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."
Re:Throw me a bone. (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.
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...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
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:You are incorrect Sir! (Score:3, Informative)
It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.
So it's all about tracking the poor.
Re:Throw me a bone. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm surprised they've been allowing it for this long. I had to sign up to get a pre-paid phone ~6 years ago here in the UK. I thought it would be the same everywhere else, otherwise you could use them for very anonymous communication, perfect for criminal activity..
There are worse places (Score:2, Informative)
In Italy you have to present your ID even when in internet cafes. It will be photocopied and kept forever along with your IP. And there is no open Wi-Fi anywhere, because any internet user must be identified (there are free hotspots that require your local GSM number and verify it by sending you a code).
Of course you can't buy any prepaid SIM without your ID or passport (and often fiscal code).
I guess USA is slowly getting there too.
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.
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.
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:Burn Notice (Score:4, Informative)
One of his clients gave him a box full of cell phones, forgot which episode.
Re:You are incorrect Sir! (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!
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Yep (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 markets, etc., etc. One more repercussion from a dubious decision.
Re:include 'common-sense' returns false. (Score:3, Informative)
This is not to say that the Republican Party bosses would not support this bill, but the support of Republican Senator John Cornyn is not equivalent of the support of Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.
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.
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:You are incorrect Sir! (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 from the carrier, it's only $30-$200 more expensive, and you make that up in less than a year's worth of service.
I'm sorry you can't find a deal like that in your area.
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:Very problematic, not very useful (Score:1, Informative)
That is an excellent point. Consider the difficulties trying to live "cash only."
Currently I only know of one business that pays employees in cash - Waffle House. It's either that or:
$8-10 fees to cash paychecks, including thumbprint identification. Even if the check is:
DRAWN ON THAT BANK - to which they reply, we are not a check cashing service (?!?!?! are they that stupid?), but of course since the turrists happened, it's because it is now a matter of being a:
National Security Issue to have a check cashed at a bank. Don't believe me? Read the sign near the teller on the end.
Unless your bill is local, it is impossible to pay in cash, and even then often difficult. This can be gotten by:
Buying a money order for $1.50
I see what you are saying, but I'd say it is less a matter of being an ATM to the government, and more a matter of tracking and control, as evidence by the FTA in the very beginning. There is no reason to outlaw cash if it is exceptionally difficult and expensive.
Try to live cash only for a month. You'll probably quit.
Re:The Premise is False (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.