training combined with thoughtful consideration are the real solution. Shortest version: it kinda sucks to be a moderate libertarian.
interesting. After an accident I made a choice (Score:5, Informative)
That was an interesting post.
I too kind am kinda moderate about guns. On the one hand, I've done my research. Various gun laws have been enacted in various places, and we have the statistics to see what the results are. We don't have to predict what the results might be, we have the numbers. The facts show, unequivocally, that gun bans and strict gun laws are correlated with an increase in violent crimes, and a large increase in sexual assault and rape. That's just a fact- when politicians remove womens' ability protect themselves, many more women get raped. (I can provide a link to full statistics from official government sources , and further explanation, upon request) .
On the other hand, at one time in my life I decided that it would be best for me to not have handguns in my house. Mostly because I had two curious young children in the house, and we lived in a safe neighborhood.
The Constitution guarantees me ten essential rights and the right to make that choice about guns is one of them.
As far as laws go, I did find one thing that was proven effective ; actually a combination of two things. First, Texas added a minimum mandatory sentence for using a weapon in the commission of a felony, then they ADVERTISED it widely, with ads on city busses, billboards, etc. Word got around that robbery would get you five years, having a gun on you when you got caught would get you an additional ten years in the slammer. That worked.
After that was successful, Texas ran a similar advertising campaign about their concealed carry law. Law-abiding citizens might now shoot back, the ads warned. Thinking of robbing a store? You don't know which of the customers behind you is packing a .45. That also worked, though probably not as well as advertising the mandatory sentence for using a weapon in the commission of a felony.
If you think about it, it makes sense. Billions of dollars have been spent figuring out how to create ads which effectively influence people's behavior. If you want to influence the behavior of thugs in your city, it makes sense to leverage that knowledge.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Killing dozens at once? And federal government only? Ok, it's reasonabl rare for the US government to kill lots of people at once here, have to go back to the Waco massacre for that one. It kills lots of people at once in other countries on a regular basis, of course.
Killing people one by one? And including state and local governments? Dude, have you somehow missed the recent uproar over police shootings? And it's noth
Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you make getting an ID free then?
It certainly seems to be increasingly required for just about everything these days....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Respectable middle class (and above) adults have a drivers license and a credit card.
Requiring ID isn't a problem for them, and therefore isn't seen as a problem by the politicians proposing this law.
The people who don't have an ID don't matter.
They don't matter because they don't vote.
They don't vote because they don't have an ID.
Catch 22!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok (Score:5, Informative)
No, actually, large numbers of people don't. Many Americans don't drive. I know that many middle-class suburban Americans are shocked to learn that other Americans live differently, but it's true. in fact some Americans [theguardian.com] are entirely unable to obtain government issued IDs [nytimes.com].
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
ID is required for voting in areas where there are a suspicious number of black folk who might vote Democratic. Worked a treat in tight races.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
"Papers, please!"
This kind of ID requirement for everything is exactly what the German Stasi became famous for. Soon, all you will have to do to ruin a man is revoke his official identification card.
Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone else come up with valid reasons why a non-criminal, non-terrorist would need to make an anonymous phone call?
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
whistleblower
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
+1.
But whistleblowers are far worse than terrorists. They can embarrass governments. Terrorists just justify anti-terrorism policies, we could do a few more of them.
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd also like to add, that legislation like this may not end up solving the problem it's designed to solve; it may just create a new Black Market for cellphones, or increase the size of it if one already exists. Purchases from shady sellers, and thefts of cellphones might well increase.
Correct. Just imagine - instead of "selling" the phone, you list it and it gets "stolen" while you just happened to find a cash bundle lying around...
For those who really want/need to stay anon, this will still happen, and be driven further underground.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal government and criminal government agencies listening in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
"The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible." -Justice Stevens
"[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all..."-Justice Black
First Amendment is first.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
how about *everybody* because it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS who i am, where i am, who i call/text/email and when, or what the topics of conversation were.
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not going to answer a stupid question like that.
instead, you should be forced to tell us why the right to anonymity should be TAKEN AWAY after so many years of having it?
do not ask us to justify our freedom; instead, demand that we get justification for REMOVING them.
so far, I have not seen a single reason that justifies the removal of anon calling.
and that's because - there IS NO VALID REASON to remove that freedom.
only terrorists (ie, government goons who want to keep us in constant fear and surveillance) would want this. why do you hate america so much, poster?
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone else come up with valid reasons why a non-criminal, non-terrorist would need to make an anonymous phone call?
Maybe because I live in a free country, or because I have First and Fourth Amendment rights, or because the government doesn't have a valid reason to snoop on me or anyone else. This isn't going to stop any terrorists--they will simply use alternate means of communication.
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need a "valid" reason to want privacy. The government needs a valid reason to eliminate my ability to maintain privacy.
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
I shouldn't have to justify my privacy.
Do you have a lock on your front door? Curtains on the windows? What are you hiding?
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
Reporting that your daddy, the police officer, just raped your friend. ...
Reporting that a pack of cops just killed an innocent man.
Reporting that a street gang member committed a crime, knowing his cousins are cops and will know who you are.
Arranging to meet with a friend so you can get an abortion in a state where they will arrest you, the driver, and the doctor, if they can.
Reporting a mafia hit.
Shall I go on, and on
Re: (Score:3)
On the plus side of that particular argument, future use of an "anonymous tip" in court would practically scream "parallel construction". Not necessarily a fair trade, but still worth thinking about...
utterly pointless and ineffective (Score:5, Insightful)
These kinds of laws are utterly pointless and ineffective in preventing terrorism. They are, however, very effective means by which government can terrorize law abiding citizens, by going on legal fishing expeditions and blackmailing people with legal but embarrassing personal conduct.
Re:utterly pointless and ineffective (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is just it: This is not about terrorism at all.
Re: (Score:3)
> European countries have had these laws for many years.
I'm not sure about other countries, but I live in Belgium and here we can easily buy pre-paid SIM cards and cheap phones to use them in without any form of ID.
Re: (Score:3)
I pay cash at the local PayPoint, receive a slip of paper with a 16-digit code on it, type that into the phone, and I have minutes.
My SIM is unregistered (had it nine years now).
I've never registered a handset.
The only reason to give over your name and address (not needing ID) is for the extended warranty on the handset at time of purchase. Statutory protections on hardware like cellphones in the UK is twelve months. All you need is the receipt.
Re:utterly pointless and ineffective (Score:5, Insightful)
I can get any low-end Android phone, put it in airplane mode and never sign up with a carrier, connect to any public WiFi network, and use a SIP client with ZRTP to connect to a server paid with Bitcoin to do my anonymous calls.
This is classic government reactive approach with no input from subject matter experts, always 10 steps behind.
They just HAVE to ban any anonymous communication (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, for the children and because of terrorists and shit. Because before cellphones, absolutely NO ONE EVER stood by a payphone waiting for a call, usually from their counterpart calling from another payphone.
Re: (Score:2)
FOR THE CHILDREN!
My prediction? (Score:3)
Seems to me that, while looking good on the surface, once you really start to think about it this is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The smuggler trick can be dried up by not letting mexican or canadian SIM cards roam on US networks unless the confirmed ID is known by US authorities.
But the stealer trick... well, that's probably what's gonna happen.
More information required (Score:5, Interesting)
Draft text
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
If you want to pass a law for its instrumental value, then you need make a case that it's actually going to work.
If this law works as intended, what would success look like? Maybe one of these things:
- Actually intercepting terrorists' communications before an attack?
- Actually intercepting terrorists' communications during an attack?
- Making it so terrorists can only communicate by ways other than cell phone during a terrorist attack?
- Making it so we can easily identify terrorists who used a cell phone during a terrorist attack after the attack is done?
Or something else I haven't thought of?
Are we already achieving any of those things by other means in some cases? If so, when aren't we, and would the law help us with that?
As background for figuring out if we will achieve our goal(s), let's get some more info about the world.
Currently terrorists purchase prepaid phones without ID and use them before and during terrorist attacks. If the proposed law was in effect, what would they do instead?
- Would they still be able to acquire a cellphone from a retailer without actually identifying themselves?
- Also, are there any other ways that a terrorist could obtain cellphones without identifying themselves?
If you want people to think up ideas about that you've probably come to the right place.
* Giving fake info to an online retailer
* Giving another person's info to an online retailer
* Paying an unrelated third party (e.g. a homeless person) to buy a phone and give it to them
* Stealing phones
Supposing that none of that worked and the terrorists lost access to anonymous phones, and they changed their practices, would they change them in a way that would achieve the goal?
Re: (Score:3)
To be clear, if you want to pass a law because you're Shocked! that people are allowed to do a thing, then you're passing the law for its intrinsic value, and it's kind of an end in itself. Great.
If not, the goal could be as simple as "if we pass this law, every once in a while some potential terrorist that law enforcement is monitoring is going to screw up and buy a phone, give real id, and then say something about their plans, and we can put them in jail and prevent them". That's great too. If so, somebo
What about non-cell phones that talk? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They haven't criminalised open wifi yet? :)
The last time I used public wifi it diverted to a EULA asking me to provide personal details and by clicking this box you agree you're not a terrorist. Then the darn thing wouldn't connect anyway!
A local coffee shop had an open access point but you're never truly anonymous if you don't know where the security cameras lurk.
Not a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sir, our records showed that you purchased ten burner phones that were used for..."
"Oh yea, those - damnedest thing, someone broke into my car and stole them. I have the police report and everything".
The end of anonymity is nigh though, it constantly ratchets tighter every day.
Uh, this may be because of something I said... (Score:5)
Uh, this may be because of something I said...
I called the decryption demand by the FBI stupid in front of her, and pointed out that all the Charlie Hebdo terrorists in the Paris attack coordinated with burner phones that they didn't use before or after the actual incident.
Perhaps she didn't get the fact that they didn't turn the phones in to the local "terrorist burner phone convenience dropbox" after the event?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Congresswoman Jackie Speier (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to misunderstand that more "burner phones" are bought by battered women than by terrorists.
Why do you want to see battered women die, Jackie?
--
BMO
Doesn't matter (Score:3)
Phones used in Paris were acquired hours before the attacks. The terrorists most likely had no expectation of surviving. The suicide bombers in Paris and Brussels certainly didn't. So unless this information raises a flag with law enforcement immediately, identification is pointless. The next attack will be coordinated using phones purchased with proper identification. So the next step will be to provide law enforcement with real time subscriber information from the telecoms. And maybe a blacklist, like the TSA's no-fly list, of suspects not allowed to purchase phones. Maybe a five day waiting period as well.
Those smart liberals at work. (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm wonder how this will play out (Score:3)
Aww man (Score:3)
I'm going to have to convince homeless people and drug addicts to buy burned phones to prop up my criminal empire. Oh well, it's not really going to stop me.
Re:There aren't enough laws. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That won't be enough. Let's attack the root of the problem and make evil, malicious, dangerous and bad illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Next thing you know we'll be outlawing stupid, flippant and ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
Next thing you know we'll be outlawing stupid, flippant and ignorant.
That's not possible - Congress always exempts itself from laws!
Re:Pay Phones (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why were you under the impression that one side of The Party would work against the interests of the other side?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What does (D-San Francisco) mean? (Score:4, Funny)
That's the reason for the D or R after the name: You literally cannot tell them apart without a score card any more (and haven't been able to for decades).
They all ultimately want the same thing: to go through your pockets for loose change they missed last time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the "D" stands for authoritarian Dickhole. The more you know!
Re: (Score:2)
It's shorthand for "Douchebag-San Francisco".
Re:What does (D-San Francisco) mean? (Score:4, Informative)
I noticed before sometimes in the United States when people want your government to control people more it says "D something" by their name. What does the D mean?
Abbreviation for party affiliation. So far I've seen:
D- Democrat
R- Republican
I- Independent (not affiliated with a major party - usually someone who lost a primary and ran anyway, sometimes someone who just ran without going through a party mechanism)
L- Libertarian
A- American Independent (historic: George Wallace's party from the '60s)
Re: (Score:3)
that would be (G)ungan.
Re: (Score:2)
No, really?
Didn't see THAT coming... ....whoosh.....
Re: (Score:2)
"Bill" was introduced to "Require ID".
While I do agree that "Require ID" is a really strange name, the title is pretty clear.