Passport Required To Buy Mobile Phones In the UK

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.

Comments

no privacy here, no privacy there

[v1]

Are the USA and the UK in some sort of competition to see who can do the more thorough job of obliterating their citizens' rights to privacy?

Lately there's been a morbid tit-for-tat article exchange going on here on slash, like the USA and UK are trying to outdo one another. Just when you think the USA or UK is as bad as it gets, there's a reply.

Re:no privacy here, no privacy there

[OriginalArlen]

No need to appeal to maliciousness to explain that which can easily be explained by incompetence (the reciprocal of "cockup over conspiracy".) It's a combination of simple-minded headline grabbing by unprincipled politicians (which isn't actually ALL of them, quite yet), plus an infuriatingly vacuous, knee-jerk, reactionary tabloid press which sets the agenda for all mainstream political debate. It's depressing, pathetic, outrageous.

However as a long-time observer of the UK domestic political scene over the last thirty years or so, I see a lot of straws in the wind suggesting that the tide is turning (pardon the mixed metaphors.) When the shadow Home Secretary resigned to protest a particular high profile issue (42 days in jail without charges), and the "surveillance state" issues in general (CCTV, ID cards, criminal record checks, ubiquitous state databases on the population, security theatre in response to 9/11, etc etc) you KNOW something's up. I noticed that Times story on their front page; it's bagged up so I could only read a couple of lines above the fold, but they managed to get "raising fears amongst privacy campaigners of the surveillance state" in there. Interestingly, a lot of this stuff is actually being picked up by the very same reactionary tabloids that howled about paedophiles, immigrants, crime, terrorism and so on, as a stick to beat the Labour government with! This strikes me as beautifully poetic justice. Brown's picked up a short-term lift on account of how he does look good wearing a dark tie and a solemn expression whilst appearing to save the world from economic catastrophe. However in six months' time, when it becomes apparent that avoiding catastrophe has not meant avoiding 2.5 or 3 million unemployed, that's going to be painted as "rescuing the fat cats". (Don't get me started on the sickening hypocrisy with which the "kick-a-banker" movement has got going over the last couple of months... )

Re:It's always been required...

[sakdoctor]

1. Buy a PAYG phone
2. Don't bother registering it
3. Buy top-ups using cash
4. Anonymity

Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The most powerful vote you have is indeed to leave.

Re:It's always been required...

[91degrees]

They're talking about pre-pay phones.

As a result, terrorists are going to run up some hefty roaming charges as they buy foreign pre-pay phones, or just stolen/cloned ones.

Re:It's always been required...

[Bert64]

Criminals will go back to using payphones and face to face meetings to discuss their criminal activities.
And stealing phones, since they're already criminals having to steal a phone isn't much of a deterrent.

Cell phones and terrorists

[qbzzt]

However, if you're planning $LARGE_SPECTACULAR_JIHADIST_ATTACK, and you steal a phone, it makes you a little more likely to be caught/fail.

You don't. You get a sympathizer to buy one for you, and then claim it was stolen. Enough phones are stolen anyway that this won't look suspicious.

Open societies are going to be vulnerable to terrorism. We can accept that, give up our freedoms, or be so scary nobody will want to mess with us.

Re:Cell phones and terrorists

[ATMD]

> Open societies are going to be vulnerable to terrorism.

Mod parent up, this is the most insightful thing I've seen on Slashdot in a good while. When you scale that familiar security/convenience trade-off up to national governments, it morphs into security/civil liberties. Since absolute security can never be achieved, (be it for computer or country), the march towards that end of the spectrum must be halted before citizens of the Western world have no more freedom than denizens of 1970s Cambodia.

Re:Cell phones and terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

"Open societies are going to be vulnerable to terrorism. We can accept that, give up our freedoms, or be so scary nobody will want to mess with us."

That is admitting our country is fearful and so we create a police state to suppress anyone who we fear. Yet we will still then have to live in fear. Its better to live without fear.

Also what happens if the ones in power arrogantly decide to do something people disagree with?. In such a police state, the ones in power will use and abuse their powers, to force their point of view, on to everyone.

This already keeps happening in the UK. E.g. They used anti-terror laws against Iceland, who are not at all terrorists. The ones in power have at times behaved with incredible arrogance. Their views are so often these days, utterly self righteous. They show narcissistic behaviour and contempt for anyone who disagrees with them, yet you want us to just keep giving them all more power. Freedom and democracy are constantly undermined by a minority of people in power, for their own gain. That is why democracy has to be defended. People who undermine democracy, are by definition, lacking empathy towards others. You want to let these people dictate terms to you? ... well you will be, if you give in to fear.

The UK has fought two world wars to rid the world of narcissistic totalitarian dictators. Yet it looks like the lessons of history have not been learned.

Re:Cell phones and terrorists

[AmiMoJo]

Open societies are going to be vulnerable to terrorism.

Exactly. We make this loss of life to benefit judgement all the time. We sent troops overseas, knowing some will die but judging it a worthwhile sacrifice. People die in road accidents, but not enough to make us want to ban cars.

In London, 52 people died in the 7/7 attacks. Unlike the examples I gave, that was a one-off event, not a yearly loss. Even in 11/9, only around 3,000 people died compared to over 11,000 a year from gun crime in the US, and again it was a one-off event. There is simply no way to argue that terrorism is deadly enough to warrant taking away fundamental freedoms from millions of innocent citizens.

Re:It's always been required...

[legirons]

When signing up for a new mobile phone contract, you're pretty much asked for two forms of identifications, such as a driving license, passport, utility bills, etc. so this is nothing new.

That's because the mobile phone contract will be collecting money from you for the next 2 years and if you disappear they lose out so they want to know who you are.

By contrast, you can buy a SIM card with cash with nobody asking who you are (unless the shop is trying its chances at getting an address for their spam mail) because you pay in advance therefore you don't owe any further money to the shop, therefore they don't need to know who you are.

So...

(1) THIS *IS* NEW (contrary to your attempts to deny it by comparison with what private companies choose to do when they give you credit)

(2) Why in every civil-liberties story is there always someone to pop-up with a justification based on government's previous bad behaviour?

* "this isn't so much worse than what they have already" - one step at a time

* "they were already doing that but illegally, so this isn't new"

* "some other government is already doing this, so it isn't new"

* "the other political party agrees with them, so anyone who complains is a hypocrite"

* "the government did this before [during a war], so it isn't new"

Just because something resembles authoritarian behaviour of the past doesn't mean it should be accepted, quite the opposite.

Typewriters

[AliasMarlowe]

Anyone remember when typewriters had to be registered in several Eastern European countries? Being mechanical devices, each had its own unique signature (character shapes, weights, and so forth). The idea was to be able to track the origin of unapproved newsletters etc. which were typically produced via typewriter and stencil or carbon paper. This was all rendered irrelevant by the arrival of PC-based communications (a rear-guard action was fought over printers, faxes, and so forth).

Looks like the UK has just revised those old Soviet-era laws for current technology. Anonymous communication must be considered to be really subversive in the UK.