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

[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

[More_Cowbell]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.