Proposed Law Would Require ID To Buy Prepaid Phones 615
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced legislation that would require buyers to present identification when purchasing a prepaid cellphone and require phone companies to keep the information on file, as they do with users of landline phones and subscription-based cellphones. 'This proposal is overdue because for years, terrorists, drug kingpins, and gang members have stayed one step ahead of the law by using prepaid phones that are hard to trace,' says Schumer. Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society, adding that the space for such anonymous or pseudonymous communications has been narrowed since pay phones, for example, have largely disappeared."
Fake ID? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess we couldn't use fake IDs to circumvent this, now could we?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect equal or better signal while using a foreign SIM (because you get to choose a network,e.g. AT&T or T-mobile, instead of being tied to just one).
And expect to pay a lot for roaming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Afterall, what self-respecting terrorist would jeopardize their credit rating by not paying their bill?
Re:Signal strength: [Y__] (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If your SIM was purchased outside the United States, expect zero bars of signal.
Of course. I hadn't thought of that. Must have been pure luck and happenstance that my UK mobile worked a treat when I rocked up in the US.
Get a pre-paid 'phone from anywhere non-US and use it in the US. Perhaps a bit expensive but I don't suppose the criminal underworld will be too upset about that.
include 'common-sense' returns false. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:include 'common-sense' returns false. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:include 'common-sense' returns false. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're taking away the my freedom to have legal anonymous communication in order to catch only the stupid criminals?
Sounds like a bad trade-off to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you're taking away the my freedom to have legal anonymous communication in order to catch only the stupid criminals?
Sounds like a bad trade-off to me.
well think of it from congress's point of view: locking up the stupid criminals means less competition for elected office, whereas letting the smart ones run free ensures a continued source of campaign contributions.
You are incorrect Sir! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another brilliantly thought-out law which misses mark entirely. Maybe someday only criminals will have rights and everyone else will be guilty until proven innocent?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.
So it's all about tracking the poor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.
So it's all about tracking the poor.
I'm not poor, I'm frugal, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have to back it up. It's just plain false.
OK, I see your false and raise you a "your false is false." Or something.
I use a prepaid service. "Unlimited" voice, text, and data is $50/month with all the taxes and fees and misc added in ~$57. To get the equivalent in a "contract" plan with the same carrier, it would cost me $80 + the fees and tax.
There are also limited usage versions of the prepaid and contract plans, but in almost every case, the prepaid is cheaper. You have to buy a phone at "full price" if you go prepaid, but even if you buy it f
Re:You are correct War on Terror = War on You (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing is certain, these knee jerk laws certainly erode the rights of citizens who in no way were part of the event causing the stupid reaction.
But really, since when has our government cared about freedom and rights? Being elected is a concern and getting tax money also is.
But like dogs, they seem to live entirely in the present and are incapable of extrapolating the long term consequences of all of these laws.
But they sure know how to raise Millions of Corporate contributions and note that these "spons
Re:include 'common-sense' returns false. (Score:5, Informative)
You realize this legislation has support from no less a Democrat than Charles Schumer, right? You didn't even have to RTFA, it's right there in the summary.
When it comes to taking away our rights and expanding Government, Democrats and Republicans aren't really all that different. The only difference is which order you lose your rights in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not to say that the Republican Party bosses would not support this bill, but the su
Re:include 'common-sense' returns false. (Score:5, Funny)
Which party is that? The two sponsors represents both major parties.
Yup, that's the one
.. right ... (Score:4, Funny)
"Um, hey, Fred, while you're at Best Buy, could you pick me up a throwaway phone? I'm going on vacation and don't want to
take my RAZR with me to jihad-camp"
Sigh. Security theatre is not secure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:.. right ... (Score:4, Funny)
"Oh, I bought that for my friend Steve."
That's what they all say.
Re:.. right ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Knowing who was using a phone after the fact is only one aspect of the story. They also want to know who to wiretap during criminal investigations. If Fred buys Al's cellphone with Fred's ID, then the feds won't know who's phone to tap. This law has many problems, and in a large portion of situations this is one of them.
Burn Notice (Score:5, Funny)
But what will Michael do in his crazy antics in Miami? He usually needs like 3 prepaid phones for every job. It will kill off one my favorite shows!
Re:Burn Notice (Score:4, Informative)
One of his clients gave him a box full of cell phones, forgot which episode.
The wire (Score:2, Funny)
The wire called, they want their idea back.
Already being done in India and South Africa (Score:5, Insightful)
India implemented this law before they had their terrorist attacks last year and it sure did a lot to prevent those eh?
Also Mexico (Score:3, Informative)
They're even shutting down prepaids unless they register, this, from the government that leaked the electoral records to organized crime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that is exactly the stated purpose of this law -- to prevent Evil Terrorists from using prepaids to coordinate attacks.
RTFS, for goodness sake.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, either you're purposefully being dense here or you just don't get it. What was stopping the Times Square Bomber from using two-way radios to communicate with someone coordinating from a nearby hotel?
Walkie talkies instead of cell phones for cross continent terrorist organizations? You're really going to suggest that after calling me dense? Ok, I'll bite. Besides long distance operatives will likely have to call non terror related regular folk using regular phones. The issue is once someone calls to say, buy a vehicle that they want to use in a strike, that call can later be traced to find whoever setup the purchase and then move up the chain.
What was stopping him from using Skype to talk to a man on the moon?
This is a semi reasonable alternative but it's not as eas
Privacy: Same Shit, Different Day (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, the only people who would object to such legislation are criminals.
Those of us who aren't doing anything illegal would have absolutely no reason to fear the loss of anonymous communication.
Both positive and negative sides with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the latter, I am concerned about the consequences. Maybe they should legalize drugs and get rid of the top reason why people would want a anonymous phone in the first place, but I can only dream.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do you assume drugs are the "top reason" why one would want anonymous communications? What about a whistle blower? What about a witness to a crime?
There are lots of avenues for a whistle blower or a witness to transmit information anonymously, since the information needs to only go one way. Ongoing criminal enterprises need two way communications, like burner phones.
Failed in Mexico already (Score:5, Informative)
This law was passed in Mexico a few months ago. It's basically a failure because of all the fake IDs out there. There's very little preventing you from registering it to someone else's name too.
To send a message to the president Felipe Calderon, a lot of people registered using his personal data.
A few days ago, one of the phone companies admitted they had at least 12,000 cell phones registered to the president's name...
Re:Failed in Mexico already (Score:4, Insightful)
I prefer to think of them a "free enterprise IDs" - the best kind, really....
Already fact in Europe (Score:2)
Switzerland was one of the last and bent to the pressure as well.
And yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
New York and Texas Teaming Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very problematic, not very useful (Score:3, Interesting)
What about those of us who already have prepaid phones bought with cash? It's one of the things I like about Boost Mobile; they can't track me.
You don't need a phone to buy an SUV, only money. What's next, they're going to outlaw cash?
The "drug kingpins" part made me laugh; it isn't the kingpins, it's the neighborhood dealers. And this won't stop anybody, dope dealers routinely "rent" other people's cars to make deliveries, they'll simply trade drugs for an AT&T iPhone. Hell, they're doing it already.
What did law enforcement do before telephones were invented?
And this stupid law will actually hurt law enforcement -- now, they have people anonymously make tips (narc on people) to make arrests. Without untraceable communications, folks are going to be less likely to tip someone off, especially here in Illinois where cops and politicians are notoriously crooked. Nobody in his right mind would narc using a traceable form of communication; that could turn out to be fatal. A whole lot of cops are on the dope dealers' payrolls.
Like the drug laws themselves, this will cause the very problems it purports to solve.
The Premise is False (Score:4, Interesting)
You do NOT need to give the phone company an ID for a landline.
Last time I had a landline, all they needed was a cash deposit of around $100.
I gave them a completely bogus name because I didn't want to pay extra to have my name removed from the phonebook (nor did I want to be on the list of people who have paid to keep their name out of the phone book either).
Re:The Premise is False (Score:5, Funny)
You do NOT need to give the phone company an ID for a landline.
How did you not give them your address?
I gave them a fake address. Still waiting for them to show up to install it, though...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Was giving a fake name legal?
As long as there is no intent to defraud, lying about anything, including your identity, is perfectly legal with only a few rare exceptions involving the government itself and even many of those exceptions the penalties are trivial. For example, you may end up in jail for lying on a concealed carry license application, but in most states lying about your name and address for your driver's license carries a penalty of, at worst, getting your license revoked if you get caught.
Easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
This is easy to solve: just put a EULA with the phone requiring the purchaser not to use said phone for illegal purposes.
Let's see... (Score:3, Insightful)
No appreciable hardship to corporate sponsors (in fact, forcing registration gives them a whole new dataset to mine and sell). Check.
Small chance of political backlash from constituents? (Off of slashdot, few seem to care about rights when it comes to tech). Check.
More power to abusive LEAs? Check.
Yep. This things already as good as passed.
The Wire (Score:5, Informative)
Not only do I rate this series as one of my top 5 dramas made globally, I think it is as significant for nerds as Star Trek.
Cell phones play a key aspect of the story line over the 5 series from 2002 to 2008, and includes the formation of the Dept Home Land Security and the impact on the police team and how it helps there investigations(by season 3-4).
The police efforts to track criminals and the criminals attempts to stay one step ahead is well dramatized.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only do I rate this series as one of my top 5 dramas made globally, I think it is as significant for nerds as Star Trek.
Seconded. My feeling on it is that 'every scene is a practical civics or organizational lesson'. One of the only pieces of media I've experienced that provided a solid foundation and rewritten my understanding of a topic. Don't miss it. See also one sociologist's experience watching episodes [nytimes.com] with gang members.
Cell phones play a key aspect of the story line over the 5 series from 2002 to 2008, and includes the formation of the Dept Home Land Security and the impact on the police team and how it helps there investigations(by season 3-4).
The progression from pagers to cell phones during those seasons and how the technology vs. law battle unfolds is pretty interesting.
Schumer opposes IDs to vote, but to buy a phone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Total bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)
If this has any chance of succeeding, (which I am sure it does) I will definitely have to stock up on pre-paid phones prior to the law going into effect.
No, not because I want to do anything wrong, but because I want the option to be able to make anonymous phone calls whenever I feel like it -and with the way law enforcement operates it doesn;t matter if you've committed a crime or not, you can be jailed, beaten, strip searched - simply for asking a question or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I am well aware of the the capabilities of law enforcement, we're beyond triggerfish now - but there still is no technology that can pinpoint a phone with it's batteries removed. The best they could hope for is knowing where the phone was when a call was made.
I'll stock up, too (Score:4, Funny)
because... (Score:3, Interesting)
criminals and terrorists actually have such a hard time faking ID ?
So, let's see..... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, we have a proposed law that will do nothing to stop criminals from:
-- Using a fake ID to purchase the phone
-- Forcing, coercing, or paying some sap to buy the phone for them
-- Stealing phones, either from a store or an individual
On the latter (and expect such thefts to multiply several-fold if this passes), if they steal from an individual, they often think they've just misplaced or lost it, and it may be some time before they contact their provider and have the service suspended. Even a store theft can go undetected for several hours, add on a few more to determine which phones (numbers) have been stolen, a few more for the bureaucracy to get those numbers blocked, etc. In either case, a thief could easily have 24-48 hours of use before the phone is disabled or monitored. Considering many crooks go through prepaid phones like candy anyway, this won't slow them down too much. That only leaves the dumber crooks, and if they're stupid enough to buy a phone with their real ID, they're probably stupid enough to get caught pretty quickly even without this law.
On the other hand, this law would enable law-abiding users to be more easily tracked and identified by criminals, private eyes, general snoops, bill collectors, stalkers, blackmailers, and so on. Not to mention the guvmint, should you happen to hold ideas or engage in activities that, while not necessarily unlawful, are considered a "threat" by whomever is in power.
So, all in all, we have a law that would (a) do nothing to reduce crime and, indeed, likely increase it (the aforementioned assumed rise in phone thefts), while (b) inconveniencing, harrassing, and possibly endangering law-abiding citizens.
In other words....typical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't get it. are you saying you can't do it now??
Here's how you do it: it's called go through the court system as you should.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, hello?
You don't trample over the rights of innocent citizens to catch the "bad guys". That is the example of bad law, such as the proposed law. This would neither a:make it easier to track people nor b:confirm the person registering is who they are. There is no way to enforce as such, as others have mentioned. Fake ID's, phones registered via proxies (such as other people), there are a million ways to get around this that take minimal to no effort.
Instead, you go through this thing which already exists, it's called the court/justice system. It's worked for hundreds of years, last I checked. Especially given that it's assuming this is for law enforcement or another legal entity which should be well versed in following the laws which govern them.
You know, you can track people via those warrant things already. It's called warrants for wiretaps or you can do the pen register thing, if I recall loopholes for that still exist. /what a newfangled idea! *facepalm*
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say on the outrage meter, this idea should be roundly welcomed with a rollback on the "Wide Net" wiretaps that are currently occuring!
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for making slashdot that much dumber.
Dumber than when an Anonymous Coward trolls hard for tougher laws against privacy? While your thinking about your own hypocrisy, chew on this for a while: it is possible to find criminals without making businesses keep Orwellian records of their customers. I'd quote Benjamin Franklin, but I'd wager that the quote is already in this thread already.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, idiot... nice way to label yourself an intelligent, open-minded debater right off the start.
Lots of things can help catch criminals. Warrantless searches, warantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite pre-trial jail, no trial or kangaroo courts... Being opposed to all that does not mean being pro-crime. The issue is misuse of those rights by law enforcement agencies or anyone who has access to such powers. The police cannot be trusted to respect the spirit of the law, nor even the letter if they can get awa
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to what the Senators are saying, this bill has NOTHING to do with catching drug kingpins, and everything to do with advancing the surveillance state.
Stolen phone market (Score:3, Interesting)
Aye, you touch on a good point. This will just create a demand among criminals for freshly stolen phones. Steal a phone, use it illegally for a day or two and toss it in a greyhound bus bound for opposite coast to fuck with gps surveillance attempts.
Not just surveillance - it's rent-seeking (Score:5, Informative)
This looks to me like just another case of politicians trying to protect their big contributors. Consider:
The legislation's sponsors are from Texas (Cornyn) and New York (Schumer).
AT&T is based in Texas. AT&T has given more political contributions than any other company [opensecrets.org]. Its current COO, and its former CEO, both donated [newsmeat.com] to Cornyn.
Verizon is based in New York. Verizon is also on OpenSecret's heavy hitters list at the above link. Verizon's CEO unsurprisingly donated to Schumer [newsmeat.com].
Boost (Sprint) is based in Kansas.
Boost/Sprint has been the most aggressive [kansascity.com] in moving into prepaid phones, which often have lower costs than contract services. This threatens the incumbents: AT&T and Verizon each have about double Sprint's subscriber base, and thus have the most to lose from a shift towards prepaid.
Increased surveillance rules remove prepaid's privacy benefits. And they impose record-keeping costs on prepaid services like Boost, making them less competitive with AT&T and Verizon's lucrative contract businesses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, at least it would be difficult for a drug kingpin to acquire the services of a desparate crackhead. Oh, wait ...
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it always have to be a "fight"?... (I catch what you're saying; but a society apparently spawning the habit of presenting everything as a fight has another set of problems)
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
it has always been a struggle, and always it will be.
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
John Philpot Curran, 1790
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a fight because it requires resisting the natural flow of society, which is AWAY from liberty. I would call going upstream on a river a fight.
The slothful nature of society as a whole the corruptive nature of power and money means that corrupt people are usually in leadership positions directing a mass of ignorant and lazy people. This does NOT cultivate liberty.
While I get that the term is overused, in context to preserving liberty, it sure as hell is a "fight." I look forward to a day when it isn't,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it always have to be a "fight"?...
Because Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty had to be occasionally watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, not the idle chatter of a message board.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok. This new "law" would simply create a new black market for thieves. Increasing their profit streams.
Now instead of a walmart tracphone. you buy a "clean" prepaid phone from vito that is registered to a 14 year old cheerleader in the hamptons.
Honestly, are out lawmakers simply a bunch of retarded old idiots? Did they not think of this?
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok. This new "law" would simply create a new black market for thieves. Increasing their profit streams.
Of course. Then the laws can become even MORE encroaching and overreaching in the name of stamping out whatever newly made illicit activity is.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not infringing on their liberties that is the problem, it's infringing on my liberties that is. All it takes to infringe on their liberties is a warrant or a court order. In order to infringe on my liberties you better be amending the constitution because anonymous speech is the only way to have truly free speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you must rely on anonimity to have free soeech, then you already don't have much of it. Not more than people in China or Iran.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true that anonymous speech shouldn't be necessary in and of itself. But as part of a larger system of free speech it is essential, it acts as the last sanity check on the system such that if everything else is taken away, anonymous speech remains simply by virtue of being the hardest to take away.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you must rely on anonimity to have free soeech, then you already don't have much of it.
True. However, anonymity is the last guard against complete loss of free speech, and it is the easiest one to protect via legal means. Someone is either anonymous or isn't - this doesn't depend on local customs of anonymity, or on what is acceptable anonymity or not.
This is why the ability to say things anonymously is so important. Even if assholes run the show and try to use stupid laws to silence you, if they can't find you, they can't silence you.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those....
Never underestimate the amount of liberty that people are willing to sacrifice in exchange for the illusion of security.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
That's completely irrelevant to the argument that I was making and contributes nothing to this conversation. POS background checks don't catch people that kill, nor will a POS ID check for disposable cell phones catch criminals. Criminals will simply do with cell phones what they currently do with guns -- steal them or bribe others to purchase them on their behalf.
The end result will be the same that it was with firearms -- the law abiding people cede more power to the state while the criminals go about their business as they always have and always will.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or what happens is the same thing that happened when pseudoephedrine. It was made where one had to put down a card, register and all that crap.
Of course this did absolutely nothing to stop the meth labs. They just sourced their stuff from Mexico, or if in the US; robbed the trucks before they got to the stores.
It will be exactly the same with phones and SIM cards. People will just source the anonymous phones from Mexico, and because a lot of people use Mexican SIM cards in the US, it won't cost them much more.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:5, Insightful)
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'
Just like all the items in that list, a gun is a very versatile tool with a wide variety of uses, and is not made for the sole purpose of killing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. One of them has a Constitutional guarantee against the right to bear being infringed, and the other doesn't. Not just "congress shall make no law", a blanket "the right ... shall not be infringed." Can you guess which is which?
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:4, Informative)
assuming you overlook the glaring exception of the "Gun Show" loophole in many states.
The "gun show loophole" actually isn't. It's more properly described as a "private party sale loophole". Any business engaged in the routine sale of firearms needs to perform background checks, regardless of where that sale takes place. If you buy a gun from "Gun Store, Inc." at a gun show you'll fill out the same background check paperwork as you would if you were in the store itself.
Party party sales (i.e: I sell you one of my guns) aren't regulated in most states and don't require background checks. That's the loophole that people are referring to, but most of the anti-2A crowd won't call it a "private party loophole" because that doesn't conjure up scary images of unregulated gun shows.
I hate throwing away mod points (Score:5, Interesting)
but this sort of ignorance needs to be corrected.
There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".
At a gun show (in any relatively free state), private citizens can purchase from other private citizens without a background check. Neither is in the business of selling firearms, so no paperwork is required. (The dealers at the show must continue to follow all the same laws and procedures that they do back at their shop.)
You can do the same thing at a garage/yard sale. I've gotten some of my best buys at such places. Every time I stop to look at the computer or audio equipment people have put out in their driveway, I never fail to ask "You got any guns?"
You can do the same thing on a person-to-person basis. I've seen someone try to sell a gun to a pawnbroker who refused to give them enough money. The person walked out the door. That didn't stop me from following them out and offering to buy the gun.
You can do the same thing via the want ads in the newspaper. I've bought many guns from people in my town via that method.
You can do the same thing via an online meet-up. I've met people in internet forums who had a gun I was interested in. If they live in the same state as me and we can agree on a price, we both get in our cars and meet at some spot roughly halfway between our two houses. The last gun I bought was in the lobby of a Days Inn (I think; it was one of those cut-rate, business-travel hotels).
In free states, any two people who can legally own guns can trade them for money.
Big freakin' deal!
There is absoutely nothing special about gun shows. There is no "gun show loophole".
The politicians and anti-freedom activists who complain about the fictitious "gun show loophole" are people who simply want to outlaw all private, unregistered sales.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The purpose of the weapon is to injure"
The primary use of handguns is to punch small holes in pieces of paper and the primary use of rifles is to hunt non human prey, also, for both, to plink beer cans.
choosing to define the primary function of an object on the basis of some usage other than the how it is primarily used because that purpose suits ones political agenda is less than entirely honest
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
It will be justified under the 'interstate commerce' clause, the catch all used to justify everything from compelling Americans to buy health insurance to telling them that they can't set dried up bits of cannabis on fire and inhale the resulting smoke into their lungs. Any pretense of a limitation on Federal power died when SCOTUS said that the Federal Government has the power [wikipedia.org] to prevent you from growing food for your own consumption.
I'm rather pessimistic about our chances of reversing this trend, absent a constitutional convention and/or revolution, neither of which will happen because both would require Americans to stop watching TV long enough to realize how many rights they are losing.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a revolution or civil war happening long before a political solution would ever arise.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
No mo' whistleblowers.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
Can you set up a PO Box anonymously? Or have it delivered to a business with which you have an arrangement?
Maybe. PO Box, not really. They now require a "permanent address", and I was asked for ID last time I got one.
At one time, you could get a mailbox with any kind of address you wanted with one of the private mailbox places (like Mailboxes, Etc., for instance). In the name of fighting mail fraud, as of June 24, 2000 the USPS delivers only to CMRA (Commercial Mail Receiver Agents) customers who have filled out a new Form 1583 and produced two forms of identification, including a photo ID. Copies of each ID will be kept by the CMRA and the USPS. Customers using their boxes for business will have to provide home addresses and phone numbers, and the information will be made available to anyone for the asking.
You'll be hard-pressed finding a business that will let you use them for a mail drop without following the rules above. Plus the USPS won't deliver anything there if it doesn't look like it's addressed to the business itself. And if the business thinks you may be getting contraband delivered, they won't touch it, because they can actually be held liable for mail fraud - a federal crime.
The point is you CANNOT communicate anonymously - that's the ultimate goal. This is why I'm now skeptical about the push for "Network Neutrality". Is it just a bait-and-switch? It's sold as a constraint on carriers, but seems likely to end up being an excuse to track everyone's activity. After all, how do they make sure they're properly regulating the Internet "utilities" and "protecting the children" online unless they can do deep packet inspection on every transmission line, and know who is posting to message boards?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Over the years, we as a society have become very good at dismantling civil unrest. I don't think a civil war or revolution would be successful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Pay a teenager double the cost of the phone to buy the phone with his identity.
Step 2: Have teenager report the phone as stolen.
Step 3: Sell to terrorist @ 3x the cost of the phone.
Step 4: PROFIT.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with the ID of the teenager, you're assuming that the teenager will be able to accurately describe somebody who he/she only met once, possibly years earlier. What, you don't really think criminals would ask their *friends* to do such favors, do you?
This is unconstitutional because it destroys a major venue for anonymous speech. Centuries of history have proven that such venues are necessary to carry out legal acts of political dissent that otherwise result in all sorts of abuses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The case you mention is a little disingenuous. He had no intention of consuming the wheat personally. He was feeding it to chickens. What I wonder is what he was doing with those chickens. If he was using them for personal consumption, I think he would have had an easier time, but I honestly don't know how many chicken can be fed on over 450 bushels of wheat per year (his quota and non-quota amount). It seems like a substantial amount to me.
That said, artificial scarcity, government manipulation of mar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was no limit on the number of *chickens* he could produce, why does that matter??
The real point of that case is that it says, "We forbid you to produce this, and require you to purchase the exact same thing from someone else (so the someone else can make as much money as we think they should make)."
But if the object is to encourage economic recovery -- it backfires, because if this guy foregoes the wheat entirely, now can't produce as many chickens, and he becomes LESS properous. If he does buy the
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
He's saying that the original intent of the interstate commerce clause wasn't to grant Congress the power to control what we could purchase. It was to enable Congress to prevent the individual states from setting up trade barriers with one another, i.e: New York imposes a tariff on goods made in Pennsylvania.
Somehow I doubt that the framers imagined it being used to pass legislation compelling all Americans to purchase something from private enterprise (the health insurance mandate) or telling them that they can't indulge in cannabis consumption in the privacy of their own homes.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, don't you people realise the only way to achieve the latter is to have that dreadful power of control what you can purchase?
Bullshit. Congress can prohibit the states from putting up artificial barriers to trade without having the power to tell me that I can't grow my own wheat or cannabis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Carriers Require an ID anyways (Score:4, Informative)
Last year I bought a cheap 15 dollar Tracfone and activated it without a stitch of ID in rural Wisconsin. Plunked down the money and walked out of the Radio Shack with a working, anonymous phone. Don't need any ID to renew minutes either. Each time I walk into a RS and buy a minutes card it extends the validity of the number for 90 more days.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a US?!
Si senor, hay Estados Unidos!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
..why is it that no one has a better idea or alternative; just rants on how it won't work. I'm not saying this just to flame bait - personally I think /. has some of the most intelligent folks I've read posts from. So how about coming up with some better alternatives? I'd just like to see some of the creative and experienced people here suggest some ideas rather than just bemoan the stupidity of others.
Not doing something is an alternative to doing it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they don't care what number the person dials into only what number / carrier they need to wire tap. I don't think google helps.