Cell Phone SIM Cards Lead To Terrorists' Trail

Cliff Stoll writes "The Times of India reports that cell phone SIM cards used by the terrorists in Mumbai were purchased in Kolkata (Calcutta), using fraudulent papers. The papers belonged to the dead uncle of a 26-year-old man living in Kolkata; he is suspected of being a collaborator of the terrorists. The paper states that this highlights 'the continued vulnerabilities in the system which have repeatedly been exploited by the terrorists and their collaborators to obtain cell phone connections. "We've booked them for cheating and forgery as they produced fake documents to get the SIMs. We've also slapped conspiracy charges against them for they had an ulterior motive. The arrests will throw light on the Mumbai terror module," Kolkata police's Jawed Shamim said.'"

Comments

Easy solution

[nurb432]

Just require DNA to purchase, and use, a phone. We don't need that pesky free-speech and privacy do we?

One of the costs of liberties is that some will abuse them. The answer is not to take them away from the rest. ( but its what the government wants to do, and garbage like this just helps them snow the populace into thinking its for 'their own good'.

Re:Easy solution

[ErkDemon]

Ban the telephone!

Re:Easy solution

[rhsanborn]

This is what we call a false dichotomy and is exactly the same fear tactic used by governments in several countries to justify invasive and abusive legislation and practices.

Re:Easy solution

[Wrath0fb0b]

Since you need an individualized warrant from a Federal court to wiretap an American citizen inside the US, (yes, even with the new FISA, IIAL and I have actually read the statute), I don't see how registering the SIM to an identity has anything to do with privacy or free speech. Unless it's your position that (1) citizens do not have to submit to the lawful surveillance under the terms approved by Congress and monitored by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the courts are not effecting Congress' intent properly or (3) the terms, as written by Congress, are entirely unconscionable.

If I were writing the law, I would likely include more protection for privacy than is currently included. That political preference, however, does not mean that I think the law outside the bounds of reasonableness. There is room to disagree without hyperbole.

* Oh yeah, the telecom immunity part of the law was bullshit because the law was clearly being violated from 2002-2006. That said, here's an analysis of the law going forward: http://volokh.com/posts/1215699055.shtml.

Re:Easy solution

[mrmeval]

I club you over the head, get your biometric data, use phone. Leave you unconscious at the scene. Being the low hanging fruit you get hanged for your crimes.

Re:Easy solution

[More_Cowbell]

Benjamin Franklin said it best, and I couldn't agree more.

Re:Easy solution

[Wrath0fb0b]

Surely having records of being in the hospital unconscious while the act of terrorism takes place will never be considered an airtight alibi. Also, why wouldn't you fill out a police report while there, detailing your loss?

Re:Easy solution

[TimWox]

If you are affected it is 100%. Till you are affected it is 0%. No matter if it is India, London or New York, there are people whose life could be saved, if you and I don't create this much fuss about wanting to keep our home address or SSN "top-secret" when you buy a phone connection or similar activity.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If Benjamin Franklin were in a position where he was afforded temporary safety at the expense of an essential liberty (the sovereignty over the contents of his own mind) then one would most probably surmise that he was being tortured or otherwise pressured for information. In which case, as soon as said information is disclosed his essential liberty and, indeed, essential life are forfeit.

Re:Easy solution

[fractoid]

Well, if DNA proof positive of non-paternity isn't enough to get you out of paying child support, I wouldn't be at all confident that mere medical records could exonerate you from terrerisum. If you claim otherwise then you're obviously supporting terrerisum, you dirty terrerest.

Re:Easy solution

[TimWox]

Since this information was collected at some point, now they have a lead. This can result in taking several of the terrorists out of the streets. Without this lead, without able to arrest these terrorists, when they bomb next time, would you tell the victims it is just false dichotomy? It's easy to be arm chair philosopher. But don't fool yourself. When you are directly affected, your concern for your life would always triumph your want for privacy rights.

Re:Easy solution

[Archon-X]

Wait til your life goes to hell because your casual attitude towards privacy means you get your identity stolen.

Re:Easy solution

[TimWox]

The more secretive you are about your identity, more difficult will it be for you to restore it once its stolen. If your life is an open book, no one can steal it. Even if someone does, there will be so much tracks left, that it would be much easier to restore it. How many people have you heard of who have had their identity stolen? Now how many people have you heard of who have lost their lives due to terrorist activities?

Re:Easy solution

[mrmeval]

I drag you with me to the crime in the trunk. You'll just 'be that crazy dirty dood that did the dirty deed' and then 'fall down and bump head'. It will be told with a straight face by UGH the Police Cretin and lapped up by the ERG the Media Cretin.

You do realize who died recently whose husband was railroaded by the cops yes?

Re:Easy solution

[WCguru42]

If SSN wasn't used as a catchall proof of identity in nearly all forms of financial transaction then it wouldn't be as big a deal. If the SSN was only used as a way to provide identity to the government (the original intent) then we wouldn't have people so afraid of this. But that's not the case, now if someone has your home address, SSN and maybe a family name they can take out all forms of credit in your name and ruin your ability to function in western society. I feel bad for those who die from terrorism but whatever restrictions we put on the purchase of phones, etc. there will be a way around it and the terrorists will still succeed in some way. The only true way to combat terrorism is to convince them that it is not worth the violence that they cause, a tremendously daunting and perhaps impossible task.

Re:Easy solution

[davester666]

"Since you need an individualized warrant from a Federal court to wiretap an American citizen inside the US..."

This only matters if there is somebody willing to stand up and actually prosecute the statue when it happens without a warrant. And particularly with the new law, I believe if you make a long distance call outside the US, the federal gov't begin a wiretap on your phone if an agent believes that call was to somebody with a relationship to a terrorist (not necessarily living there, or banging the occupant, but possibly just a casual acquaintance, and no actual evidence required), and now either 2 days or a week (I forget which) to actually apply for the warrant to listen in. And if the warrant is denied, the gov't can appeal (without lifting the wiretap), and I think has another 3 or 4 weeks for the appeal to be heard (all by a secret court, where only the gov't is represented). And the wiretap can get ALL your calls. Not just to that number, or to calls outside the country. And after that month or so, if the warrant is denied, all the gov't has to do is lift the wiretap. And all your recorded calls still are retained, and possibly could still be used in court against you or your friends.

The totally crazy part of the new law is that, even with the speed-dial-a-warrant FISA court, which has denied something like 2 warrants out of thousands over the last couple of years, was claimed to be to slow, so they needed the legal ability to tap your phone, then sometime in the next couple of days, actually find the judge and ask him if it's ok.

Re:Easy solution

[Wrath0fb0b]

You are factually incorrect as to what the law requires (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the law is being properly enforced).

As a US citizen, they cannot tap your phone without warrant. They can, however, tap the phone line of a suspect outside the US so that if you call that "tagged" line, they can listen in. That doesn't make you tapped because your next call to Joe's Pizza cannot be intercepted. Basically, they can monitor the phone line of the foreign person and gather your phone to him but they can't monitor your line.

Please read the link in my OP.

Re:Easy solution

[Hal_Porter]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin.

Is it really an essential liberty that you can buy a SIM card anonymously?

Re:Easy solution

[Hal_Porter]

Sarcasm is for small-minded people. You're a lawyer, and thus are supposed to be smarter than that. Please stop.

You realise it was a lawyer that coined the idiot catchphrase "if the glove don't fit you must acquit" don't you?

Re:Easy solution

[HungryHobo]

Fortunatly the chances of a friend dying at the hands of a terrorist are so small as to be a joke.

Any given friend of mine is hundreds of times more likely to die in a car wreck, thousands of time more likely to die from cancer, or heart disease.
I need to fear my friends being killed by terrorists in the same way I need to fear my friends getting killed by lightening.
It might happen but spending your whole life carrying around a Faraday cage would be stupid.
Giving up your civil rights to fight lightening would be idiotic.

Yet that's basically what people do. Because even if only a tiny number get killed by terrorists everyone see's it. And that's the point, the groups which use it get attention.

Want to really fight terrorism? Gently push the media to never report the name or details of any group which commits a terrorist attack, give as little attention as you can to it. Don't blame everything on 9/11. Don't give the videos from terrorist groups any air time. If you do this then terrorism stops being effective. If it stops being effective then it will be used much much less than if it's a guaranteed way to get your cause and politics into the headlines.

Re:Easy solution

[ubrgeek]

That reminds me of a comedian I heard once talking about earthquakes and California. He couldn't understand the whole "The Big One" thing. If there's an earthquake and a brick falls off of a building, hits you on the head and kills you, that's The Big One.

You know.....why do they need to know?

[cayenne8]

Don't get me wrong. I like it when they can catch the "bad guys". And I know this story involves countries OTHER than the US.

But, I've been looking around here for a new cell phone, and yes..I'm eyeballing the iPhone. But, one thing I recently found out is, AT&T is requiring you give them your damned SSN to get one activated?!?! What the hell is this?

I know they're wanting to do a credit check...but, in lieu of that why can't I just give them a deposit? I've been with Sprint since I got a cell phone back in about 2000 or so. I did the deposit thing with them, and no problem. A year or so they sent it back.

But, from what I can tell...they don't want to do that for the iPHone. I've been searching and some site seem to say (and this sounds like old info about activating at home) to put in 999-99-9999 or 141-11-1111 (supposedly an internal ATT code) for the ssn when registering..and it will set you up for some "Pay as you go" type plan.

I'm still looking into all this....but, really, if you put down a deposit, and pay the bill, why they hell do they even need to know much more than minimal information about a person? Just to track you in case you do something bad?

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[v1]

I recently found out is, AT&T is requiring you give them your damned SSN to get one activated

I shall now go checking on this, but for now I'm going to say "no".

Several years back my grandmother was with us shopping and the dept store offered her a credit card for the store. She wanted one and filled out the paperwork. It got to the spot where you had to fill in your SSN.

"I don't want to give you that. You can't demand that."

She grew up in the era where your SSN was ubber-top-secret and you were actually publicly educated to never give it out. She knew the rules.

They argued for a good 10 min and finally got on the phone calling around. The store clerks realized she was probably right, but everything they had been told was to the contrary.

Finally after 25 minutes of phonecalls and I don't know how far up the chain they had to go, they ran into someone that knew the law. "she's right, we cannot demand her SSN as a condition for getting the card." (you cannot simply say "well it's your right not to give out your SSN but if you don't, we won't give you this card") She was issued an alternate unique identification number. From what I saw, this was an extremely unusual case for someone to call them on this, so very few people know their rights here.

I remember my SSN used to be on my driver's license. Now that's a different unique number also. Heck, two months ago I was at the dentist and they wanted my SSN. I said I don't want to give it to you. She said well look on your dental card I bet that's your number. by god she was right. That got changed a week later following a phonecall from me to my insurance company.

It's amazing how many places you will see people wanting your SSN, and if you're sucker enough to give it to them, they're doing really stupid things with it.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[Jens Egon]

Don't get me wrong. I like it when they can catch the "bad guys". And I know this story involves countries OTHER than the US.

But, I've been looking around here for a new cell phone, and yes..I'm eyeballing the iPhone. But, one thing I recently found out is, AT&T is requiring you give them your damned SSN to get one activated?!?! What the hell is this?

When I first heard this story I thought that those guys might simply be reselling phones.

If buying a phone in a store becomes too difficult or fraught with unknown (legal) dangers, a black market will appear.

Even if this is not generally the case in India today. (Is it? I certainly wouldn't know.) Sooner or later restrictive legislation will drive a black market.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[Anonymous Coward]

in todays world your SSN is what your financial history is tied to, and it's not 1940 anymore alice...

not saying it's a good thing but it is what it is.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[Samschnooks]

I'd like to know who that store was. Anyway, I can guarantee that you couldn't do that today.

Anyway you cannot and you can argue until you're blue in the face, get any sort of:

1. Utility service
2. Cell service
3. credit card
4. loan
5. Government job
6. Any other job
7. just file an application for a job.

without giving your SSN. (Home Depot requires one to even apply for a job - online. WTF?!) They will just refuse to do business with you which is their right. I am really paranoid about giving my SSN and I have refused to do business with many companies because of this.

And this bullshit of doing credit checks for prospective employees - even if you're not going to touch money!! If you have a lot of student loans, you may actually fail an employer's credit check. That's right, student loans can actually harm your employment chances!

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[Phizzle]

"They" already have your SSN... This whole illusion that your privacy is protected because you withold your SSN is naive. All of these institutions already have access to your SSN and all of your financial information, only reason they want it is because it holds just a little more weight than your signature for the purpose of fraud verification. As far as your privacy, its been screwed into the ground from the day you were born, you have been cataloged, assessed, verified and filed by the spooks and the corporations that sleep with them. Welcome to the Machine, you were already there.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[v1]

The initial basic list of people that can require your SSN, when the SSN was created was simply:

A- the IRS (which can also mean the person that submits your taxes)
B- your employer
C- your bank

There is a more comprehensive and current list at the US Govt SSN web page:

-Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans;
-Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes;
-States for the school lunch program;
-Banks for monetary transactions;
-Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number;
-Department of Labor for workersâ(TM) compensation;
-Department of Education for Student Loans;
-States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law -within its jurisdiction;
-States for child support enforcement;
-States for commercial driversâ(TM) licenses;
-States for Food Stamps;
-States for Medicaid;
-States for Unemployment Compensation;
-States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or
-U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

I don't see "AT&T", "Apple", or even "Cell phone providers" on that list anywhere.

Further, they state:

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number, and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Since they discuss "consequences", I wonder if that means they can refuse to sell you services or products if you refuse to give them your SSN. Kind of looks that way? But since it specifically says you should ask what LAW requires you to give your ssn, it would appear that they must give you an alternate option. But it also says that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested so this web page appears to present conflicting information.

Aaaand 35 minutes on the phone later...

AT&T wireless customer support number is 1-800-331-0500, 1, 2
- prepaid has no credit check and thus does not require ssn
- iphones cannot do prepaid, can only do monthly plans
- monthly plan requires credit check to determine the amount of the necessary deposit
- ssn required for credit check **
- rep was not aware of options for paying the largest deposit in leu of the credit check

called AT&T wireless customer care at 1-866-801-3600
- rep agreed with everything I've said so far but is unsure if AT&T offers an alternate method of credit check or flat rate downpayment to skip the credit check.
- rep contacted the AT&T Activation dept (they have NO external phone number for this department!)
- the activation dept said I need to go to an AT&T wireless store and they can perform the activation without a credit check, but will require a deposit, most likely the upper limit deposit of $1,000, and will issue you a "generic id" in leu of your SSN

You can also call Activation at Apple, at 1-800-694-7466, but they may not know how to deal with this, and may not be able to handle this flat rate deposit and issuing of a generic id at an Apple store. (it's possible the law may require them to here also, but they will probably just direct you to the nearest AT&T wireless store)

** I wonder if your ssn is truly required for a credit check? According to the SSA web si

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[moortak]

Bullshit on numbers 1-3. I have gotten all three without use of my ssn.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[MrEkitten]

Since I work for AT&T, I'll let you in on a secret. If you are willing to pay a $500 deposit, you do not need a SSN. There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN. I will admit that we try really hard to use one for credit checks and the such, but it is NOT required for those who persist. If you do not give one, a $500 deposit per line IS required. This would have to be paid upfront, before the activation of the line.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[socsoc]

Just to track you in case you do something bad? Yes. Like not pay your bill.

Your SSN is no secret. Anyone that attended a university in the early 2000s knows that many of them had to scramble to replace your student id number (SSN) with an actual student id number. Prior to that, your SSN was all over campus. It's also probably in the database of most utilities, banks and credit cards that you have used. How is this surprising that AT&T requests it?

You gave Sprint a deposit for 7 years? I hope you got some interest on that...

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[mi]

Finally after 25 minutes of phonecalls and I don't know how far up the chain they had to go, they ran into someone that knew the law. "she's right, we cannot demand her SSN as a condition for getting the card." (you cannot simply say "well it's your right not to give out your SSN but if you don't, we won't give you this card") She was issued an alternate unique identification number.

This is very interesting... I once responded with a "Yes" to a bank's (Capital One) offer of a credit card for my business (not even me). Well, they wanted my SSN anyway. I refused and they rejected my "pre-approved" application. I filed a complaint (on the bank-provided form), and, eventually, the government told me, the bank is within their right to deny the application. It wouldn't even have bothered me that much, if it was for the fact, that I was, supposedly, "pre-approved"...

Your story, if true, would place it in a different light. But it may also be, that the store has run a credit-check on your grandma during all those phone-calls, was able to identify her by other parameters (name, address), and was satisfied with her credit-record...

Because I'd be a bit unnerved, if, for example, I was legally-obligated to provide rental housing, for example, without a credit check. It is a lot harder for a landlord to terminate an agreement with tenant, than it is for a bank to cancel a credit-card...

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[mi]

There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN.

At least one of the SIM-cards used by Mumbai terrorists was purchased in the US (New Jersey)...

No, I'm not saying, it should be necessary to submit everything to a cell-phone provider — that's how things are in less free countries like India or Australia. But it is still interesting...

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[v1]

I made a followup post after doing some additional digging and making some calls. The SSA webpage itself has some contradictions here, in one place implying that unless there's a law for it, they can't require it. Then in another place they say there may be "consequences" if you deny it. So I have contacted them for clarification.

Though it does seem for all the instances where someone beat around the bush awhile they always found an exception, and I can't imagine companies going to the trouble on such a consistent basis unless they had to?

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[cayenne8]

"It's amazing how many places you will see people wanting your SSN, and if you're sucker enough to give it to them, they're doing really stupid things with it."

I'm much the same way and do not give it out unless it is used for SSN taxation. I did, recently relent..when I recently moved. I had to give it to get water turned on. They explained to me, that their system was so old, it used SSN (basically for a primary key, which is not a good idea)...and they could actually not put me in the system without it. I was shocked, but, after looking into it...I believe them. I too have had insurance and other places NOT put my SSN in there...so, yes, it is a big deal to me too.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[cayenne8]

"Since I work for AT&T, I'll let you in on a secret. If you are willing to pay a $500 deposit, you do not need a SSN. There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN. I will admit that we try really hard to use one for credit checks and the such, but it is NOT required for those who persist. If you do not give one, a $500 deposit per line IS required. This would have to be paid upfront, before the activation of the line."

Thank you for the info. I have no problem whatsoever plunking down a $500 deposit. My question is...when I go in there, what do I say, or who do I insist on talking to in order to do the deposit thing, and not have to go round and round with a sales droid that probably doesn't know this can be done?

Thank you for the input....a little more info on how to do this smoothly please.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[cayenne8]

"You gave Sprint a deposit for 7 years? I hope you got some interest on that..."

Sprint, like other utilities I've given deposits to, have usually paid it back to me in 1-2 years after I've been a good, paying customer.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[v1]

every encounter I've had with this also uses it as a unique identifier as their excuse, but all of them have had provisions for making an identifier themselves. I bet if you would have fought this a bit you could have won.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[Strep]

Uh-oh. You're thinking of using someone else's SSN? That sounds a lot like what LDrew got in trouble for; that is, pretending to be someone you're not.

Re:You know.....why do they need to know?

[Slashdot Parent]

(you cannot simply say "well it's your right not to give out your SSN but if you don't, we won't give you this card")

This is simply false. No one is required to extend you credit.

FWIW, I Am A Landlord, and I require an SSN (credit check) to rent an apartment. You don't want to give it? Fine, you are rejected. Have a nice day.

Ironic

[kraemate]

You know what the irony is?
I live in india and have had my SIM card blocked _every_ time i have got one, the phone company citing 'lack of documentary proof of identity' every time inspite of me submitting whatever proof i had.

The government has mandated all these proofs but this case proves it doesnt make a difference in the end.
I really dont know which is better : getting a working phone connection with no documents or this 'secure' method. I mean how hard is it for someone to fake a photocopy of a grubby drivers license?

Re:Ironic

[mobby_6kl]

There's more hilarity to this story, apparently the terrorists were supplied with the SIM cards by Indian police:

One of the two Indian men arrested for illegally buying mobile phone cards used by the gunmen in the Mumbai attacks was a counterinsurgency police officer who may have been on an undercover mission.
...
The implications of Ahmed's involvement that Indian agents may have been in touch with the militants and perhaps supplied the SIM cards used in the attacks added to the growing list of questions over India's ill-trained security forces, which are widely blamed for not thwarting the attacks.

Indian police arrest 2 men in Mumbai investigation

Re:Ironic

[argiedot]

I agree that it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, but it's incredibly easy to get a connection. Vodafone will give you one in 2 hours, Airtel in a day.

The SSN is not a signature

[mangu]

one thing I recently found out is, AT&T is requiring you give them your damned SSN to get one activated?!?! What the hell is this?

The SSN is a practical primary key for identifying people, that's all. The big problem in using the SSN is that some federal agencies assume that anyone who calls them with an SSN number and the corresponding name is in fact that person.

If the SSN weren't used in this way, I would have no objection in giving it to anyone who asked. After all, my car license is in plain view for anyone to see. No one ever assumes that a person mentioning a car license plate is the owner of that car.

Re:The SSN is not a signature

[cayenne8]

"The SSN is a practical primary key for identifying people, that's all. "

Actually....SSN is not a very good choice to use for a primary key for identifying people. It is not 100% unique to people. There are people, for religious reasons, that do not have one. People can apply for and change SSN's...there are 'special' ssn's assigned to foreign workers, and even ones that are more than 9 digits to foreign military personnel assigned to our military bases for periods..etc. Hell, to this day, there are still people out there, that when they bough wallets back in the 50's and 60's...that had 'fake' credit cards and social security cards in them, thought that was how they go their number assigned...and still use them.

Not to mention how that many illegal aliens are using fraudulent SSN's of fake, dead and real living people. No, it is not a good primary key for people.

When I worked at Acxiom many moons ago...we learned not to use that there...and they are the commercial big brother of the US, and other parts of the world. When I was there...we were trying to come up with our own unique identifier for everyone in the US, and then even foreign countries that we could use to track people from birth to death no matter what name or address changed...etc. I can only guess they have something like that now. Back then we had pretty good info on about 98% of the people in the US, and were starting to expand outside the US borders on info gathered and tracked. Hell, after 9/11 the feds used Acxiom for help on data for private citizens.

Anyway...I don't like to give out my SSN at all unless for taxation purposes. I've had my identity stolen twice...and while I was lucky that it didn't hurt me any...it makes me cautious. And...the more places that have info like this one you, makes more places that can leak or lose or have info on you stolen...which can harm you.

I'm not paranoid, but, I also do find it best to do like Monty Python said...and know the importance of not being seen.

:)

papers to buy a sim card?

[Punto]

so is it OK to require paper to buy a SIM card now? I thought it was evil. Or maybe just in the countries where terrorists come from, because everyone there must be a terrorist? or just in places where it wouldn't affect me?

Re:papers to buy a sim card?

[rhsanborn]

It isn't that everyone is a terrorist. It's simply to stop the terrorists from having easy access. You, honorable citizen that your are, have nothing to worry about because you don't have anything to hide, right? Or at least that's the mantra. Let's ignore the potential for abuse...

Re:papers to buy a sim card?

[Punto]

I know, that's how I got my current phone line (cost me $5, those bastards ripped me off :). But isn't there a law that "encourages" people to register their DNI when they get the line?

What's so great?

[yams]

I don't understand how this is relevant to slashdot. What is so technically challenging about a fake SIM card? I am from India, and we see fake IDs here on a regular basis.

These people are terrorrists - if they can procure an AK-47, why should anything prevent them from procuring an illegal ID and illegal SIM card.

Maybe India can make tougher laws, but that would only hamper those who need to to obtain a SIM card for legal purposes - more paperwork. I doubt that terrorists would be bothered by paperwork.

I can understand Times of India (or any other Indian newspaper) publishing this article, but why Slashdot? If we're going to blindly publish articles from TOI, why not publish this one?

Re:What's so great?

[TheRaven64]

It's relevant because a lot of us don't want to be required to provide ID to buy a SIM in our own countries. This example means that we can point at India and say:

• In India, this scheme is already in effect.
• It has been shown not to work.
• Implementing it here would be costly and provide no benefit.
• Why do you, politician coming up for re-election, want to spend taxpayers' money, in a recession, on something that won't work?

Re:What's so great?

[TimWox]

It has been shown not to work.

Why do you think it does not work? It's the clue that led to the dead man and to his nephew. It may now lead to the actual planners. True, it did not prevent the attacks. But it can lead to the capture of some people, which can prevent future attacks. So ultimately it does work.

Re:What's so great?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why do you think it does not work? It's the clue that led to the dead man and to his nephew. It may now lead to the actual planners.

Your assumption is that it is the only clue that will lead anywhere.

Furthermore, the ToI article is very focused on pointing out that, "the Pakistan-based terrorists exploited the weaknesses in the issuance of SIM cards" which seems (to me at least) like editorializing for ratcheting up the restrictions even further. Which is a topic that needs disputing and slasdot is good place to find people who can dispute it on technical grounds if not libertarian grounds.

Re:What's so great?

[oiron]

You mean the one about Britney?

Re:What's so great?

[jxxx]

I love how they drop "alleged" after the second sentence. This journalism is so yellow, I'm having trouble reading the page.

And what a model of efficiency and effectiveness. The police discovered the man of the house was (several years) dead after paying him a visit. Laugh.

The only feeling I'm left with is that I can't trust the reporter, or (if the reporter is otherwise deemed credible) the police forces cited.

Re:What's so great?

[gr8dude]

What is so technically challenging about a fake SIM card?

A SIM card is a smart card, which is a computer with a processor, file system and ACLs that are enforced.

Some files on the SIM card cannot be read, therefore you cannot make a clone of a SIM (it is so by design, once the card is not in the personalization phase anymore), even if you have the transport key.

If someone can clone a SIM it means they were able to get past the smart card security mechanisms - which is a big deal.

But.. it is not, in this case they simply bought cards using false documents.

At least you have an SSN

[unassimilatible]

Those in the US on student visas - like my GF - can't get SSNs, so they can't get phones. Of course, they can get the pre-paid ones that terists prefer...

Re:At least you have an SSN

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just absolute nonsense - when you friend gets a job (any part-time job on a college campus, say) she need to fill out an application for an SSN. She would use that number for everything she wants (like a cc, phone, paying taxes etc) - however, she can't ever claim any money from social security (for unemployment benefits or anything like that).

Re:At least you have an SSN

[cdrguru]

I thought now all persons in the US (legally or illegally) were now eligible for Social Security benefits. There was some recent decision about this specifically addressing undocumented workers. After all, they are paying in so shouldn't they get all the benefits? At least that was the thinking that led to this.

So how did people do terrorism before cellphones?

[petes_PoV]

Surely a mobile phone is not a vital part of a terrorist operation - otherwise there would have been no atrocities before 1985.

Once the baddies get wise to the fact that they can still disrupt our lives without the need to talk to each other, then how will we track them?

Of course, if the government thought that mobiles were vital to carrying out terror, they'd just start jamming them within the operational zone. It seems to me that both sides benefit from being able to talk to each other - or do we just live in such a soft world, that the possibility of being out of touch with our compadres, even for a short time, is inconceivable?

Frightful scenario . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . I see this guy in an evil Nazi uniform, speaking with a John Cleese Nazi accent:

"Papers pleaze!"

(Frighteningly long pause)

"Zeeze papers are in order!"

"You may now place your call!"

Agreed

[TheLink]

I agree. I don't see anything wrong with everyone being given a unique number.

It's very wrong to assume that if someone can spit out that number and name, they're that person.

The trouble is what is the alternative? A password? Someone will start recording/stealing the passwords and you have a similar problem.

Re:Agreed

[Hal_Porter]

It needs to be based on public/private key cryptography. They should send you a random challenge and you should sign it and send back the result.

Actualy I've got a bank account in Sweden. They hand out hardtokens. When you bank online they tell you two four digit numbers which they generate at random. You enter a pin code, which only you know, into the hard token and then the 2 numbers. It signs them and gives you a six digit result which you tell them. Essentially the bank knows your public key and the private key is inside the hardtoken, protected by your PIN.

It's not perfect of course but it is better than sending the private key in plaintext, which is what happens with SSNs and passwords. If someone steals your hardtoken they still need to guess the PIN to be able to pose as you. Of course if you lose the hardtoken you're screwed.

Re:Agreed

[cdrguru]

It is that last point about lost tokens that is the real deterrent to wide implementation in the US. Some huge number of police calls are because of lost car keys, so you can imagine what the result would be.

In Arizona it appears anyone can get a replacement driver's license mailed out by requesting it over the phone. This pretty much means that you can get your friend's driver's license mailed out to them and all you have to do then is intercept that piece of mail.

Usually, a dead terrorist is a good thing, but

[unassimilatible]

The papers belonged to the dead uncle of a 26-year-old man living in Kolkata; he is suspected of being a collaborator of the terrorists

I gotta hand it to him; if that dead uncle can be a collaborator when he is dead, he must really be committed to his nutty cause.

Re:Usually, a dead terrorist is a good thing, but

[couchslug]

"I gotta hand it to him; if that dead uncle can be a collaborator when he is dead, he must really be committed to his nutty cause."

He found out the "forty virgins" were male Slashdotters, and opted for a different eternal martyrdom instead.

breaking news

[ConfusedVorlon]

not only can everyone in the country get a mobile phone. Terrorists can too!

Quick - more laws needed. Terrorists should not be able to get phones.

terrorists exploiting a weakness?

[phr1]

In this case I think it's the cops who are exploiting a weakness (that most cell phone users are identifiable unless they take special precautions), not that anything is wrong with cops using what they can under the circumstances. But, as a general matter, private communications are a GOOD thing. If we have a situation where a criminal wore gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, we normally wouldn't say they exploited a weakness of the fingerprint system that needs to be plugged by outlawing gloves.

What would it change ?

[billcopc]

What would they have done differently, had they "known" sooner ? Does buying a phone help corrupt cops stop terrorism ? They're not going to do a damned thing. You could have the phone dealer drag the suspects to the cop shop, throw them in a cell and the lazy maggots won't bother locking it, because they support the cause.

SIM Cards

[ashwinds]

...don't kill people. Unless of course they trigger a bomb :P
It only let them gloat to their overlords on cell phones - come on - they easily could have grabbed that at gun point from any hostage. The situation would not have changed significantly at all if they did not have those SIM cards
*Any* regulation in India is just another source of corruption. India is plagued by a tolerant (or maybe its a care-a-damn) society and a political system which preys on that.
This news is just the same political machinery striving to create an illusion that they are on top of the investigation while their reputation is in tatters.

Criminals *purchased* SIM cards?

[sunderland56]

What sort of lame criminals go to the store and *purchase* SIM cards?

Re:Criminals *purchased* SIM cards?

[mean pun]

What sort of lame criminals go to the store and *purchase* SIM cards?

The ones that don't want to attract attention before it's too late?

identity papers to buy SIM cards ?

[rs232]

Is it true that in India, you need to produce identity papers to buy SIM cards and how did they get caught if they used forged documents ?

Re:Lucky the guy was already dead

[tangent3]

I've been thinking... So you kill someone and take his cell phone.
How do you find out the telephone number of the cell phone you have taken?
You could call a known number that has caller-id, but that sets up a traceable record.
So you call another stolen cell phone, but again, how do you find out the number of that stolen cell phone?

Re:Lucky the guy was already dead

[socsoc]

Plenty of phones have the ability to display its own phone number.

Re:IDs and Sim Cards

[argiedot]

It's India, man. Really, ID checks are incredibly lax here, even now. I know people who've gotten a SIM card replaced on expired ID, and it could have been fake and no one would have noticed a thing.

Show ID to get SIM?

[billsf]

In most places of the world (I've been to) including the USA, I've never been required to show ID to get a local pre-pay SIM. It is simply cheaper to forward all calls to your temporary SIM (through a suitable VoIP provider) and have people call you at that (land-line) number. Sure its a 'hole' in the system, but the "George Bush system" is at its end.

If people can get over the witch-hunt (especially in the USA) we will be in a safer world. Your odds of dying in a terrorist attack are about those of winning the lottery, Bush crap factored in. The world might soon become much safer. Please don't support this "War on Terror" crap anymore!

Slippery slope...

[bayankaran]

Here is an interesting take from a Bombayite.

India is on a slippery slope to authoritarianism...there is a call for a strong state from many influential sections. They want a 'world-standard anti-terrorism plan'. But everyone forgets a world standard anti terrorism plan is putting band aid on a wound and not asking how the wound happened.

Many of us does not remember the last time we had an emergency - decalared by Indira Gandhi and what it meant for civil liberties or even the idea of a democracy.

Making it hard to get a Cell Phone is another band aid. Its not going to work.

Me curious on rural India reacting to the massacre in Bombay...will national security overwhelm other genuine and pressing concerns?

Ravindranath Tagore remarked - "whatever you think of India is true, and its opposite". So lets wait and watch.

Shows the futility of "papers please"

[blindseer]

Goes to show that if you need your papers in order to do something then only the criminals will have their papers in order. I hear this all the time, "But how do we know if a terrorist is getting on the plane unless we ask for identification?" Answer is, you don't because:
(A) Terrorists tend to get fake ID,
(B) If they don't get fake ID it's because they know that since this is their first time committing a crime they will not be on any list, and
(C) Most times it does not matter who's ID they use because for most terrorists this will be their last time committing a crime.

(For those of you not-so-quick types, the ID of the offender is irrelevant because it is a suicide mission. Last time I checked successful suicide murderers do not become repeat offenders.)

Re:IDs and Sim Cards

[argiedot]

I know people who have obtained SIM cards on expired ID. I know one person who was in Mumbai, and got a SIM card forging the signature of the person he was staying with (the person would have signed, but was unfortunately out of town at the time). I have obtained a SIM card using my driver's licence - it shows the wrong address, I moved a year back. Every time I bought a connection, I was _called_ to verify my address, not visited.

This does not say 'really strong' to me - it says 'cosmetic security'. And it is characteristic of security provided in India. A few days back, a leading daily (I forget which, I subscribe to several, the Times of India perhaps) carried on its front page a story about a commuter who carried a handgun through the metal detectors at CST, _days after terrorists shot the place up_. Policemen there said they didn't hear the beeping metal detectors. Cosmetic security, there to make things look like they're safe for you. I lived in Bombay (and travelled through CST often) until weeks before the terror strike, and I believed that the security personnel would fire on armed terrorists. I was wrong there too. They turned tail and ran.

You want genuine criticism? I'll give you genuine criticism. The Chief Minister of West Bengal has what they call Z-class security. Hours after he passed through a route, an IED exploded along it. How? Cosmetic security. There to make it look like stuff is being done.

Why single out India? It's where I live! I wouldn't make as big a fuss if the government of Guinea-Bissau spies on its citizens.

I also take issue with quite a few statements by you, and even though they're completely off-topic I really believe that I should wake you from this silly delusion of yours:

• Corruption: It exists everywhere, true. However Bribe Payers Index and Corruption Perceptions Index, and something rediff calls Integrity Index seem to point to a relative abundance of corrupt people here.
• Secular credentials: You will find it hard to prove this to me when there is religious violence all across the nation, when the society is caste-ridden, and when governments stand by and let innocents from one particular ethnic group be killed (as in Gujarat, Orissa, - and though this was 20 years ago, in Delhi). This is a bold faced lie, sir. In some places people are talking about 'anti-conversion laws'!
• Democracy: Ballot box stuffing, poll booths run over by 'activists', poll violence. These are things that are normal in a properly running constitutional democracy?

I find this "I love my country" nonsense revolting. We'll never fix a problem we cannot see. Call it what it is, every time some large scale failure happens, people like you come out the woodwork and paper over the flaws. It's okay, you say, we're Indians, we have the spirit to rebuild. Well, I'm an Indian, and I'm tired of pretending it's all fine.

You are projecting yourself

[marcus]

And that is the problem you are having in understanding this situation. You cannot conceive of people that are different from you even though they are observable in everyday life. You value your continued existence and perhaps that of others above all else. Others do not.

Try and face it, there have been people that chose to die rather than relinquish freedoms. There are still others alive today like them who are willing to die rather than not be free.