Slashdot Mirror


Proposed Law Would Require ID To Buy Prepaid Phones

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced legislation that would require buyers to present identification when purchasing a prepaid cellphone and require phone companies to keep the information on file, as they do with users of landline phones and subscription-based cellphones. 'This proposal is overdue because for years, terrorists, drug kingpins, and gang members have stayed one step ahead of the law by using prepaid phones that are hard to trace,' says Schumer. Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society, adding that the space for such anonymous or pseudonymous communications has been narrowed since pay phones, for example, have largely disappeared."

8 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. Failed in Mexico already by Mex · · Score: 5, Informative

    This law was passed in Mexico a few months ago. It's basically a failure because of all the fake IDs out there. There's very little preventing you from registering it to someone else's name too.

    To send a message to the president Felipe Calderon, a lot of people registered using his personal data.

    A few days ago, one of the phone companies admitted they had at least 12,000 cell phones registered to the president's name...

  2. Re:Yep by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will be justified under the 'interstate commerce' clause, the catch all used to justify everything from compelling Americans to buy health insurance to telling them that they can't set dried up bits of cannabis on fire and inhale the resulting smoke into their lungs. Any pretense of a limitation on Federal power died when SCOTUS said that the Federal Government has the power to prevent you from growing food for your own consumption.

    I'm rather pessimistic about our chances of reversing this trend, absent a constitutional convention and/or revolution, neither of which will happen because both would require Americans to stop watching TV long enough to realize how many rights they are losing.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Re:include 'common-sense' returns false. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

    You realize this legislation has support from no less a Democrat than Charles Schumer, right? You didn't even have to RTFA, it's right there in the summary.

    When it comes to taking away our rights and expanding Government, Democrats and Republicans aren't really all that different. The only difference is which order you lose your rights in.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:Throw me a bone. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok. This new "law" would simply create a new black market for thieves. Increasing their profit streams.

    Now instead of a walmart tracphone. you buy a "clean" prepaid phone from vito that is registered to a 14 year old cheerleader in the hamptons.

    Honestly, are out lawmakers simply a bunch of retarded old idiots? Did they not think of this?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  5. Re:Throw me a bone. by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, and I'm certain that drug kingpins would buy the cellphone with their own, entirely legitimate photo ID.

    Contrary to what the Senators are saying, this bill has NOTHING to do with catching drug kingpins, and everything to do with advancing the surveillance state.

  6. The Wire by stimpleton · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have just finished watching The Wire on DVD(A cop drama set in Baltimore).

    Not only do I rate this series as one of my top 5 dramas made globally, I think it is as significant for nerds as Star Trek.

    Cell phones play a key aspect of the story line over the 5 series from 2002 to 2008, and includes the formation of the Dept Home Land Security and the impact on the police team and how it helps there investigations(by season 3-4).

    The police efforts to track criminals and the criminals attempts to stay one step ahead is well dramatized.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  7. Re:Throw me a bone. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    assuming you overlook the glaring exception of the "Gun Show" loophole in many states.

    The "gun show loophole" actually isn't. It's more properly described as a "private party sale loophole". Any business engaged in the routine sale of firearms needs to perform background checks, regardless of where that sale takes place. If you buy a gun from "Gun Store, Inc." at a gun show you'll fill out the same background check paperwork as you would if you were in the store itself.

    Party party sales (i.e: I sell you one of my guns) aren't regulated in most states and don't require background checks. That's the loophole that people are referring to, but most of the anti-2A crowd won't call it a "private party loophole" because that doesn't conjure up scary images of unregulated gun shows.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  8. Not just surveillance - it's rent-seeking by Stradivarius · · Score: 5, Informative

    This looks to me like just another case of politicians trying to protect their big contributors. Consider:

    The legislation's sponsors are from Texas (Cornyn) and New York (Schumer).

    AT&T is based in Texas. AT&T has given more political contributions than any other company. Its current COO, and its former CEO, both donated to Cornyn.

    Verizon is based in New York. Verizon is also on OpenSecret's heavy hitters list at the above link. Verizon's CEO unsurprisingly donated to Schumer.

    Boost (Sprint) is based in Kansas.

    Boost/Sprint has been the most aggressive in moving into prepaid phones, which often have lower costs than contract services. This threatens the incumbents: AT&T and Verizon each have about double Sprint's subscriber base, and thus have the most to lose from a shift towards prepaid.

    Increased surveillance rules remove prepaid's privacy benefits. And they impose record-keeping costs on prepaid services like Boost, making them less competitive with AT&T and Verizon's lucrative contract businesses.