Passport Required To Buy Mobile Phones In the UK 388
David Gerard points out a Times Online story that says:
"Everyone [in the UK] who buys a mobile telephone will be forced to register their identity on a national database under government plans to extend massively the powers of state surveillance. Phone buyers would have to present a passport or other official form of identification at the point of purchase. Privacy campaigners fear it marks the latest government move to create a surveillance society. A compulsory national register for the owners of all 72m mobile phones in Britain would be part of a much bigger database to combat terrorism and crime. Whitehall officials have raised the idea of a register containing the names and addresses of everyone who buys a phone in recent talks with Vodafone and other telephone companies, insiders say."
We've recently discussed other methods the UK government is using to keep track of people within its borders, such as ID cards for foreigners and comprehensive email surveillance.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's always been required... (Score:2, Interesting)
Through Europe and Thailand too (Score:3, Interesting)
I have purchased phones in many countries through out Europe, and Thailand as well, and have always been forced to provide official ID.
Made the decision not to purchase a phone now that I have moved to the USA, so I have no idea about the States. But since I can't even get through the switchboard at my utility company without my SSN, I imagine it might be difficult to buy a phone or have a contract without ID.
Of course, that's a guess. Not saying I agree with this regime - just observing a fact.
Re:It's always been required... (Score:1, Interesting)
False. The most powerful thing you can do is find people who agree with you and organize demonstrations. This was traditionally the role of interested students. For reasons that I don't fully comprehend, political interest among students has decreased to zero in the last two decades.
Perhaps it's more convenient to bitch on Slashdot that take real action.
Re:no privacy here, no privacy there (Score:5, Interesting)
I just don't understand it.
Both countries have rich and deep histories of democratic values.
Where is this coming from? The wealthy? Have they "won the game" and now want to lock it in?
Or has the military/security complex gotten too big?
These are now a much bigger threat than terrorism- which might at most kill a few thousand people. If the government goes bad while possessing all these powers, the death count will be much higher. And then you add in the "torture is okay/not really torture" right wing meme that's been building (Thanks! Liberals behind "24" for helping too with that!) -- it gets damn scary.
Re:It's always been required... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would it be irrelevant?
We told you so! (Score:5, Interesting)
It was over a decade ago when they were getting happy with CCTV cameras in London. We talked about how creepy that was and that they should be careful that they were not sliding down a slippery slope. We were dismissed, we were laughed at, and now look. We were right.
LK
Re:It's always been required... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's getting harder to do in some places. They're nowhere near as ubiquitous as they once were. The lower numbers also make it easier to keep the remaining payphones under constant surveillance (if they take away your expectation of privacy on your own cel phone, the very notion of an expectation of privacy at a public payphone becomes absurd).
The great part is they have the tax payer's back to pay for it all.
So, yes, criminals and - oddly - regular citizens will have to go back to face-to-face conversations to ensure privacy (assuming there are no listening device in that randomly chosen Starbucks they're having their face-to-face conversation in).
Re:It's always been required... (Score:2, Interesting)
Stealing is no good (Score:2, Interesting)
All the networks bar stolen IMEI numbers. Most likely what will happen is that people will just find ways to acquire both phones and SIM cards without using ID.
As it stands this wont cause any problems in the short term. I've got quite a few SIM cards lying round for various networks, none of which are associated with any names. As it happens my current PAYG sim is registered to my name just so I can use the control panel on my networks website.
Trading mobile phones and accessories happens to attract a fair few dealers (it's a big cash in hand business so easy to make it look like your making money selling phones, not coke) so I think as soon as word of this law hits then people will just start stockpiling SIMs. In the short term this wont make any difference, it's only over the longer term as unregistered SIMs start to become scarce that it'll cause problems. Getting unregistered mobile phones, however, will be as easy as a trip to mainland Europe.
Re:Cell phones and terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
All they got to do is create a law/rule that says you must report your phone as stolen within X many hours of you noticing it. This will give plenty of manufactured evidence to pursue your connections with other people as well as make stolen phones only viable to a little less then a week.
Suppose the rule is within 48 or 72 hours of noticing it is missing. If "Osama the Terrorist" is using it for 5 weeks, you lose your ability to claim ignorance and state the phone was stolen or lost. But if your do claim it within 48 or 72 hours, the government either monitors the calls or deactivates it. I'm sure there could be scenarios where you could legitimately lose a phone or have it stolen and not notice it for a week or longer, but it would give the law enforcement the opportunity to check out all your contacts and so on plus it might end up costing some serious cash to defend yourself after being charged.
Re:Cell phones and terrorists (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an old phone PAYG in a draw in my parents house. Or at least I think I have a phone there. It could have been stolen months ago for all I know. Should I be a criminal?
Re:Cell phones and terrorists (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there is a way to achieve reasonable security. Be so scary nobody wants to mess with you. I think this is the current US strategy.
AFAIK, there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. This could be explained in three ways:
1. We've been so nice nobody wants to attack us. Obviously not the case.
2. We tightened security to the point we are nearly immune and it's close to impossible to attack us. Our southern border is still a sieve, our airport security mostly theater, etc. I don't buy this.
3. We are scary. Not scary to the guy who pilots the plane into the tower, because we can't kill him deader than he's willing to kill himself. Scary to the leaders who sends those guys, leaders who want to stay in power.