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

It's always been required...

[wellard1981]

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. The new part is the national surveillance database. Thank god I'm moving out of this country.

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...

[xaxa]

They've always wanted some form of ID for contract phones -- to do a credit check for a start.

The news is that it's been suggested pay-as-you-go phones should require ID to purchase. This might catch some stupid criminals, but it's not going to stop terrorists (who will steal a phone, use a foreign one, or buy one second hand).

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.

Re:It's always been required...

[dnwq]

The scheme is aimed at PAYG phones! From TFA:

The move is targeted at monitoring the owners of Britainâ(TM)s estimated 40m prepaid mobile phones. They can be purchased with cash by customers who do not wish to give their names, addresses or credit card details.

The pay-as-you-go phones are popular with criminals and terrorists because their anonymity shields their activities from the authorities. But they are also used by thousands of law-abiding citizens who wish to communicate in private.

Why would it be irrelevant?

Re:It's always been required...

[multisync]

Criminals will go back to using payphones and face to face meetings to discuss their criminal activities

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...

[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.

Re:It's always been required...

[mollymoo]

The most powerful thing you can do is find people who agree with you and organize demonstrations.

Over a million people demonstrated in London to protest the Iraq war, with millions more in other demonstrations around the country, and the government ignored them. The major political parties, lobbyists and media have politics so tightly sewn up that revolution is increasingly looking like the only viable option to change the status quo.

Ridiculous

[CRCulver]

I had a similar problem when I wanted to by a SIM card in provincial Russia last month. The clerk wouldn't give me one, claiming that not only would I have to show a passport, but a Russian passport. I then just asked a friend to buy the damn thing for me. I thought it was stupid considering how, in most of the civilized world, travelers buy a SIM card from a local kiosk as a matter of course. It's sad to see the UK limiting the ease of travel, then.

Re:Ridiculous

[ColdWetDog]

New Party Game:

You need n players where the larger the value, the better.
First Beer: Everybody goes out and buys x prepay cards.
Second through y Beer: exchange cards with each other in order to randomize x
Even if you're not profiting, by the time y is > 3 or 4, you will have plausible deniability when it comes time to explain where you got the prepay card from.

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

[nomadic]

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?

The UK has been easily winning that for years. As bad as the US has gotten, the UK is consistently worse.

Re:no privacy here, no privacy there

[Maxo-Texas]

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: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:no privacy here, no privacy there

[Skreems]

Both countries do indeed have rich and deep histories of democratic values, but the average citizen in either country couldn't tell you the first thing about that history. They can recite who won the last 5 seasons of Survivor, and the last celebrity to pull a Basic Instinct while getting out of a taxi, but ask any real question (do we have a state religion? when was "In God We Trust" added to our money? what is the 4th amendment, and why is it important?) and you're likely to be met with either a blank stare, or some disgustingly ill-informed and incorrect answer.

It's sort of an open question as to WHY this has happened, whether there are people actively trying to promote a strain of proud anti-intellectualism or whether it's just a natural progression, but the end result is that not enough people understand or care about these rights to know and care when they're taken away.

In Soviet Russia...

[AndGodSed]

...Cellphone call resgisters YOU!

Oh, it seems in the UK as well...

Now on to my real response.

[AndGodSed]

Someone once asked a while ago how much freedom will we be willing to surrender for a false sense of security.

It seems that in the US and UK this very scenario is playing itself out and all we can do is sit, horrified and watch in spite of ourselves.

It's like sitting in the passenger seat of a car that is being driven by a lunatic - you squint your eyes closed but keep peeking because you know what is bound to happen, but you cant help but look and hope you will be somehow wrong.

And safe.

One thing proponents of all this gathering of data on people keep forgetting is that data gets lost, stolen or otherwise compromised on a daily basis.

The UK is a shining example of data getting lost.

How long before a terrorist hacker steals the info and spoofs a phonecall to a bomb that is detonated via cellphone?

Suddenly the possibilities of being wrongly implemented in a terrorist plot is so much more possible.

This is a bad idea all around.

I am glad that I do not live in the US or the UK - if my country implements this kind of policy I would start browsing using the TOR network, set up my own mailserver to do direct relay and eventually fall back on using older means of communication - snail mail and pretty much nothing else.

Who is it that said "As soon as we change our way of living the terrorists have won"?

I tell you now - terrorists are holding the citizens of the US and the UK captive via proxy, and the proxy is ironically the very governments they are battling.

They win on all fronts at this moment.

Simpler and cheaper solution...

[denzacar]

1. Wait in front of mobile-selling location.
2. Spot mobile-buying victim.
3. Follow victim for a while.
4. Club victim on the head, grab bag, run.

You get: one or more mobile phones and cards, one or more forms of ID, money, credit card(s), car and/or house key(s), one or more packet(s) of tissues, one or more packet(s) of gum, various other bonuses.

Or are you perhaps one of those pussy terrorists that is afraid of hitting people on the head and only does suicide bombings?

We told you so!

[Lord Kano]

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

Jason Bourne

[tangent3]

This would have prevented Jason Bourne from buying a phone and planting it on Simon Ross to talk to him covertly without the CIA being able to trace the call.

My guess would be the UK government watched the movie and decided this loophole need to be closed.

Not a handbook!

[hacker]

Someone needs to tell the PM in England that Orewell's book 1984 was never meant to be a handbook on how to run a country. It was intended to be a warning against such control.

Sigh.. it's a slippery slope until those in the US begin looking at these with genuine interest, with the intent to deploy these measures within our own borders.

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

[sumdumass]

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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1073990/Iceland-owes-world-116-000-man-woman-child-island.html
e.g. "The freezing order was issued under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act that was passed after the September 11 attacks the same year."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7662599.stm
e.g, "But Mr Haarde responded angrily to the move, saying it was "not very pleasant" to learn that anti-terror laws were being used against its companies and also blamed Britain for the collapse of Kaupthing."

Also here's some people forum discussion on the BBC refering to it as well...
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5483&edition=1&ttl=20081019201232&#paginator

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:Cell phones and terrorists

[Peter Greenwood]

>>They used anti-terror laws against Iceland, who are not at all terrorists.

>When? Do you have a cite on this?

It's well known. Google "iceland terror" and - among lots of others - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a9R6kEktPff0&refer=europe

The government wound in some "independent" reviewer of anti-terror legislation to claim the bit of the Act they used wasn’t really anti-terror legislation. You can judge how independent he is by the fact that the same man stood up in Parliament a few days later to argue in favour of a (now defeated) proposal to allow the police to lock "terrorist suspects" up for 6 weeks at a stretch.

We used to sneer at all those tinpot Balkan dictatorships where you had to carry identity papers everywhere, the police could lock anyone up on a whim, and the only telephones you could buy were designed to allow Them to monitor you. And they used to make unbelievably weird claims about the evils of foreign governments. Then we went and elected a Labour government ...

Movie Plot Threats

[stereoroid]

Another belated movie plot threat response. Specifically, The Bourne Ultimatum, in which Bourne arrives at London's Waterloo station and immediately purchases a pre-paid cellphone to give to his journalist contact. If he had to show a passport to buy that phone... he could have been delayed by a couple of seconds, while he decided which of his fake passports to use. Gee.

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.

Re:useless idea that costs us all

[FailedTheTuringTest]

When it finally happens it will be just another argument for the electronic chip identity cards that the UK government has been wanting to introduce.

The government, and businesses, will say: it would be so much simpler and more efficient if we had a unified ID standard. After all, you need to show ID to get a phone <strawman>(and Internet access, and airline, train, and coach tickets, and to vote, and to get health care or buy medicines at a pharmacy, and to stay at a hotel)</strawman> and everyone needs that!

The first people to get these ID cards, starting next month, will be foreign students and foreign spouses. Gradually they will be rolled out to more categories of foreigners.

Some terrorists are more equal than others

[unlametheweak]

I'm not understanding why Britain wants to be so much like North Korea. Britain is trying to create terror in its own civilian population and yet claims to be fighting against terrorism. There's something not right here.

This is just getting depressing

[_Shad0w_]

Is there an English speaking country left on this bloody planet which has a sane government? I'm about ready to vote with my feet and quit the UK, assuming I can find anyone stupid enough to take me.