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."

Comments

Throw me a bone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw me a bone, civil liberty advocates. Help me catch badguys without infringing on their liberties. Real suggestions welcome.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[poetmatt]

I don't get it. are you saying you can't do it now??

Here's how you do it: it's called go through the court system as you should.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, freedom and liberties do not come easily. You have to fight to get them, fight to keep them, and live in a dangerous world. If you want to be safe at night then vote for Stalin. Oh wait....

Re:Throw me a bone.

[wcrowe]

Terrorists, drug kingpins, gang members, and the like will just use fake or stolen ID's or middlemen to purchase their phones. It seems to me that such a law will result in law enforcement tracking down a lot of false leads.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Why does it always have to be a "fight"?... (I catch what you're saying; but a society apparently spawning the habit of presenting everything as a fight has another set of problems)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those....

Never underestimate the amount of liberty that people are willing to sacrifice in exchange for the illusion of security.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Lumpy]

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?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[MozeeToby]

It's not infringing on their liberties that is the problem, it's infringing on my liberties that is. All it takes to infringe on their liberties is a warrant or a court order. In order to infringe on my liberties you better be amending the constitution because anonymous speech is the only way to have truly free speech.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[poetmatt]

Uh, hello?

You don't trample over the rights of innocent citizens to catch the "bad guys". That is the example of bad law, such as the proposed law. This would neither a:make it easier to track people nor b:confirm the person registering is who they are. There is no way to enforce as such, as others have mentioned. Fake ID's, phones registered via proxies (such as other people), there are a million ways to get around this that take minimal to no effort.

Instead, you go through this thing which already exists, it's called the court/justice system. It's worked for hundreds of years, last I checked. Especially given that it's assuming this is for law enforcement or another legal entity which should be well versed in following the laws which govern them.

You know, you can track people via those warrant things already. It's called warrants for wiretaps or you can do the pen register thing, if I recall loopholes for that still exist. /what a newfangled idea! *facepalm*

Re:Throw me a bone.

[somersault]

I'm surprised they've been allowing it for this long. I had to sign up to get a pre-paid phone ~6 years ago here in the UK. I thought it would be the same everywhere else, otherwise you could use them for very anonymous communication, perfect for criminal activity..

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Applekid]

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

Of course. Then the laws can become even MORE encroaching and overreaching in the name of stamping out whatever newly made illicit activity is.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[alexborges]

With the weight of current cellphones, its hard to break anyone's head. A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.

Different things bro.

Although i would oppose this law and the background checks, your analogy does not stand.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[flitty]

If a drug kingpin is using cell phones exclusively to do his dealings, never touching product or dirty work, and tossing phones fast enough to render warrants useless... then what? What could the courts do for you exactly?

At least an ID can be flagged in the system that the court can say "when a person with this ID buys a disposable phone, your Warrant that the court has approved can be used to tap that disposable phone..."

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

I'm curious, how one manages to miss that its much easier to track small number of stolen but active accounts? (really, that's what it is about, not phones; plus its easy to block them after theft...)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[besalope]

Why does it always have to be a "fight"?... (I catch what you're saying; but a society apparently spawning the habit of presenting everything as a fight has another set of problems)

Because we couldn't have "Freedom Fighters" without the "fight" part.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[alexborges]

Honestly, are out lawmakers simply a bunch of retarded old idiots?

YES

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

If you must rely on anonimity to have free soeech, then you already don't have much of it. Not more than people in China or Iran.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[91degrees]

But they will be able to catch some of the less competent criminals, and slightly increase the cost of doing business. Also, if a lot of people seem to be using a phone registered to one cheerleader, and at least one of them is a criminal it's quite likely that others are using them for ilegitimate purposes.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Eric Smith]

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.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[flitty]

How does a warrant help if you don't know who is using a disposable phone?

I'd say on the outrage meter, this idea should be roundly welcomed with a rollback on the "Wide Net" wiretaps that are currently occuring!

Re:Throw me a bone.

[butterflysrage]

[citation needed]

and how much gun crime has been prevented as a result? can you compare that with the crime rates for arms smuggling and thefts to get around that requirement?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[poetmatt]

How do you identify someone when at the same time enforcing ID when you buy the phone guarantees absolutely nothing?

oh right, you do investigative work - you get warrants - you do wiretaps, you do all the shit LE has done for years to identify someone with a cellphone.

Whether or not you require an ID to purchase a phone helps you identify a "potential" individual absolutely 0.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[poetmatt]

I should add that since all cellphones have ways to be tracked with a warrant enough to determine who someone is.

In fact, assuming an ID is correct, when it cannot be verified, leads to situations where you have police raiding the wrong house or the wrong place.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Phillibuster]

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?

Whether it's a smart thing to do or not has nothing to do with it. They just want a 10 second soundbyte to look 'tough on crime' during the next election, or for opponents to say incumbents are 'soft on crime' if the incumbent is intelligent enough to vote against it.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[heckler95]

...assuming you overlook the glaring exception of the "Gun Show" loophole in many states. Like DRM, these type of regulations only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase the things that they want. Sure, you'll catch the occasional idiot criminal, but for the most part the work-arounds are so trivial that anybody with even the slightest motivation can get a gun (or DRM-free media) with ease.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[robot256]

You will simply end up with straw purchasers like there are for firearms. Some will get busted, others will not, but criminals will still get what they want when they want it.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.

That's completely irrelevant to the argument that I was making and contributes nothing to this conversation. POS background checks don't catch people that kill, nor will a POS ID check for disposable cell phones catch criminals. Criminals will simply do with cell phones what they currently do with guns -- steal them or bribe others to purchase them on their behalf.

The end result will be the same that it was with firearms -- the law abiding people cede more power to the state while the criminals go about their business as they always have and always will.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[MozeeToby]

It's true that anonymous speech shouldn't be necessary in and of itself. But as part of a larger system of free speech it is essential, it acts as the last sanity check on the system such that if everything else is taken away, anonymous speech remains simply by virtue of being the hardest to take away.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.

So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'

Re:Throw me a bone.

[qortra]

Thank you for making slashdot that much dumber.

Dumber than when an Anonymous Coward trolls hard for tougher laws against privacy? While your thinking about your own hypocrisy, chew on this for a while: it is possible to find criminals without making businesses keep Orwellian records of their customers. I'd quote Benjamin Franklin, but I'd wager that the quote is already in this thread already.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

Anonymous speech isn't needed just to protect you from the Government. I work a Catholic hospital in the IT department. What if I want to express a pro-choice viewpoint without worrying about my job?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Obfuscant]

Different things bro.

Yep. One of them has a Constitutional guarantee against the right to bear being infringed, and the other doesn't. Not just "congress shall make no law", a blanket "the right ... shall not be infringed." Can you guess which is which?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Ihmhi]

Yep, I agree. I wholeheartedly believe that HItler would have stopped killing the Jews and given back all that land if we were just really nice to him and talked things out. It probably would have only taken, what, 10-20 years?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[ProppaT]

Right, but these laws aren't set up to prevent people from eventually getting a gun, they're set up to avoid people buying guns in the heat of passion and killing either themselves or others before having a chance to cool down. I couldn't tell you if it works or not, but logic would assume that it hasn't hurt and I doubt it's going to hurt anyone to wait a few days to pick up a new gun. I think the DRM bit is a little silly though. We're comparing something that needs to be handled with care and respect with something that you listen to.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

At least an ID can be flagged in the system that the court can say "when a person with this ID buys a disposable phone, your Warrant that the court has approved can be used to tap that disposable phone..."

And that will work for 5 minutes until someone realizes they can hire a crackhead to buy their phones. In Canada

Then we'll get to see laws stating the police may request to see your ID if they suspect you are using a 'stolen' cell phone or, as the law will read: "unregistered communication device," to cover non-phones with 3G and VoIP. Only criminals who hired third parties to buy their phones will have unregistered phones, so no harm done to the general public.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[timothy]

I think that it is a little too big brother to require registering a cell phone to a person, but for a weapon, whose primary purpose is to injure... I think you need a reality check."

According to Schumer, et al, they want to track phones because they could be used (as well as by nefarious people doing *other* nefarious things) ... as part of weapons.

And while you could argue the semantics (purpose vs. use), I don't agree that the primary purpose of a weapon is *to* injure; it's to prevent injury from occurring.

timothy

Re:Throw me a bone.

[nephilimsd]

The idea that free speech results from anonymous speech is fallacious. Of course you can say whatever you want, as long as you are willing to deal with the reprocussions of saying the wrong thing towards the wrong group. That's freedom, right?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

And who gives those "people of power" their...power? For that matter, from where those people come from? After all, they must come from some different place - they are "them", not "us". From what place those people get their fascination with power and wealth for their own sake?

No, system of governance is simply a reflection of the society. How it is influenced by the latter depends also on whether the society "fights" or "tends"/"nurses"/"cares" for the things valued (or slogans, for that matter)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[mlts]

Or what happens is the same thing that happened when pseudoephedrine. It was made where one had to put down a card, register and all that crap.

Of course this did absolutely nothing to stop the meth labs. They just sourced their stuff from Mexico, or if in the US; robbed the trucks before they got to the stores.

It will be exactly the same with phones and SIM cards. People will just source the anonymous phones from Mexico, and because a lot of people use Mexican SIM cards in the US, it won't cost them much more.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

they want to track phones because they could be used (as well as by nefarious people doing *other* nefarious things) ... as part of weapons.

A good communications device is actually a much more dangerous weapon in the grand scheme of things than any firearm ever invented. Communications can be used to call for help, pass along intelligence, deploy resources, etc, etc. The telegraph changed society a lot more than the firearm. In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with any invention that had a bigger impact on human society than instant communications, except maybe for agriculture.

All of that explains why Government just can't stand the fact that people might find ways to communicate with one another without leaving an evidence trail behind. Take phone usage logs -- the law mandates that the telco keep them for a certain amount of time. Why is that? The phone company has no real business need to keep those records after you've paid your bill (and possibly for a few billing cycles after that to handle billing disputes) yet they are compelled by law to do so, even for those customers that aren't the subject of a criminal investigation.

It's interesting that nobody has mentioned this snippet from TFA yet:

Privacy advocates worry that prepaid cellphone registration might be a step toward something even more worrisome in their view: identity registration to access the Internet.

How long until the security establishment starts pushing for that?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[nephilimsd]

Even though this probably won't have the intended effect in the long run, it probably will do quite a bit to narrow down the use of prepaid cell phones for nefarious purposes. As it stands with gun laws, I'm certainly not willing to go into a sporting good store, buy a gun, and hand it over to someone I don't know, even if there is a boat-load of cash being offered. The same will probably happen with cell phones, if the punishment for handing out or carrying an unlicensed cell phone is strict enough. It's not worth it for most decent citizens to get caught up in the mess. This doesn't stop fake IDs, of course, but it would be pretty easy to compare a would-be cell-phone purchaser's ID to their address via DMV database or something similar, which would mean the fake ID would have to immitate a real person, including their address. If a notice was then sent to that person's house (Attention Mr./Ms. So-and-so, We have just recorded a new pre-paid cell phone to your name and address. If you believe this to be in error, please contact such-and-such security department...) and further cut down on abuse. Overall, this policy will probably be more effective than people imagine if it's implemented well (which it probably won't be).

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently WW2 was the only conflict the US could justify participating in, considering it's the only one used as a good example.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Throw me a bone, civil liberty advocates. Help me catch badguys without infringing on their liberties. Real suggestions welcome.

We can either hire more police or equip them with UAV's. Require a warrant to deploy those UAVs over specific addresses and individuals. Does that make me nervous? Yes, but it wouldn't give them more legal ground to conduct surveillance, just more resources to do it. The legal burden to deploy and operate a UAV would be the same as wiretapping the persons they are being deployed against. The police don't have adequate resources to conduct reconnaissance. That is the problem here, let's fix that problem. They have more than sufficient legal muscle to lock these people up, we don't need to regulate cell phones. The more we keep expanding the net because we can't afford the proper solution, the more freedoms and innocent people are going to get caught in it.

All this law will do is create a black market for cell phones, which is going to deter a drug dealer about as much as being unable to buy cocaine at CVS would.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

I couldn't tell you if it works or not, but logic would assume that it hasn't hurt

It doesn't say "shall not be infringed for longer than 72 hours", it says "shall not be infringed"

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Stradivarius]

I doubt it's going to hurt anyone to wait a few days to pick up a new gun

Unless they're buying it to protect themselves from a violent ex-husband or other threats to their safety. Then it might be the difference between being killed tonight or protecting yourself.

It's not just attackers looking to buy firearms. if anything, I suspect violent people are probably more like to have a gun to begin with, whereas the victims may be more likely to be first-time buyers. In that case, waiting periods could actually have the opposite effect from what was intended.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Anonymous Coward]

A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.

So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'

Just like all the items in that list, a gun is a very versatile tool with a wide variety of uses, and is not made for the sole purpose of killing.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Lakitu]

it has always been a struggle, and always it will be.

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

John Philpot Curran, 1790

Re:Throw me a bone.

[NeutronCowboy]

If you must rely on anonimity to have free soeech, then you already don't have much of it.

True. However, anonymity is the last guard against complete loss of free speech, and it is the easiest one to protect via legal means. Someone is either anonymous or isn't - this doesn't depend on local customs of anonymity, or on what is acceptable anonymity or not.

This is why the ability to say things anonymously is so important. Even if assholes run the show and try to use stupid laws to silence you, if they can't find you, they can't silence you.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Contemplate the meaning of "must rely", you fucking buffoon.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[techno-vampire]

Actually, no. There've been others, including the war against the Barbary Pirates, the Civil War and Korea. (Remember, in Korea, we were basically fighting to maintain the status quo ante, and for all practical purposes, that's what we ended up with.) WWII gets mentioned so often simply because the issues were very clear, and most people today understand them.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[lgw]

Well, at least it would be difficult for a drug kingpin to acquire the services of a desparate crackhead. Oh, wait ...

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Just say it that you prefer job security... (which can be assured by other means anyway)
If anything, people not wanting to work at places of certain kind could be an effective way of sending a message. You certainly must not rely on remaining anonymous.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[binary paladin]

Also perfect for privacy but hey... who needs privacy when you can pass a law that CLAIMS to be about criminals.

Of course, it has little do with crime. All but the dumbest criminals have 20 easy ways around this. (Fake IDs being the #1 method. It's not like the clerk at the cell phone place is going to spot one.)

If we spent a little more time worrying about the criminals in our legislative houses and a little less time worrying about boogie men and their nefarious activities, I do say we'd have much less crime and corruption in our societies.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Migraineman]

Once they realize that the law is incomprehensibly simple to bypass, they'll enact a new law (rather than fix the old one) that makes it illegal to re-sell or otherwise transfer ownership of your prepaid cell phone without a Class 3 Federal Telecom License.

In true Radar O'Reily fashion, they'll probably take the FFL form, scratch out "destructive device", and write in "cell phone."

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Simmeh]

Also most UK operators offer free SIMs to any postal address. Second hand phones start at a fiver in any local shop.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

Remember, in Korea, we were basically fighting to maintain the status quo ante

Then why did we advance to the Yalu?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Pete Slash Work]

A typical conversation between law makers:

"Something must be done!"
"This is something!"
"We'll do that!!"

Re:Throw me a bone.

[lgw]

You may not be willing to do so, but there's nothing unlawful about selling your gun to a stranger. Even if you do fear the consequences of buying a cellphone to hand to someone, do you think a crackhead does? Drug dealers have the least difficulty of anyone in finding people willing to do small jobs for quick money!

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

But it isn't theft, of which parent poster wrote about.

Straw purchasers don't have to be much of a problem, either. People don't tend to need more than two mobile phone numbers, usually at most one of them will be their private prepaid, and they really rarely talk through several of them at the same time / in different cities.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[binary paladin]

It's a fight because it requires resisting the natural flow of society, which is AWAY from liberty. I would call going upstream on a river a fight.

The slothful nature of society as a whole the corruptive nature of power and money means that corrupt people are usually in leadership positions directing a mass of ignorant and lazy people. This does NOT cultivate liberty.

While I get that the term is overused, in context to preserving liberty, it sure as hell is a "fight." I look forward to a day when it isn't, but that's going to require a serious evolutionary leap among our primitive species.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

As it stands with gun laws, I'm certainly not willing to go into a sporting good store, buy a gun, and hand it over to someone I don't know, even if there is a boat-load of cash being offered.

What's your point? I'm not willing to stick one of my guns in your face and demand your wallet. That doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that are willing to do this though.....

Re:Throw me a bone.

[timothy]

"It's interesting that nobody has mentioned this snippet from TFA yet:

Privacy advocates worry that prepaid cellphone registration might be a step toward something even more worrisome in their view: identity registration to access the Internet.

How long until the security establishment starts pushing for that?"

In some places, they have! :)

Some people like to think of Government as a permanent theme park inside of which we live, and must be this tall to ride, and all the snacks are free of triglycerides; They have trouble understanding why anyone would object to this penumbra of beneficence and orderly, pre-made rules and outcomes ...

timothy

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Chris Mattern]

Well, over there is the guy who wants to limit your freedom because it's useful/convenient/profitable for him to do so. He doesn't give one single goddamn about your closely reasoned arguments or impassioned tirades about your liberty. He's busily lining up political support to pass laws to arrange things the way he wants. How are you going to stop him *other* than a fight? Preferably a political one; if you can't win that one, then you're going have decide just how important the issue is to you...

Re:Throw me a bone.

[obarthelemy]

Hey, idiot... nice way to label yourself an intelligent, open-minded debater right off the start.

Lots of things can help catch criminals. Warrantless searches, warantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite pre-trial jail, no trial or kangaroo courts... Being opposed to all that does not mean being pro-crime. The issue is misuse of those rights by law enforcement agencies or anyone who has access to such powers. The police cannot be trusted to respect the spirit of the law, nor even the letter if they can get away with it. There's plenty of cases of violence, planted evidence, unfair trials... It may be worth wondering if we've not reached a point where all those "crime-fighting" measures are not more harmful to honnest citizens than actual crime is.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Zen Hash]

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.

See, you had me until you pointed out that under the status quo, walmart gets paid, and under this proposed law walmart won't be selling as much and some rich 14 year old bimbo loses her phone.

I call that "win-win!"

Who said she loses her phone? It would probably be a completely different phone which is also registered under her name.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[techno-vampire]

Good Question. AIUI, we went that far north mostly because Dougout Doug considerably overstepped his authority. This was one of the reasons he got fired.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Windwraith]

"All this law will do is create a black market for cell phones, which is going to deter a drug dealer about as much as being unable to buy cocaine at CVS would."

This happened in my country some years ago. The law had retroactive effects and required everyone with a prepaid cell phone to register (or face shutdown).
Time passed, no difference at all.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[robot256]

Good point, I forgot about that. It's easy to find them if you are tracking everyone anyways. Cue the indignant comments:

"What do you mean I can only buy two phones? How do you expect my other three heads to make phone calls?"

"Yes, I have a time machine and am currently living in two other cities with different phone numbers. Why do you ask?"

Re:Throw me a bone.

[bennomatic]

Apparently, it's not that hard to take away: "ID please?"

I find your comment thought-provoking, but what it led me to is the thought that maybe, just maybe, the use of a cell phone--which uses FCC-controlled air waves--is not a god given right. I understand the civil libertarian's stance, but we still have the means of anonymous communication we did at the time the constitution was written: in-person, postal mail (one end is anonymous, at least), and oh, I don't know, hidden notes taped to park benches?

So the question is, if anonymous speech is indeed a right, does that right extend to all media?

Like many other posters, I'm dubious as to the successful results of this new law, but in many cases, what's being attempted is to add extra hurdles that will make it less likely that someone is going to do nefarious things. Does it stop people like Tim McVey from buying a ton of fertilizer and making a bomb? Does it stop drug dealers from getting hand guns? No, I guess it doesn't stop all of it. But I think it does stop some of it. Maybe there'd have been two dozen McVeys without the fertilizer tracking laws.

I'm not sure where I stand on this particular law, having said all that; I could probably make as many arguments for it as against it. But what I'm pretty sure that I don't feel that anonymous communication over a spectrum that is federally regulated and run by corporations who are even more evil than the government is a god given right.

You want anonymous? Buy some walkie talkies that use unregulated airspace, set up your own network of repeaters, and put a scrambler/descrambler at both ends. Too expensive? Talk to your friends in person. Need to reach them on cell phone? Maybe it's OK to register.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[bennomatic]

On the one hand, you do have to register your car purchases. Bad example.

On the other hand, nail guns are awesome. Did you see No Country for Old Men? That guy was brutal!!

Re:Throw me a bone.

[blueskies]

Why should i help you? The whole point of civil liberties is that they protect you from the boogie-monster du jour.

Anytime i see an argument start with "we need X or we won't be able to catch bad guys", I know right away that X is something that violates civil liberties. It's a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance/lack of imagination, and you can use it to justify ANYTHING.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Princeofcups]

A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.

So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'

Stupidest argument ever. The handgun is easily concealable, requires little to no skill to use, requires no physical exertion, and can be used at range. Ever wonder why so many murders are gun related, and not anti-freeze related? No, neither have I.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Rockoon]

People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those....

..and at the time, those supporting the bill said that we would never slip down the slope and start requiring it for other things. They cried out "its because they are guns!"

After that it was cold medicine.

Now its cell phones.

Whats next? Pen or Paper?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Bugamn]

I use it turn lights off and open cans.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Do people in the US have IDs when they are 10-14 years old? Because its common for them to have cell phones.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be limited to two. Heck, I think I have, in the room I'm sitting in, around 10 sim cards that I keep for some reason (mostly to go through them at some point and maybe extract some contacts or text messages; they're all so similar, can't risk getting rid of the wrong one ;) ). At this moment almost certainly only one of them is still active, the one in my phone. And typically max two, during the interlude period, alternating in one phone with single IMEI - that's one of the patterns which would be marked as OK. Or when people have separate work and private phone, those devices are often kept together and rarely making calls at the same time. Even when you give temporarily one phone to somebody trusted, that shouldn't present big problem because... ...it's ultimatelly about strongly narrowing down worrisome usage patterns. With some false positives, sure. But ensuring they will be verified politely should be simply part of the general measures.

And one more thing: the measures taken to obtain phones for criminal activity makes it a bit more risky, overall.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[ImprovOmega]

A lot of murders are knife related. But you don't have to register to buy/carry those. Even California (all hail big brother!) lets you carry folding knives around without legal consequence.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Zerth]

Get a warrant to surveil the person. When you know they are carrying a powered phone, get out your big antenna and listen for the identification codes that let the cell tower know it is there. Match up all the IDs, find any that are prepaid, repeat in a few different locations to eliminate random passers-by. Then get a warrant to wiretap those accounts.

Or just ask your friendly phone company to do it for you, I'm sure they have no qualms about it.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

How cute of you, helpfully providing what could be put as an example below the definition of the term ending my previous post.

Surprising a bit from somebody who is too stupid to realise that "teh evil gov" is simply a reflection of the society, at least as far western world goes (though not exclusively)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[DesScorp]

Why does it always have to be a "fight"?...

Because Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty had to be occasionally watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, not the idle chatter of a message board.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[BobMcD]

While your latter points are true, they don't do anything to help you construct your 'stupidest argument ever' position. "Easier" and/or "better" do not necessarily mean "more fatal". Dead is dead, on the individual basis, and it is the loss of life that matters - more so than the mere potential.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

If the society (don't kid yourself it's due to some "assholes runing the show") would lead itself to the stage of "last guard", then "protecting anonymity via legal means" will be already devoid of any meaning by then.

The issue doesn't have much to do with the right to anonymity; at most only with being able to be anonymous, nevermind whether it is legal or not. But that has nothing to do with free speech. And, again, close to China or Iran.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[betterunixthanunix]

How about catching the bad guys without infringing on the rights of everyone else? You know, that is how things are supposed to be done in the United States of America, where our civil liberties were written into the constitution early in our history.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Symbha]

You would prefer struggle? Defend? What would you prefer?

It is, because it is. What do you call it when someone is trying to take something you already have, away from you?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Zerth]

Say I have 4 phones. One is my regular phone, one is connected to a computer, 2 are connected to micro controllers.

I can have each of them in a different state, at least one of them floating 1,000 feet above ground, and all making voice calls and texts at the same time, legitimately. It'd be better with just data, but 3G is spotty at altitude and I'm a cheap bastard.

I realize this isn't normal usage, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more scientists/geeks doing this than criminals. Everything that makes a cell phone handy for setting off a bomb makes it more useful for other pursuits.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

When was the last time you heard of a drive-by stabbing? Just asking.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

With that quote you could have just as well used "effort"; that you chose "struggle" might be exactly something falling under the issue.

(in a way a bit too universal also; look how curious it gets after substitution of just one word: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their exploits become a prey to the active")

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Dr Damage I]

"The purpose of the weapon is to injure"

The primary use of handguns is to punch small holes in pieces of paper and the primary use of rifles is to hunt non human prey, also, for both, to plink beer cans.

choosing to define the primary function of an object on the basis of some usage other than the how it is primarily used because that purpose suits ones political agenda is less than entirely honest

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Dr Damage I]

It also increases the cost of doing the legitimate business of selling pre paid cellphones by requiring more paperwork and data storage. How much unproductive time spent complying with government red tape instead of creating wealth is too much in the end?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Dr Damage I]

So long as it's not the government doing it, yes. If a private company wont sell me an anonymous pre paid account, I can go to another company, no big deal, freedom in action. Once the government starts doing it, big deal, freedom has been diminished.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[GlassHeart]

In many cases, you can run away from a knife fight, or fight back effectively with even just a good stick. Even if you fail, you're still more likely to create a crime scene with plenty of useful evidence to point to your killer. It's often useful and a sign of intelligence to think in the abstract ("everything is a weapon"), but once in a while you need to drop back to reality ("a gun is an excellent weapon, a can of soup not so much") when considering appropriate social policy. Similarly, not even defenders of the Second Amendment seem okay with not being able to own personal nuclear weapons, although it arguably falls under "arms", because degree matters.

Which is also why gun analogies for cell phones are inherently poor. Cell phones are very useful daily tools, while a gun might be a hobby or an occasional need (say, to defend yourself). So even if cell phones and guns somehow cause the same murder rate, we should still be more reluctant to ban cell phones than guns. Again, a question of degree.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[ImNotAtWork]

drug kingpins do not use the phone. They have others do that for them.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Lakitu]

I suppose so, but I see it differently. I actually changed the word "fight" (from who I was replying to) to "struggle" because I thought it was a much more meaningful choice of words -- while fight can make sense, it is also the kind of watered-down English that so often leads to binary views on topics.

As I see it, a struggle doesn't have to be a conflict between two people, as is implied with the comparison to fight. A struggle can be an especially vigorous effort, or really, any kind of effort that is at all strenuous or time-consuming. That is, of course, a nuance of language which seems to be lost on a lot of technical types.

(in a way a bit too universal also; look how curious it gets after substitution of just one word: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their exploits become a prey to the active")

I'm not sure I understand your point here -- the indolent don't have many exploits at all.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Yet it was about "fight" initially; I don't see how using "struggle" (in milder meaning, the one intuitive to me BTW - but nowhere near universal) would be appropriate as a counterargument. And now we're down to "vigorous effort" & "effort"...which was somehow my point.

As for the quote - as I said, a bit too universal. Don't attach moral value (etc.) to "indolent" in modification; it could be just as well, say, late Roman decadency. Or even, in a way, leadership of some of the so called "comunist" regimes - which, while quite effective in regards to ways keeping them in power, overall could easily fall under "indolent" (that's certainly my impression of the past one from my place)
Generally the point being it doesn't struck me as a terribly good quote.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Reziac]

Just wondering... how many are actually stolen, and how many are pilfered out of the production and distribution pipelines with no one the wiser?? my understanding is that this is how a lot of the military grade arms wind up on the black market, but I have no idea what proportion that may be, nor how it impacts petty criminals.

And as I said above, why bother with stealing cellphones, when you can set up a legit retail store and "sell" them to your own fictional characters?? would make a nice side business for a fake ID store, at that.

I think the real principle here is that for every gov't restriction on trade, a new and thriving method of circumventing that restriction WILL be invented.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[zuperduperman]

You have it backwards. YOU want to catch the bad guys. How about you throw US a bone and find some ways that don't infringe on our civil liberties?

In free societies the rights of individuals come *first*, then within those constraints you conduct the activities of law enforcement. And yes, we tolerate a certain level of crime because that is the price of our freedom and in the end, by definition, in a free society people have capability to do things that break the law.

Just stop trying to take what isn't yours and we'll all get along.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[zuperduperman]

otherwise you could use them for very anonymous communication, perfect for criminal activity..

Umm, there's this thing called the internet which has about a million different ways that people can manage to communicate and remain anonymous. There are also knives, cars, axes, crow bars, guns and all manner of things that could be used for criminal purposes. If you think eliminating everything from society that could possibly be used for a criminal purpose is a reasonable goal of government then you're basically volunteering to live in a police state.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[zuperduperman]

Why does it always have to be a "fight"?... (I catch what you're saying; but a society apparently spawning the habit of presenting everything as a fight has another set of problems)

Because our natural instincts as humans when we are afraid are to give in to control by a higher authority for protection. It is built in to us at a deep psychological level. Therefore the conflict as much as anything, is with ourselves to remember how wrong our natural instincts are in the larger picture.

Using the metaphor of a "fight" helps to understand this idea in a simple way.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[paper tape]

"Terrorists, drug kingpins, gang members, and the like will just use fake or stolen ID's or middlemen to purchase their phones."

Wait a minute. You're saying criminals might break the law? But... but... that's illegal!

I'm sure this law will work every bit as well at keeping pre-paid cell phones out of their hands as the laws that make it illegal for them to have guns do at keeping guns out of their hands.

Oh. Wait...

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Lakitu]

Yet it was about "fight" initially; I don't see how using "struggle" (in milder meaning, the one intuitive to me BTW - but nowhere near universal) would be appropriate as a counterargument. And now we're down to "vigorous effort" & "effort"...which was somehow my point.

Yeah, I don't really disagree with your point. But you're kind of doing the same thing if you immediately think of armed conflict between people, or whatever, when you hear the word fight. Aren't you? I agree that it seems to happen all too often, but you can't really assume other people are doing it if you're the one doing it and they aren't.

ie, it's not incorrect to say "you have to fight to keep your rights", because you do, sometimes in a violent conflict (the American revolution), sometimes not (now). Right? In that sense, I think the more active use of 'struggle' and 'fight' in saying it is a good portrayal, since it clearly shows what it can escalate to, and what effort it can entail even in times of peace and happiness. It depends on the context of what you're saying.

As for the quote - as I said, a bit too universal. Don't attach moral value (etc.) to "indolent" in modification; it could be just as well, say, late Roman decadency.

This is where you lost me. What are you reading indolent to mean here? Indolent, as I know it, means something like perpetually lazy, or maybe complacent with what someone already has. There's no moral value to that at all -- an indolent person wouldn't have many exploits. They don't do much because they're lazy. I'm not sure why you changed that, in the quote, to say exploit, as it makes no sense in that context for me. Those who don't look out for their rights will lose them eventually to someone who is looking for them.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[alexborges]

No such thing as an anonymous cellphone in Mexico anymore. We made a nazi-onal centralized registry of all phones.

It doesnt work though, but the money for the system naturaly went to pay some o other people.

You know, politics as usual, as in anywhere in the world.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[mjwx]

So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'

A gun had practically no other use but to kill something. Unlike all those other things you mentioned.

There's a big difference between x can kill and x was made to kill. Is there no difference between drain cleaner and VX, after all both are just chemicals and both are capable of killing. Should we sell VX unrestricted or is it easier just to keep the restrictions on firearm sales and admit that they are there for a good reason. After all I can use VX more effectively to defend my home the I could with a gun.

"Just saying" is a weak excuse.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[jwhitener]

As was mentioned above, if you watch the show "The Wire", you can clearly see why pre-paids are a problem for law enforcement. Yes they can get warrants, but usually not in time. The criminals were switching out pre-paids weekly and sometimes daily. And I'm not sure if this was just the show, or if it is true, but the cops had to witness the suspect doing something likely not legal, with that specific phone, and then request a tap on just that phone.

So they had to know A) where the phone was bought to get the serial/ID number B) watch is used in a crime/suspected crime, and C) then get a warrant. By that time, it was a new phone.

Don't get me wrong, this proposed solution of requiring ID isn't going to catch many criminals, but pre-paids are for sure a problem for law enforcement.

Personally, I'd rather see all drugs legal, taxed, and the strength regulated, with all the tax money from them going to fund rehabs and education about drugs.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[pknoll]

Absolutely true, and the Supreme Court agrees. They've ruled more than once that anonymity is a required condition of freedom of speech.

See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission .

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

The handgun is easily concealable, requires little to no skill to use

You've never fired a handgun have you?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[ThunderThor53]

Just like all the items in that list, a gun is a very versatile tool with a wide variety of uses, and is not made for the sole purpose of killing people.

FTFY. Guns are pretty much designed for killing, though animals get included along with people.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[webheaded]

Maybe not already, but it certainly is now... _

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

Guns are pretty much designed for killing

And?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[DryGrian]

All this law will do is create a black market for cell phones, which is going to deter a drug dealer about as much as being unable to buy cocaine at CVS would.

A bit off-topic, but if CVS sold cocaine, there would be no need for Tony the Drug Dealer, since there's already a legal, clean, and consistent supply made available to addicts, who can then spend their time pursuing other interests rather than being encouraged to steal for their fix, dying from overdose or contamination, or shooting old Tony on the sidewalk when he rips them off.

Further reading: www.stopthedrugwar.com

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Alex Belits]

People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those....

Except, there is very little value for society that can be derived from its members being able to SHOOT ANONYMOUSLY.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

"Becayse he said so!"? Nevermind that it's fairly easy to find his quotes which are a bit archaic by today's standards (and not some obscure ones)...I'm pretty certain he would disapprove "because he said so" argument, in his time. Besides, bloodshed is what's easy for humans, "idle" in a way.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[somersault]

Fine, anonymous highly mobile communication. I'm not thinking of eliminating everything, I just thought that if you could get phones without having to sign anything they would be perfect for criminals.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[jcr]

Help me catch badguys without infringing on their liberties.

It's called "getting a warrant". If you have probable cause to believe a crime has been or is being committed, then talk to a judge and follow the law.

-jcr

Re:Throw me a bone.

[poetmatt]

hahaha what? Is this a troll?

Are you really trying to base things off a TV show?

It's incredibly easy for police to track people - see here, and this is exactly it: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1667176&cid=32368692

Zerth's comment above is dead on - in fact this has nothing to do with that AT&T wiretaps but a legally established policy that has been around for a long time.

It's called: use the legal system, as it works.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[poetmatt]

I should also add there are temporary warrants that can be issued within a few hours. So timeframe to get warrants is a crock of crap.

The only reason an office cannot get a warrant is because they didn't do their homework and the judge calls them on lack of reasons to obtain one. The fighting of that last part is why this law is such a bad thing, because it puts even less burden on the cop to actually verify information.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Lumpy]

no it does not. It's the same as "gun control" you cant buy a gun in the USA if you are a criminal. yet criminals have guns. In the UK guns are flat out illegal, yet criminals have guns. http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-03/community/hc-new-london-shooting-fatal-0303_1_private-vehicle-police-suspect

All it does is give a couple of rich jerks some "attaboys" for fighting crime when they are really doing nothing but harming businesses and freedom in general. (Note: dont try to compare USA shooting crimes to the UK unless you multiply the UK number by the population disparity.)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Chicken04GTO]

Im sorry, but your comment included the archaic word "God" in it, therefore it must be religious propaganda, which all good modern people know is just another means of control. You decide if thats sarcastic or not.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[AP31R0N]

Yeah, and locking my doors doesn't stop robberies. It just means the robbers had to go the next house down the street!

Re:Throw me a bone.

[cayenne8]

"People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those...."

Only if you buy from commercial dealers...I've purchased all my guns from private individuals, no checks, no records at all.

:)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sandbags]

"plenty of case" sure, numbering in the dozens tops each year, mostly physical violence or poor treatment of a prisoner (aka, you already have been accused and arrested for a crime!) but very rarely a case of violation of warrant or rights, and out of hundreds of thousands of cops and a million cases a year.

cops don;t need a warrant to access the phone records of a specific number associated with a criminal investigation, no, but that does NOT eliminate due process. Due Process simply means a judge doesn't have to PREAPPROVE the search for that data, but it DOES have to be DOCUMENTED THOURAGGLY why it was accessed and in association with a case, otherwise when you find out your number was accessed, ir if a judge or lawyer wuestions why it was, THAT COP GOES TO JAIL, and very well so will his supervisor.

Why do we know cops don't willy-nilly look up this data? because the PHONE COMAPNY BILLS FOR EACH ACCESS, and that access it audited by various state and federal agencies explicity to look for such behavior, and that lookup better damned well be tied to a case. I know a LOT of cops. There's NO WAY any of them would access phone record information (or ANY information that is not public record in a tax office or DMV) without documented just cause. It's simply not worth years in prison and the loss of a job (a job that supprots a cop's family) to see if a buddy's wife has been cheating on him...

They don't TRACK this data, they don't LOG this data. they only look it up IN ASSOCIATION WITH A CASE FILE. If a cop IDs a number associated with a known criminal, and he wants to track that criminal's association with other people, a phone is the quickest and easiest method, and it also, thanks to location data, moves to time line and alibi. If you have anonymous numbers, you give criminals the power to bypass this process. If you give the government your name associated with a phone number, you;re only giving them ONE MORE way to contact you (since they ALREADY have your address, place of work, vehicle ID, and other information, or they could just ask a local utility for your phone number. If they want you already, they have enough ways to find you already in PUBLIC data. If they have a number, they should be ABLE to find WHO it belongs to, as anyone wanting to keep that private is clearly trying to live off the grid for one reason or another, and if THAT person becomes associated with another KNOWN criminal, we SHOULD have the ability to investigate.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sandbags]

...And you can't buy a car without giving the government this information DIRECTLY, in the form of vehicle registration, no different from a handgun. At least with pre-paid phones, the number association is in the hands of a 3rd party, bound by law not to publish that information to other 3rd parties, or even the government, without due process.

The government already has your name, ID, address, they know your cars, your job, and more. If they want you, they'll come get you. I'm MUCH more willing to let them do that EASILY, and without warrants and door-busting or multiple man hours and expense. If they want me, they can come find me, i have nothing to hide other than my personal beliefs, habits, and feelings. the government knowing my phone number in NO WAY intrudes on my liberty, and privacy (in the form of staying "off the grid") is in fact NOT guaranteed by our constitution (only in limited cases per appellate laws that have established such).

They need a warrant to tap my phone, but they need nothing more than due process to pull my call records, and phone numbers should be matters of public record like any other address (so long as no-solicitation rules can be improved and enforced).

People who explicitly WANT to hide from the government are hiding what exactly? "the government" is just a group of peopole, people you elected and they appointed, and they jobs change continuously. There's no Illuminati, no underground organization bend on control pulling strings, and no trillion dollar computer system tracking every habbit every american has. You;re only watched if you show up on the rader, and you're only scrutinized and investigated if they believe you are actually breaking the law. Cops are WARY of accessing what they should not because theres both internal and external organizations folks that are overly paranoid put in place to ENSURE they don;t access what they should not, and they put COPS in JAIL for violating that, and cost the city (and taxpayers) billions when it happens.

Cops are not evil (some are power hungry, and get a trip on making others jump), they're honestly trying to improve the world. Don't show up on their radar, and you have nothing to fear. hide from them, and they get suspicions (as they're PAID to do).

The VAST majority of anonymous phones are used on some level for illegal activity. This is a SIMPLE thing to change. the government already likely knows all about you, giving them your phone number hurts no one (unless you commit a crime).

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sandbags]

yea, you know how you validate that? It's called "proof of address" The BILL for the service can't be sent to an address other than that of the registered owner of the phone, and you can't pay online with a credit card not registered to that address either. No way to add minutes means no useful device. Purchasing minute cards in a store will require the same ID validation as getting a phone in the first place.

Then, we move further, into making it VERY illegal to resell an activated prepaid phone without contacting the phone company to de-activate it. the person who gets it next needs proof of ID and address to turn it on. Anyone illegally reselling such phones could face prosecution similar to drug trafficking, and that should quickly discriminate such a market.

This has been done already in over a dozen countries, its not a new policy, and it does mostly work.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sandbags]

but it will be MUCH harder.... MUCH.

The biggest impact will be to smalltime drug dealers who simply won't be able to afford unlocked devices, but even more so to their clients who themselves can't get easy access to such a phone without big-time criminal connections and underground associations, so it;s actually going to eliminate drug crime simply because they can not longer have clients call them....

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sandbags]

Your "liberties." perhaps you don;t know the definition of that word... you seem to be comfused.

Liberty (n):
- personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression. Nope, them having your phone number is no different then them having your address, you job info, your vehicle registration, its just one more piece of data, and no correlation to imprisonment or servitude...

- freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes" Hmm, you can still get any phone and plan you want, just need to provide ID. This doesn't reduce my choice in buying alcohol, or getting a loan, it;s just a step in a process. It eliminates no options that are available other than having an unregistered device, which only a criminal or someone with something to hide would want.

- the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice. Yea, again, them being able to back trace to your identity in relation to an active criminal investigation, following due process, and after acquiring a warrant, has NO impact on any of your personal liberties.

People confuse freedom, liberty, expression, and ANONYMITY. You are NOT anonymous to the government. you have the right to your beliefs, habits, and more, but they have a right to IDENTIFY you, and when necessary contact you, and when involved in a crime, collect evidence as per due process, and that is NOT disputed.

Hiding a phone number from the government only means you;re going to piss them off when they have to waste money and man hours to track down the device in your hand if they want you. They can still record the calls either way with a warrant, they can still follow location data and find you, they can still catch you in the act of a crime, they can still come to your house and ask to see your phone, hiding the number to name association only makes their job harder, and buys you NO protection other than what already exists in law.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sandbags]

Your speech IS free on a phone. They need a warrant to tap it otherwise since the government's little illegal tap operations have been stopped (unless your number pops up on a terrorist watch list associated with an active terrorist investigation; do you frequently make calls to terrorists?)

Anonymity is NOT a guaranteed right, nor is it a liberty. What comes out of your mouth, in public or otherwise, can not be held against you, unless of course its in the form of direct threats against the public, specific individuals, or in the act of organizing criminal activity. That speech is NOT protected.

In the rare cases where the government HAS tried to silence someone, someone who spoke out in public, it has gone VERY bad for the government, and the person was extremely overcompensated, because paranoids like you sat on the jury, and awarded them more money than god could make.

There's no "asshole" running the government, there's a group of people YOU PUT THERE, people like you, with families and designs on their own privacy. WTF would they go after someone on a private phone line unless that person was an identified threat to freedom and happiness and safety of others?

People who want to speak out an remain anonymous have a hundred other ways to do so. The use on an anonymous phone is NOT required for that (they can use a payphone for fucks sake!). taking away mobile phones from this list of hundreds of ways does NOt prevent the speech or anonymity, but it DOES prevent crime, drug trade, black market activity, even government corruption which you think is so rampant.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[commodore64_love]

First off I don't consider smoking marijuana or any other drug a crime. If you're DUI then sure you should be arrested for endangering others, but if you're at home watching Star Trek there's no reason for the government to stop you from enjoying your own body. It's YOUR property, not theirs.

Two, freedom means freedom. You're not free it you're shackled via your phone to some FBI or CIA watching your every move. That's serfdom not freedom

Three, I'd rather risk a few criminals using anonymous phones now, than ~20 years in the future some Tyrant tracking me down (via phone) and leading me to the Guillotine

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Sloppy]

Help me catch badguys without infringing on their liberties

The first step is to correctly establish the requirements. And the first, most inviolate, requirement is that non-criminals' liberties must not be infringed. That gives you the framework in which to find your "catch badguys" solution.

Until we've agreed on that, though, the details for how-to-catch-bad-guys aren't really worth thinking about. There's no reason for the government to go looking for bad guys, if they are going to be the chief bad guy. A thief can take your car; a government can take a lot more.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

Except that they already can. Criminals steal the guns they use in crime. Registration does not help to catch them.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[obarthelemy]

does RANDOM CAPITALIZATION make a point STRONGER ? I'll try IT.

You SEEM to TRUST the POLICE a LOT. Lucky YOU. I often WONDER how PEOPLE would REACT to some MEASURES if, instead OF being implemented BY THE US they appeared in an OFFICIALLY tyrannical REGIME.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[RockDoctor]

If you think eliminating everything from society that could possibly be used for a criminal purpose is a reasonable goal of government then you're basically volunteering to live in a police state.

By the time that you're in a police state, you've got so many policemen going around with access to equipment and techniques that are useful for crime, that you can just guess who the next set of crime lords are going to be.
Some would claim that this has happened already.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[jwhitener]

A highly accurate show, if the reviews are correct.

But sure, lets ignore the show and just use some logic. I'll also assume that you can get a warrant in 2 hours, and I'll also assume that it is trivial to isolate 1 pre-paid cell phone in an inner city when there are probably 100's in use 24 hours a day per tower.

http://www.prepaidreviews.com/blog/consumer-issues/why-wal-mart-will-refuse-to-sell-you-prepaid-cell-phones-34581/

Lets assume I'm a drug dealer. Wouldn't it make sense to have 10 prepaid phones on me at all times? Each used at random for a different purpose? Now which one are you going to get a warrant for?

Even if that show is inaccurate, it is a really good show and you should watch it:) The cleverness of the drug dealers was pretty amazing.

At any rate, I agree that requiring ID is dumb. It won't solve anything. But I still believe the prepaids are harder for law enforcement to deal with than regular cell phones.

Just googling prepaid drugs crime etc.. leads to dozens of articles of law enforcement complaining about them. So probably most police offices don't have the equipment or training or knowledge to easy isolate 1 prepaid (which I still contend isn't easy, but I'll push that aside for the sake of argument).

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Alex Belits]

Let it make it clear for Americans -- does society benefit from law-abiding people being able to shoot anonymously, regardless of what criminals can or can't do?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

Under that rationale we should preemptively fingerprint and DNA swab everybody when they are born.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Alex Belits]

Though this likely IS going to happen, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing things anonymously that would be no longer anonymous if there was an easy way to find anyone's identity by merely fingerprints or DNA. This is why AGGREGATION AND DISTRIBUTION of such data is resisted -- it would encourage police to find and accuse everyone who may be somewhat related to some kind of crime or wrongdoing and has no ability to defend against accusations, but not actually guilty, or can be data to track people who merely are opposed to someone with access to such a system, or merely for petty harassment on wide scale. This is where breach of privacy harms society.

On the other hand, use of weapons in any civilized society is unthinkable without taking responsibility for the results -- be they criminal or not. In situations when shooting someone is an acceptable solution, privacy is the last thing the shooter should be worrying about.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

On the other hand, use of weapons in any civilized society is unthinkable without taking responsibility for the results

I don't disagree, but I'm still opposed to firearms registration of any kind. One of the reasons we have a 2nd amendment is as a final check against oppressive government. That check doesn't do us any good if government knows where all the weapons are and can confiscate them. Historically gun registration has led to gun confiscation. I don't even need to Godwin to make this example either -- it's happened right here in the US in California and New York City. They passed gun registration laws and later passed laws outlawing certain types of guns. Guess how they knew who owned those guns?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[econ2010]

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?

To answer your question:

YES, our lawmakers are simply a bunch of retarded old idiots unfortunately.

They actually believe this increases safety when it does nothing of the sort.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Alex Belits]

I don't disagree, but I'm still opposed to firearms registration of any kind. One of the reasons we have a 2nd amendment is as a final check against oppressive government.

No, you don't. Armed uprising against a government is (and should be) always illegal according to that government's law. If people see such uprising as the best solution for their problems, they should have a goal of actually overthrowing the government, and ready to fight for this regardless of the government's opinions on their actions. Anything less would be a ridiculous hypocrisy (and, by the way, this is what "terrorism" actually means -- such a group wants to use government's power to further their goals, yet they are trying to coerce the government or population through violence into doing their bidding).

In any case, all weapons that would be useful for fighting against your government -- tanks, bombers, missiles, etc. -- are, and always were illegal to own. Apparently some stupid rednecks have a fantasy of shooting IRS officials from shotguns to keep evil gubmint from getting their sweet muh-nay, but this is why everyone else calls them stupid rednecks.

That check doesn't do us any good if government knows where all the weapons are and can confiscate them.

If you are ready to kill government officials, and are afraid of same officials knocking on your door and asking you to surrender the weapons, you have no business fighting against them in the first place.

Historically gun registration has led to gun confiscation. I don't even need to Godwin to make this example either -- it's happened right here in the US in California and New York City. They passed gun registration laws and later passed laws outlawing certain types of guns. Guess how they knew who owned those guns?

Guess what? I am not an American, and don't share this whole gun fetish. If it was impossible to get weapons sufficient for self-defense in those places (and this matters only because your police sucks ass and offers no real protection to law-abiding people), you would have a point, otherwise cry me a river over someone's arsenal in a barn.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[Shakrai]

Since you aren't an American and have no understanding of what our Republic stands for I see no further reason to waste my time explaining it to you. I'll just leave you to contemplate all of the genocides committed against unarmed populations in the 20th century.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

I would assume that when "everything else is taken away", the legal protection of anonymity would be at the least devoid of any meaning anyway.

The issue won't be with having the right to anonymity, but with having the means (technical, for example) to remain anonymous. Those are two different things. And, again, situation close to China or Iran.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

But also - bloodshed is the easiest, natural thing for us. Are you really sure people putting themselves into "fighting" mood is the best of ideas?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Struggle perhaps; effort would be even better...

Chosen terminology can influence people to too large of a degree to dismiss it (ever heard about propaganda or loaded words?). BTW, don't paint it as "us" vs. "them"...what do you think, from where "them" usualy originate? It's optimally an effort, a long term one, of society trying to keep healthy...itself.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

And how can he line up political support? Are you sure it's just about "him" or "them"?

(accidentally, also putting politics in the terms of "fight"...well, just look at the mess)

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

I'm not sure one can look at those others like that. While those singular wars / campaigns can be easily considered to be just...how can we disconnect them from other actions of the US at roughly the same time? (*) Which one takes precedence as the "true" manifestation of US intentions?

(*) Barbary Pirates - the mess with Canada. Civil War - push to the West; also not that far from mess with Mexico or Indonesia. And even with Korea - many people forget that S. Korea was...also basically totalitarian then, and for a few more decades - but on "our" side; there were even, essentially, ethnic cleansings on the side of S. Korea... (apparently with knowledge of the US); and generally large part of the mess due to supporting Stalinist Soviet Union - not exactly better from Nazi Germany, and with considerable overlap of occupation areas for the next few decades.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

You demonstrate the problem if you think those are the primary issues we're dealing with now.

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

Actually, I suspect rare enough...

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

It is also my opinion that it's about an effort of societies towards self improvement. But...a "fight" might be a poorer choice of words than you suppose; it might work against the goal. Isn't it also a nice keyword feeding those primitive reflexes?

Re:Throw me a bone.

[sznupi]

The issue is that too many people surely understand it that way. Fighting, bloodshed - those come naturally to us, they are the easy way.

And yes, my point with the quote was (and what you said in the last sentence) that it basically might just as well mean "active ones take over" - well duh!
Not attaching moral value wasn't about the word per se, but about the group which it represents - the original, unmodified quote just used one little trick in different part of itself to arbitrarily attach moral value to "indolent"... (and c'mon, they can easily have many exploits; passed over and solid enough to last a few generations, for starters)

Fake ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we couldn't use fake IDs to circumvent this, now could we?

Re:Fake ID?

[afidel]

Or use a phone/SIM purchased outside the US or use a stolen phone, etc. They also might not care, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers cared if we ID'd them afterwords since they were already willing to die for their cause.

Re:Fake ID?

[fermion]

If the innocent cannot easily buy a phone, then only criminals will have phones and terrorists have won.

Re:Fake ID?

[Arthur Grumbine]

I guess we couldn't use fake IDs to circumvent this, now could we?

Are you kidding?! Using a fake ID is illegal! And besides, only criminals have easy access to fake IDs. Which is why this law will be so effec-- oh, wait...

Re:Fake ID?

[darthflo]

In most of the western world, prepaid SIMs have only been sold to users with some sort of proper ID for a couple of years now. I'm fairly sure this is mandated through the whole EU. Most countries even have some sort of nationwide identification cards, which tend to be the single or one of very few ways to, well, prove your identity.

Re:Fake ID?

[centuren]

Or use a phone/SIM purchased outside the US or use a stolen phone, etc. They also might not care, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers cared if we ID'd them afterwords since they were already willing to die for their cause.

Somehow I don't think a foreign SIM card roaming on US networks would be hard to trace. Stolen phones pose the same problems as always, but they have to at least be stolen first. As I recall, the 9/11 hijackers didn't care about being ID'd beforehand. It may be incorrectly emphasized, but it generally seems that terrorists involved with planning, carrying out, or failing to carry out attacks inside the US have been in the country legally, with their own identities, using legally bought materials.

include 'common-sense' returns false.

[JustinRLynn]

It seems to me that requiring the presentation of ID before purchasing something for the purpose of associating it with an identity for future use won't work as there's no way that you can guarantee the identity the person presents is genuine. All this law will do is encourage people to present fake identification when purchasing said goods, especially if they're going to use them for nefarious purposes.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[internetcommie]

Yeah, but it might help the coppers catch the stupid criminals who don't have fake ids, or screw up and use their real one. Assuming they have a real one, of course.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Criminals are stupid and will actually do things like present their real IDs. Prisons aren't full of masterminds, you know.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Anonymous Coward]

All this law will do...

Is rake yet even more money through the business of government and set a precedent for the next expansion of power and revenue. They couldn't give a damn whether people obey or disobey the law, or whether the law "succeeds" or "fails" to achieve their stated goals; in fact, mass disobedience and failure is justification for even more power and revenue.

You're not in the business of government, are you?

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[CheshireCatCO]

Which party is that? The two sponsors represents both major parties.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[chicago_scott]

So you're taking away the my freedom to have legal anonymous communication in order to catch only the stupid criminals?

Sounds like a bad trade-off to me.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[internetcommie]

True. The smart ones just didn't get caught.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[JustinRLynn]

Which is a good demonstration of why this probably won't do much good. These people who give their real IDs to buy cell phones to use for criminal purposes are unlikely to be able to organize anything as complicated as a coordinated attack without giving us some other more obvious and actionable clues. Clues that won't require making ever user of a currently anonymous (at least on the face of it) method of portable communication a suspect subject to a preemptive presumption of guilt.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[tick_and_bash]

Wouldn't at the picture vaguely resemble the person? It's at least a better start than the fuzzy picture they may have gotten from a security camera.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[alexborges]

Stupid criminals to the point of not having fake id's are probably the easyest to catch anyhow.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[kehren77]

I can see it now, the next revision to this law will add a 5 day waiting period to cells phones so that background checks can be performed. Just like hand guns.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[mitgib]

Which party is that? The two sponsors represents both major parties.

Yup, that's the one

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[TooMad]

Make possessing a 'burn-phone' a class III felony. Then make possession of a fake ID a class III as well. Pile on as many charges as you possibly can. They might not be able to make the drugs, murder, terrorism, etc charges stick but you can probably throw them in jail for 60 years by the time they're done. Finally, make the sentence up to the judges discretion so he isn't forced to give some poor kid 10 years for buying beer with a fake ID.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Chyeld]

Have you attempted to buy Sudafed in a 'meth state' recently?

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course the purpose of this law is to allow the government to identify people who have said things they don't like, not to catch criminals (catching criminals is just the cover story).

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Attila Dimedici]

One thing to take note of Charles Schumer is the third ranked Democrat in the Senate, which means that to a degree his position on laws represents the Democratic Party on those laws. John Cornyn is not part of the Republican Senate leadership in any way, which means that his position on laws for the most part represents only his constituents (and with the way things have been going lately, not necessarily even them).
This is not to say that the Republican Party bosses would not support this bill, but the support of Republican Senator John Cornyn is not equivalent of the support of Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[characterZer0]

If a stupid law is proposed that would harass, inconvenience, and violate the privacy and liberty of law-abiding citizens without doing anything towards fixing any problem, real or imagined, you can safely bet that Chuck Schumer is involved.

Why? Because bills like this get attention.

"the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera." -Bob Dole

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[bitt3n]

So you're taking away the my freedom to have legal anonymous communication in order to catch only the stupid criminals?

Sounds like a bad trade-off to me.

well think of it from congress's point of view: locking up the stupid criminals means less competition for elected office, whereas letting the smart ones run free ensures a continued source of campaign contributions.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[binary paladin]

Hahahaha.

Well played sir, well played.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[DrVomact]

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.

Yeah, but Chuckie would really like to take away our guns before he makes us register our phones—it's just that the Democrats have finally realized that advocating "gun control" is a losing proposition (that is, they will lose their seats in the next general election). I've never really felt the need to buy an anonymous phone, but who knows when I might need one? I guess I'd better run down to the drugstore and buy a half dozen before the prices go through the roof.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Since when was anonymously purchasing a telephone a right?

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Dr Damage I]

That word balancing? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "flush down the toilet"

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Luke has no name]

"Oops, I'm not the terrorist, my cell phone got swiped earlier."

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Shakrai]

We have the right to do whatever the hell we want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others or infringe on some power specifically delegated to the Government (i.e: I can't sign a treaty with a foreign power)

You must be one of those people that thinks the 9th and 10th amendments don't exist or hasn't even heard of them.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[AK Marc]

The right to privacy has been a right since before the USA existed. So, I'd claim the right to anonymously purchase a phone has existed since before telephones existed.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You generally don't have the right to operate a gun, or a car with anonymously either.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that you won't be randomly searched. It doesn't guarantee that you're allowed to simultaneously drop off the grid and still possibly abuse modern technology.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[AK Marc]

You generally don't have the right to operate a gun, or a car with anonymously either.

There is no national registration of firearm owners, nor driving licenses. And operating both has been deemed a safety issue. Who has been killed by mishandling of a cell phone?

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that you won't be randomly searched. It doesn't guarantee that you're allowed to simultaneously drop off the grid and still possibly abuse modern technology.

The Constitution specifically states that rights not enumerated aren't to be presumed to not exist. Along with just about all the other Amendments including the 4th you list, it has been determined that there was an obvious implied right to privacy. After all, liberty when the government records your actions 100% of the time, including behind closed doors, isn't liberty.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[mr_mischief]

Or it could open up a black market in phone theft and phone robbery, or more cloning of both registered and anonymous phones than there already is. Do you think most crimes committed with guns, cars, or planes are done by people registering them under their own names with the intent to commit a readily traceable crime? If you can get a multi-million dollar plane full of victims under your control with a few box cutters after a fairly strict security screening, then what's top stop you from getting a cell phone from one individual on the street?

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Yes I have. For comparison purchasing Sudafed has about the same requirements as buying a rifle or shotgun in Minnesota. In both cases the ask for you ID, swipe it, look at the picture while waiting for a printout which you have to sign after verifying your information. So obviously Sudafed is a dangerous as one of these. In both cases it the buyer is entered into a government database, is required to provide "valid" identification at time of purchase, and must be at least 18.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Not that I think that the law is a good idea (I don't) -- but I do think you're confusing the right to privacy (which is questionable) with the right to anonymity (there is none).

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The Constitution also grants very vast and broad protection and welfare powers to the Federal Government. Almost as if both Federalists and Antifederalists had a hand in writing it. Shocking!

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[AK Marc]

Given that many of the founders recognized the value of anonymity (as demonstrated by the use of pseudonyms, some of which not discovered until many years later when forensics were run on writing styles), I would assert that they envisioned the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th to include protections necessary to uphold the anonymity which they had used themselves. At least at the time it was written, the 9th had meaning, even if the Supreme Court has later ruled it means nothing.

Re:include 'common-sense' returns false.

[sznupi]

I'm pretty sure the point wasn't about some present distortions...

.. right ...

[ak_hepcat]

"Um, hey, Fred, while you're at Best Buy, could you pick me up a throwaway phone? I'm going on vacation and don't want to
take my RAZR with me to jihad-camp"

Sigh. Security theatre is not secure.

Re:.. right ...

[zegota]

"Mr. Fred, we see you purchased a phone, and then three months later, used that phone to call in a bomb threat." "Oh, I bought that for my friend Steve." "All right, we'll check him out." This law has many problems, but that's not one of them.

Re:.. right ...

[Shakrai]

Next they'll outlaw "straw purchases" of cell phones. Then they'll give the ATFE a new letter: ATFET has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? ;)

Re:.. right ...

[Shakrai]

This law has many problems, but that's not one of them.

What happens when the criminals just steal the phone or pay someone to buy it for them?

Re:.. right ...

[jgagnon]

Except that all Steve has to do is either claim Fred is lying or say his phone was lost or stolen. There is still no way to prove that either Fred or Steve actually used the phone to call in the bomb threat.

Re:.. right ...

[Qzukk]

"Oh, I bought that for my friend Steve."

That's what they all say.

Re:.. right ...

[Sir_Lewk]

Are you kidding? Knowing who was using a phone after the fact is only one aspect of the story. They also want to know who to wiretap during criminal investigations. If Fred buys Al's cellphone with Fred's ID, then the feds won't know who's phone to tap. This law has many problems, and in a large portion of situations this is one of them.

Re:.. right ...

[91degrees]

Stolen phones can be tracked. They can also be disabled and typically are when reported stolen.

You could get someone else to by it for you but then that person will only be one step removed. It's a lead. It's someone you can apply pressure to to find out who now owns it.

Re:.. right ...

[Kizeh]

Or you can make a tidy profit by buying 200 of them and selling them for cash anonymously at the local gun show.

Re:.. right ...

[RobertLTux]

and get banned from any and all stores for even trying this.

How exactly are you going to buy 200 phones when most stores won't sell you more than say 6 without tripping fraud/dealer warnings??

(and if you say i will just go from store to store: well the second RadioShack you hit will call their DM and then a DO NOT SELL order gets emailed out and i would bet that a phone call will be placed to the BestBuy in the area
to get them to lock out also and the Officemax ect...)

Re:.. right ...

[Jane_Dozey]

I'm pretty sure someone could wait outside a store for someone who looks down on their luck and then pay them to go get a phone. Pressuring a person to give up a stranger is a bit useless, especially if the payee is a drug addict and wouldn't recognise their own mother.

Sure, it's a lead but will more than likely go nowhere if the criminal is even just smart enough to have the presence of mind *not* to get their mate to go get the phone.

Re:.. right ...

[PPNSteve]

Oh hey! I DON'T HAVE THIS PHONE!
I gave that phone to my friend Achmed who said he is going on a short trip to Washington DC

Re:.. right ...

[BarryJacobsen]

Stolen phones can be tracked. They can also be disabled and typically are when reported stolen.

So this law also prevents people from stealing a phone, making a single phone call on it immediately and then throwing it away, too? Oh wait no, it probably increases the chance of that happening.

Re:.. right ...

[IICV]

"Mr. Fred, we see you purchased a phone, and then three months later, used that phone to call in a bomb threat."
"Oh, I got mugged leaving the store, you can check with the police because I filed a report."
"Why didn't you cancel the remaining minutes on the phone?"
"Are you kidding me? It was a prepaid and the phone company doesn't give a shit! I tried to get a refund on them, but Verizon tech support ran me around in circles until I gave up and just bought a new phone and account. It was a pain in the ass changing my phone number, let me tell you."

Fixed that for you.

Re:.. right ...

[mcgrew]

"Go buy me a prepaid phone and I'll give you $500 worth of crack. And you don't even have to give me a blow job."

"Ok, Big T, I'll be right back..."

Re:.. right ...

[Attila Dimedici]

Or you can make a tidy profit by buying 200 of them and selling them for cash anonymously at the local gun show.

You would make more money selling them at the places that criminals buy guns. While I am sure that many of the people who go to gun shows would have an interest in buying prepaid cellphones that the government can't track to them, I am also sure that criminals will pay a higher premium for them than the people who go to gun shows.

Re:.. right ...

[91degrees]

Which forces criminals to increase their risk and decrease their utility (you can't receive calls anonymously this way).

The proposal isn't trying or pretending to prevent all possible related crimes, simply to make them a little harder to accomplish.

Re:.. right ...

[SeaFox]

People could just as easily organize into a "buying circle". Everyone goes and buys a a phone or three, then they all get together and swap the sealed packages back and forth a few times, or even ship them after organizing on the Internet. It's not much different than when people swap "loyalty keycards" for grocery stores so their buying habits can't be reliably tracked.

Re:.. right ...

[DrVomact]

"Oh, I bought that for my friend Steve."

That's what they all say.

No actually, "I sold it to a guy at the flea market when I was short of cash" is what you should say. Unless this law applies to all personal transactions also. That would make it easier to buy and sell a gun (here in Texas, anyway) than a cell phone.

Re:.. right ...

[BobMcD]

How exactly are you going to buy 200 phones when most stores won't sell you more than say 6 without tripping fraud/dealer warnings??

Directly from China, perhaps?

Re:.. right ...

[RobertLTux]

and you would be getting these authenticated to a network how??

Re:.. right ...

[John.Banister]

200 phones? If you anonymously buy 2000 sim cards for $3 each on a visit to Taiwan...

Burn Notice

[danbert8]

But what will Michael do in his crazy antics in Miami? He usually needs like 3 prepaid phones for every job. It will kill off one my favorite shows!

Re:Burn Notice

[KahabutDieDrake]

He'll do what any good ... agent... would do. He'll find a buddy that works for a third party support call center, and convince him to provide phone accounts for as many phones as he needs.

Re:Burn Notice

[Jeng]

One of his clients gave him a box full of cell phones, forgot which episode.

Re:Burn Notice

[toxonix]

You pay someone reliable and dirty enough to find a bunch of crackies, junkies, prozzies, huffers, geezers, boozers, give them enough money to buy a few prepaid phones, collect the phones and then this person gives to you a box of prepaid phones.

The wire

[Anonymous Coward]

The wire called, they want their idea back.

Re:The Wire

[Krishnoid]

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.

Seconded. My feeling on it is that 'every scene is a practical civics or organizational lesson'. One of the only pieces of media I've experienced that provided a solid foundation and rewritten my understanding of a topic. Don't miss it. See also one sociologist's experience watching episodes with gang members.

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 progression from pagers to cell phones during those seasons and how the technology vs. law battle unfolds is pretty interesting.

Re:The Wire

[sznupi]

Oh, great, they give them easy to digest training material ;)

Re:The wire

[Von Helmet]

It's fitting this message should be passed along by an anonymous coward.

Re:The Wire

[Alioth]

"The Wire" also has the sound of a Sinclair Spectrum loading a game screen image in it, too. (Once it was sufficiently isolated from the audio of the programme, it turned out to be part of a loading screen for a game by Ultimate, it was suspected to be Knight Lore since this has shown up as audio on other programmes too. Probably a stock bit of "special effects computery sounds" that has been kicking around since the mid 1980s).

Already being done in India and South Africa

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

This is already being done in India and South Africa (where prepaid phones are everywhere and contract phones are nearly non-existent) and it's retarded. I am American and I travel into and out of South Africa all the time and no-one wants to sell me a SIM card. You have to be able to prove residence in South Africa to get one and I live in Mozambique (and Botswana beforehand). Theft is RAMPANT in SA and people think having a name on file of who the phone's number is will stop anything? I have to find a South African who will buy me a SIM card any time I need to call from within SA.

India implemented this law before they had their terrorist attacks last year and it sure did a lot to prevent those eh?

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[sconeu]

Except that is exactly the stated purpose of this law -- to prevent Evil Terrorists from using prepaids to coordinate attacks.

RTFS, for goodness sake.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

Thanks, I was wondering why kevinNCSU couldn't make the connection there. I also don't get why the people who modded him insightful didn't get that either. I thought terrorism was completely on topic because, as you said, that's the whole reason for the law.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought terrorism was completely on topic because, as you said, that's the whole ^H^H^H^H^H stated reason for the law.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[kevinNCSU]

Terrorism is on topic, but your example isn't. Were those terrorists making a bunch of prepaid cell phone calls inside India the the Indian authorities intercepted or found but couldn't track?

I did RTFA and it talks all about how the times square bomber used prepaid cellphones to communicate back to Pakistan and the seller of the Nissan Pathfinder and how the authorities had trouble figuring out the identity of the buyer because they could not trace those cellphones which nearly let him escape the country.

But besides that they've been known to be used by terrorists, foreign agents and petty criminals for this purpose for years. What I'm pointing out is the ridiculousness of pointing out one act of terrorism or crime that had nothing to do with prepaid cellphones and declaring because the law didn't stop that then it's worthless.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[mcgrew]

It's on topic because that's the reason they give for writing the goddamned law.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[gink1]

Now you see how inventive these politicians are! Just copy the actions of less advanced nations and everything will be better!

These fellows just want a cause that is sure to be voted though. They probably could care less what it is or what impact it will have.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[kevinNCSU]

The reason they give is that terrorists and criminals are using them to make untraceable calls. They don't claim it will stop all terrorism everywhere, and that's why it's off topic.

The fact that India has this law and it didn't stop a scuba assault has as much bearing on this law as it would on adding a law that required cockpit doors be locked post takeoff. Does a scuba assault with nothing about airplanes invalidate the reasons behind wanting to lock the cockpit doors?

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[farble1670]

India implemented this law before they had their terrorist attacks last year and it sure did a lot to prevent those eh?

why not take this to its logical conclusion: india's implementation of this law actually *caused* the terrorist attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[Reziac]

I thought I saw a post that mentioned shortwave, but lost it and can't find it again offhand. Anyway, I'm now wondering if a more-portable implementation of shortwave, bypassing the phone carriers altogether, might be in our privacy futures (not to mention in Evil Terrorists' futures). No reason the SW transmission can't be somehow encoded prior to transmission, is there?? (Hey, no one ever broke those random-number-strings, eh?) Main limit would be the atmospheric bounce patterns, but that's not a concern if you're all in the same general region anyway.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[PCM2]

OK, either you're purposefully being dense here or you just don't get it. What was stopping the Times Square Bomber from using two-way radios to communicate with someone coordinating from a nearby hotel? What was stopping him from using Skype to talk to a man on the moon? What does detonating a bomb have to do with talking on the phone really? This is like the IRS claiming that if we have to show ID to buy the stamps we use to send in our tax returns there will be no more tax fraud.

For that matter, if you're a fucking suicide bomber what do you care if you have to show ID or not?

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[kevinNCSU]

OK, either you're purposefully being dense here or you just don't get it. What was stopping the Times Square Bomber from using two-way radios to communicate with someone coordinating from a nearby hotel?

Walkie talkies instead of cell phones for cross continent terrorist organizations? You're really going to suggest that after calling me dense? Ok, I'll bite. Besides long distance operatives will likely have to call non terror related regular folk using regular phones. The issue is once someone calls to say, buy a vehicle that they want to use in a strike, that call can later be traced to find whoever setup the purchase and then move up the chain.

What was stopping him from using Skype to talk to a man on the moon?

This is a semi reasonable alternative but it's not as easy to use from the field and still has a probability of being traced. In addition it requires the operative to be more intelligent, as in, you can't just hand them a couple burn phones and tell them to use them and lose them.

What does detonating a bomb have to do with talking on the phone really?

What does a seaborne terrorist attack launched from another country where cellphone investigations never came into play have to do with disproving the usefulness of a law about burn phones?

For that matter, if you're a fucking suicide bomber what do you care if you have to show ID or not?

If you're planning to blow yourself up in the cell phone store I suspect you don't. But that's AT&T's fault for lying to Apple fanatics about tethering being 'on the way', and no law we pass can protect them.

In all seriousness though, if they are using the phones to communicate with their cell leader who is on the radar then you can trace that phone to the suicide bomber and possibly catch them beforehand. Or, if like the Times Square Bomber the dude ain't interested in blowing himself up, you can track him down faster once the investigation starts.

Again, the proposed law is about cutting off a line of anonymous communication to make things harder on terrorists and criminals and give law enforcement an easier time to catch them. My argument was that it isn't being heralded as the end of terrorism, so it doesn't make sense to point out a single crime or single terrorist act and say the law is pointless because it doesn't prevent it. It's like saying a law about locking the cockpit doors is pointless because it wouldn't stop a scuba diver attack.

What people should be doing is discussing whether losing that line of anonymous communication is worth the reward of making it harder for criminals and terrorists to communicate without detection.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[ami.one]

Yeah, we have loads of such stupid laws in India which do NOTHING to prevent criminals but just trouble normal citizens. The sheer number of connections makes it impossible for them to do any check of the documents so they audit 1-2% of the documents. Another recent one is that WIFI should be secured since many terrorists were claiming responsibility for bombings over emails sent through unsecured wifi. Next up - ID required for drinking water. That'll stop all terrorists i'm sure, since all of them drink water sometime or the other.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[Rexdude]

India implemented this law before they had their terrorist attacks last year and it sure did a lot to prevent those eh?

The terrorists who attacked the Taj Hotel were using satellite phones, not cellphones.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[jonaskoelker]

India implemented this law before they had their terrorist attacks last year and it sure did a lot to prevent those eh?

The cell phone registration law prevented 28% of those attacks that didn't happen!

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[mcgrew]

Why not just get rid of the 4th Amendment while we're at it? And the rest of the bill of rights as well? Sorry, but I fear intrusive government far more than I fear terrorists. The chances of my being harmed by terrorism is close to zero; I'm far more likely to be killed by a mugger or drunk driver when I'm staggering home from the bar, and even more likely to be killed by one of my lady friends' jealous boyfriends (I'm surprised one hasn't shot me already).

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. I am not willing to trade my liberty, privacy, and anonymity for a false sense of security.

Re:Already being done in India and South Africa

[asvravi]

In India, it succeeded in forcing the terrorists to shift to using satellite phones - which can be detected and traced easier. Nobody said it would totally wipe out terrorist attacks and it would be rathaer silly to assume that - it is but one more measure in a systematic approach to making life more difficult for terrorists.

Privacy: Same Shit, Different Day

[Maarx]

Clearly, the only people who would object to such legislation are criminals.

Those of us who aren't doing anything illegal would have absolutely no reason to fear the loss of anonymous communication.

Re:Privacy: Same Shit, Different Day

[jgagnon]

Especially considering governments and law enforcement are never corrupt.

Re:Privacy: Same Shit, Different Day

[robot256]

Under our present government, everyone IS a criminal, they just don't prosecute every single speeding driver or kid without a bicycle helmet or how many other things. Which is why you can ALWAYS find a pretext for arresting a suspicious person.

Re:Privacy: Same Shit, Different Day

[StikyPad]

Pretty sure those aren't arrestable offenses (at least for values of speeding that most people do). Most people don't actually commit arrestable offenses very often, despite what the author of "Three Felonies a Day," would have us believe. Sure, it's easy to find a legitimate reason to stop anyone, but that's not the same as an arrest.

Re:Privacy: Same Shit, Different Day

[Dracophile]

And if I'm not doing anything illegal, why do you need to know who I am when I make a phone call?

Both positive and negative sides with this

[Nichotin]

A few years back, you could buy prepaid phones in Norway without any ID, but then they made a law so that all prepaid cards had to be registered with social security number. It is now harder for most mindless criminals to call anonymously, so they use their own names and get caught easily. The more clever ones simply use other peoples social security numbers when they want anonymous (for them) prepaid numbers.
Because of the latter, I am concerned about the consequences. Maybe they should legalize drugs and get rid of the top reason why people would want a anonymous phone in the first place, but I can only dream.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Shakrai]

Maybe they should legalize drugs and get rid of the top reason why people would want a anonymous phone in the first place, but I can only dream.

Why do you assume drugs are the "top reason" why one would want anonymous communications? What about a whistle blower? What about a witness to a crime?

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Nichotin]

If you say anonymous communications, I agree that drugs would not be the top reason. This is anonymous prepaid cellphones we are talking about, and I was referring to the situation in my own country, where neither being a witness to a crime nor a wistleblower would require a anonymous prepaid phone card. Perhaps thats what you get in a country that is percieved as very little corrupt, with a government that is (for now) considered friendly at most levels.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Sir_Lewk]

Lots of people like drugs. It's a very large industry. Very very few people are whistleblowers or are reporting a crime and think to go buy an anonymous phone to do it.

Please note, this isn't to detract from the legitimacy of anonymous phones, the existence of even a few "innocent" users of them is plenty to justify their existence in general. Realistically however, most are used for drugs.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Unordained]

I think the GP was just trying to say that drugs are a large part of today's criminal market, and legalizing them would greatly reduce the need for criminal activities (in the long run -- it'd likely be a slow transition) and therefore reduce ... that's where it gets fuzzy ... the desire to know the names of prepaid phone users in order to hunt down criminals. There would be fewer, but that doesn't change the desire to know who they are via their phones. Maybe it changes how much the leftover criminals use phones at all, and therefore how much this approach would work. Or maybe reducing criminality this way would be easier, more sensible, and in some ways cheaper than tracking the names of all prepaid phone users, and therefore the better idea. As I said, fuzzy. But I think the general theme was about reducing criminality in general, not justifying the loss of anonymity.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[b0bby]

Why do you assume drugs are the "top reason" why one would want anonymous communications? What about a whistle blower? What about a witness to a crime?

There are lots of avenues for a whistle blower or a witness to transmit information anonymously, since the information needs to only go one way. Ongoing criminal enterprises need two way communications, like burner phones.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Lucky_Norseman]

I was referring to the situation in my own country, where neither being a witness to a crime nor a wistleblower would require a anonymous prepaid phone card. Perhaps thats what you get in a country that is percieved as very little corrupt, with a government that is (for now) considered friendly at most levels.

Well, as you might not know, the law in Norway makes it obligatory for the police to give your name and phone number to the accused (and/or his lawyer) if you phone in to report a crime.
Maybe you would like an anonymous phone after all?

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Lando]

Growth industry for LifeLock. Now in addition to protecting your credit, they will bail you out of jail when someone uses your identity to buy a cell phone.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Dr Damage I]

"Realistically however, most are used for drugs."

actually, they are far more frequently used by ordinary shmoes who don't want to have to pay a monthly fee for their telephone use and who thus have no need to record their name/address/phone number/penis or cup size etc. etc. with their telecommunications provider and don't particularly want to do that either

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Sir_Lewk]

I think the ordinary shmoe that uses one of these does so out of convenience, not really out of a need for actual anonymity, which is what we are discussing.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Dr Damage I]

Or perhaps for both. Or, as I already stated, the ordinary shmoe neither needs nor wants to surrender that information, so why should (s)he?

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Sir_Lewk]

I think that your idea of an ordinary shmoe is not so ordinary.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Dr Damage I]

uh huh. So how many do you suppose would surrender the information the government wants if they were offered the choice of either an anonymous prepaid or the prepaid where the government can associate the phone with mr or mrs shmoe?

I'm thinking if offered the choice explicitly, most will choose anonymity.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Sir_Lewk]

Sure, if explicitly asked which they'd want to do, most would probably choose anonymity, but the general population is far too unconcerned with privacy to factor it into their purchasing decisions without prompting.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Dr Damage I]

So your plan is to keep the choice quiet so that they don't realize that it is being taken from them. Charming.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Sir_Lewk]

Of course not. Attempting to put words in my mouth is pretty pointless in discussions this old where we are likely the only ones still reading it, so don't do it.

I am opposed to this proposed law, even though I recognize that the general population doesn't care or think about anonymity in their day to day lives. I never said I thought it was a good thing they don't, just that, as a statement of fact, they don't.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Dr Damage I]

"I am opposed to this proposed law, even though I recognize that the general population doesn't care or think about anonymity in their day to day lives"

You have already acknowledged however, that it is what they want. No, I'm not putting words in your mouth:

"if explicitly asked which they'd want to do, most would probably choose anonymity"

So if we go back to the disagreement which originated this discussion:

"they are far more frequently used by ordinary shmoes who don't want to have to pay a monthly fee for their telephone use and who thus have no need to record their name/address/phone number/penis or cup size etc. etc. with their telecommunications provider and don't particularly want to do that either"

So if you want to say that "I think that your idea of an ordinary shmoe is not so ordinary" you should keep in mind that my original statement is entirely compatible with what we have already agreed with what they would choose if given the choice. That being the case, I don't think that they are so utterly irrelevant as to be outweighed by the vanishingly few users of pre paid phones who use them to communicate in recreational drug commerce.

Re:Both positive and negative sides with this

[Sir_Lewk]

This entire discussion started as a discussion about who exactly would buy one of these phones specifically because they needed anonymity. So far as I can see, "ordinary shmoes" still do not fit this class of people.

So your plan is to keep the choice quiet so that they don't realize that it is being taken from them.

I never stated that this was my "plan". You have indeed put words into my mouth. If you can't discuss something reasonably then you should abstain from discussing it entirely.

Failed in Mexico already

[Mex]

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...

Re:Failed in Mexico already

[CrimsonAvenger]

all the fake IDs out there

I prefer to think of them a "free enterprise IDs" - the best kind, really....

Re:Failed in Mexico already

[MediaCastleX]

Wouldn't that actually prove that all this is going on with El Presidente's consent? He's buying the phones, they work for him! Honestly, the man has the largest network...wow! The richest man in the world is Mexican and runs a wireless company...coincidence? Texas better watch out!

Re:Failed in Mexico already

[polle404]

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

screw that, i wanna know if I can get one under the name of McLovin...

Re:Failed in Mexico already

[sznupi]

I take it you also root for free enterprises to behave responsibly by themselves?

Already fact in Europe

[einar2]

Most countries in Europe already do this.
Switzerland was one of the last and bent to the pressure as well.

Re:Now what do I do?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well you seem to be practicing on Slashdot just fine. Maybe you can try making threats on here because people take online threats SO seriously...just like they do anonymous threats over the phone.... /end sarcasm

Re:Yep

[Shakrai]

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.

And yet...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

The police seem perfectly able to hunt down the owner of a prepaid cellphone when it contains child porn on it. How can they manage that yet not hunt down terrorists the same way?

Re:And yet...

[wiredlogic]

How can they manage that yet not hunt down terrorists the same way?

They do but they just don't like to talk about it. Bin Laden has a firm ban on anyone having a phone or radio anywhere near him because the US has resources to pinpoint the location and order a missile strike.

Re:And yet...

[internetcommie]

Maybe the terrorists paid cash so they can't be traced by their credit cards?

Re:And yet...

[Ocyris]

Because it's not about catching crooks, it's about maintain an image of potency. I can also see this being used as a stepping stone to a revival of REALID to "curb fake IDs" and "protect us from terrorists" all while doing neither.

Re:And yet...

[quarkoid]

And you would know this..... how?

Re:And yet...

[BarryJacobsen]

The police seem perfectly able to hunt down the owner of a prepaid cellphone when it contains child porn on it. How can they manage that yet not hunt down terrorists the same way?

They were only able to do this because he used his credit card to purchase it. If he had used cash the trail would have been much harder to track (it's possible surveillance cameras would work, but much less likely).

Re:And yet...

[winwar]

"They were only able to do this because he used his credit card to purchase it."

Do you not understand how cell phones work? They aren't magic. They are part of a network. Are you seriously telling me they could not have tracked the phone and data history to the other users? The least reliable data might be the credit card used to purchase the phone (it could be stolen).

Re:And yet...

[DryGrian]

How can they manage that yet not hunt down terrorists the same way?

They do but they just don't like to talk about it. Bin Laden has a firm ban on anyone having a phone or radio anywhere near him because the US has resources to pinpoint the location and order a missile strike.

Sounds like a neat book/movie premise, but [citation needed].

New York and Texas Teaming Up?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Of course it would take a piece of legislation that completely tramples anonymous communication to convince two congressmen from two very different states to put aside partisan politics and play ball together. Why is it that the politicos can only team up on things that screw the citizens, but not the ones that help the citizens? Fucking assholes.

Re:New York and Texas Teaming Up?

[qortra]

This is completely true. Every time I'm listening to the radio or reading news online and I hear or see the words "bi-partisan support", I know it's going to be really bad.

Fucking assholes

Here is where we disagree. Though they are by definition assholes (being politicians), I usually prefer to attribute their terrible legislative track record to incompetence rather than malice. See Hanlon's Razor. Even if I were not so quick to apply that adage, it wouldn't be a huge logical leap to assume the incompetence of U.S. leadership. Just listen to our various senators and congressmen speak and you'll see what I mean.

Re:New York and Texas Teaming Up?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I'm aware of Hanlon's Razor, but just like Occam's Razor, it has it's limits. If you have to keep compounding simple explanations in order to account for more and more evidence, then Occam's Razor starts to fail and breaks down. Similarly, if you have to keep calling Hanlon's Razor over and over again to account for the epic-levels of abuse our politicians take practice in, it begins to break down and fails. I would accept that our politicians are simply incompetent and not malicious if they managed to learn from past efforts. However, we rarely see them do that. Every single time Congress advocates some kind of increased surveillance/profiling/security theater legislation there is some kind of public outcry (whether it be from the ACLU, the EFF, hand-written letters, or whatever). Despite this, however, Congress simply brushes the unpopular legislation under the rug and then rolls it back out again as some kind of addendum to another bill, or as another bill entirely a few months later. At best, they make meaningless, loophole ridden compromises to appease the protesters and end up ignoring most of those compromises later anyways.

So sure, claim that the politicos are just completely ignorant and incompetent. Assume that 435 men and women that make a career out of speaking to the public about highly technical and complicated issues are naive and ignorant. I used to do the same thing. But after watching the same patterns repeat themselves time and again I came to the conclusion that the Hanlon's Razor mantra, when applied to the U.S. political system, is just another thought-terminating fallacy that is extremely efficient at excusing citizens from duty. I, for one, am not buying it anymore.

These days, I can't buy ammunition for my antique rifle collection without getting fingerprinted. I can't sign up for most utility services without giving out my social security number. I am asked to let a snooper look through my bags every time I leave Wal Mart and Frye's electronics. I have to show my ID five times to various illiterate mooks before I board an airplane. I have to keep my passport stored in a specially designed sleeve to keep my personal data from being broadcast to the world. I get photographed in nearly every store I go into a store. I get photographed by every ATM I use. The data I send and receive from the internet is snooped upon by the NSA. I have to pay $300+ if I go 10 mph over the speed limit (yes, fines are that high in SB county, California), so I have to spend nearly as much energy watching my speedometer as I do watching the road for obstacles. My license plate gets photographed if I make a yellow light to avoid getting rear-ended by the guy behind me (and yes, that has happened to me 6 times at a red light, and no, I never once was slamming on or locking up my brakes). And, hell I have to present my ID to buy baby formula from a grocery store because I might be using it to cook meth.

So I am sorry, but Hanlon's razor doesn't cut it anymore. We citizens of the United States are being treated like criminals every time we go out in public (and sometimes when we are in our own homes, God forbid someone walking around in their boxers accidentally stumble in front of an open window). This is not only due to Congress, but also due to local Sheriffs, judges overstepping their authority, HOA's that dig their nails so deep into your life that it's like you're being watched all day, corporate retailers that think they can get away from abusing all of their customers, and on and on and on. This problem stems not just from one source, but from a mental illness that has completely permeated our society: fear. We are giving up our liberties at every level because there are some pantywastes in this society that can't cope with the fact that bad shit happens sometimes and its better to deal with it than to try to control every little thing. So I, for one, am sick of it. I don't attribute this to incompetence or naivete. I attribute it, mostly, to fucking assholes who have learned that they

Re:New York and Texas Teaming Up?

[arekusu_ou]

Why is this a surprise?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least temporarily.

They both have a common goal, to screw over the citizens and their sheer disdain for anyone who doesn't have the power to influence them.

Therefore it makes perfect sense that since helping the citizens doesn't make sense to team up, but screwing the citizens does.

I like both Hanlon's Razor and Occam's Razor, but in this case, we should be looking at Occam's Razor.

Re:New York and Texas Teaming Up?

[sznupi]

Does society manage to learn from efforts quicker than politicians? From where the latter come from, anyway? Where is a place where their "values" are promoted and highly sought for?

It's not a single source yes. Not a single "bug in our minds" too, thought. This a relfection of the society.

PS. "I have to spend nearly as much energy watching my speedometer as I do watching the road for obstacles" - seriously? Perhaps you should reconsider driving...

Stupid!

[virtualXTC]

This will likely make enforcement harder by forceing criminals to move to encrypted VOIP.

Re:Stupid!

[spire3661]

Encryption only protects the content of the communication, not the fact that the communication occurred, which in itself is possible usable evidence.

Re:Stupid!

[sznupi]

Recordings of calls supposedly aren't really preferred, nor relied upon as the solid evidence; they're tedious to go through and extracting meaning out of context (codewords anybody?) is often hard.

OTOH, they can lead to useful conclusions as far as "web of connctions" goes.

Re:Stupid!

[virtualXTC]

Yes, but one doesn't need an ID to use VOIP, so there is still no difference between it and a unverified prepaid phone.

Re:Yep

[jgagnon]

I see a revolution or civil war happening long before a political solution would ever arise.

You are incorrect Sir!

[msimm]

What it will do is enable the government (for whatever hair-brained reasons) to track LAW ABIDING citizens. Criminals, those people bent on breaking the law, will simply buy the phones off-market or use falsified documentation.

Yet another brilliantly thought-out law which misses mark entirely. Maybe someday only criminals will have rights and everyone else will be guilty until proven innocent?

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Lumpy]

It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.

So it's all about tracking the poor.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[zmollusc]

Since government leaks information almost as quickly as it burns tax dollars, it will also enable criminals (for whatever evil reasons) to track LAW ABIDING citizens.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[AGMW]

It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.

So it's all about tracking the poor.

Of course it is. The, er, rich(?), with their mobiles/cells on monthly contracts, couldn't possibly be tracked already ... oh ... wait ...

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[robot256]

It's more insidious than that. Who buys the prepaids? poor people.

So it's all about tracking the poor.

I'm not poor, I'm frugal, you insensitive clod!

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[linzeal]

Um, I don't know about you but I have not had my name on a cell phone contract for 5 years. The name on the contract is my companies, not mine.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Rob the Bold]

Um, I don't know about you but I have not had my name on a cell phone contract for 5 years. The name on the contract is my companies, not mine.

Well, I guess you're in the clear. They'd never make that leap . . .

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Rob the Bold]

Prepaid = more expensive..

Frugal how? Saving gas by not having as much money in your pocket?

Prepaid = less expensive.

And don't ask me to back that up, either.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Chris Mattern]

Because Lord knows you can't track the rich who don't buy pre-paids at all. It's not like they have a permanent account with a billing address on file. Oh wait...

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[mcgrew]

I'm not poor, I'm just cheap. I have Boost Mobile; I get unlimited talk, unlimited text, unlimited email, unlimited voicemail, and unlimited* internet for a flat fifty bucks a month. I paid cash for the phone, and the bill is paid just like a "minute phone"; you go to the gas station and pay fifty bucks, and punch in a code.

However, if this passes your drug dealers, terrorists, rum-runners, illegal aliens, and other monied outlaws will but phones from poor people for outrageous prices (or trade for drugs).

* "unlimited" but I can't tether.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[jjoelc]

if he only talks for 20 minutes a month or so.. why should he pay for 200 on contract for 2 years...

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[EdIII]

You don't have to back it up. It's just plain false.

if you compare normal usage on a pre-paid phone and an average contract with a cell phone company that pre-paid is costing you significantly more to talk. Where people say pre-paid is cheaper is when their usage is below normal and spread out over many "contract" billing cycles.

The whole pre-paid deal is the cell phone companies fucking the poor up the poop chute. Typically, that demographic has poor credit and access to only small amounts of cash at irregular intervals.

To get regular cell service you need to have at least some credit, otherwise a huge deposit, and be able to pay your bill regularly.

It's no different than your pay day loan companies. They prey on those that are at their weakest and most desperate to earn interests rates that would make an average Wall Street a-hole cream their pants.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[AK Marc]

Prepaid is cheaper if your use is excessively low. Prepaid is cheaper if you use it irregularly (on a monthly scale).

Yes, if you use the same number of minutes every month and they are the same or higher than the smallest regular plan, then you'll likely be better off with a plan. But then, plans are also purposefully overpriced to handle handset purchases/upgrades. Some pre-pay do that, but others don't.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Rob the Bold]

You don't have to back it up. It's just plain false.

OK, I see your false and raise you a "your false is false." Or something.

I use a prepaid service. "Unlimited" voice, text, and data is $50/month with all the taxes and fees and misc added in ~$57. To get the equivalent in a "contract" plan with the same carrier, it would cost me $80 + the fees and tax.

There are also limited usage versions of the prepaid and contract plans, but in almost every case, the prepaid is cheaper. You have to buy a phone at "full price" if you go prepaid, but even if you buy it from the carrier, it's only $30-$200 more expensive, and you make that up in less than a year's worth of service.

I'm sorry you can't find a deal like that in your area.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Reziac]

And I'm sure every phone is used ONLY by the person who bought it, RIGHT???

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[BobMcD]

Um, I don't know about you but I have not had my name on a cell phone contract for 5 years. The name on the contract is my companies, not mine.

Well, I guess you're in the clear. They'd never make that leap . . .

THIS.

And not only this, but he's being tracked simultaneously by the government AND his employer.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Wingman 5]

I use a prepaid service. "Unlimited" voice, text, and data is $50/month

You are not using a prepaid service. You have a monthly contract of $50/month. Pre-paid the article is referring to are phones where you pay per minute you use plus a fee for connecting. so you make no calls during the month your bill that month is $0.00

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[robot256]

This is my situation exactly. I did a comprehensive study of 6 months of usage comparing what I would have paid on every plan I could find, and the contract plans failed miserably--the worst prepaid plan was still 30% cheaper and the best was 70% cheaper.

It was really very simple. I was paying $50 per month with tax for 450 minutes/month, which equals $0.11 per minute IF I USED EVERY SINGLE ONE--and I only used about 50 minutes per month. Now that I'm on PagePlusCellular, I am paying $0.06 per minute regardless of how much I use, and loving it.

I admit there are some REALLY CRAPPY prepaid plans, like the ones that charge $1 every day you use it even if you only used 1 minute. THAT could totally cost more than your contract. But if you shop smarter instead of harder you can find some good ones out there.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Lumpy]

Did you ask for a contract on a sim card only? Because I can get the same for $40.00 from T-mobile without a phone Sim card only.

Then I buy the phone I want full price and unlocked.

Did this for my daughter. She has a great nokia smartphone that is unlocked so all the features are there and had a $40.00 a month plan. It was easy I called them and talked to a rep. You did actually shop for your service right?

too bad T-mobile has almost no coverage...

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Rob the Bold]

No T-mobile in my state at all . . .

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Rob the Bold]

I use a prepaid service. "Unlimited" voice, text, and data is $50/month

You are not using a prepaid service. You have a monthly contract of $50/month. Pre-paid the article is referring to are phones where you pay per minute you use plus a fee for connecting. so you make no calls during the month your bill that month is $0.00

I pay in advance. There is no contract.

Re:You are incorrect Sir!

[Lumpy]

Ahh, so their coverage is even more sucky than I knew...

Which is too bad, they are the least scumbaggy of all the Cellphone carriers.

Very problematic, not very useful

[mcgrew]

What about those of us who already have prepaid phones bought with cash? It's one of the things I like about Boost Mobile; they can't track me.

You don't need a phone to buy an SUV, only money. What's next, they're going to outlaw cash?

The "drug kingpins" part made me laugh; it isn't the kingpins, it's the neighborhood dealers. And this won't stop anybody, dope dealers routinely "rent" other people's cars to make deliveries, they'll simply trade drugs for an AT&T iPhone. Hell, they're doing it already.

What did law enforcement do before telephones were invented?

And this stupid law will actually hurt law enforcement -- now, they have people anonymously make tips (narc on people) to make arrests. Without untraceable communications, folks are going to be less likely to tip someone off, especially here in Illinois where cops and politicians are notoriously crooked. Nobody in his right mind would narc using a traceable form of communication; that could turn out to be fatal. A whole lot of cops are on the dope dealers' payrolls.

Like the drug laws themselves, this will cause the very problems it purports to solve.

Re:Very problematic, not very useful

[Reziac]

I've heard rumblings in the past about the Feds deliberately trying to dry up the cash economy because so much of it goes untaxed, since of course in the govt's eyes, we're nothing but ATM machines. I do sometimes wonder if relatively lax credit card regs might have a dual goal -- to reduce use of cash, as much as to make banks rich.

Re:Very problematic, not very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an excellent point. Consider the difficulties trying to live "cash only."

Currently I only know of one business that pays employees in cash - Waffle House. It's either that or:

$8-10 fees to cash paychecks, including thumbprint identification. Even if the check is:

DRAWN ON THAT BANK - to which they reply, we are not a check cashing service (?!?!?! are they that stupid?), but of course since the turrists happened, it's because it is now a matter of being a:

National Security Issue to have a check cashed at a bank. Don't believe me? Read the sign near the teller on the end.

Unless your bill is local, it is impossible to pay in cash, and even then often difficult. This can be gotten by:

Buying a money order for $1.50

I see what you are saying, but I'd say it is less a matter of being an ATM to the government, and more a matter of tracking and control, as evidence by the FTA in the very beginning. There is no reason to outlaw cash if it is exceptionally difficult and expensive.

Try to live cash only for a month. You'll probably quit.

Re:Very problematic, not very useful

[Reziac]

An AC responds with these excellent points, which are too valuable to languish at Score 0:

That is an excellent point. Consider the difficulties trying to live "cash only."

Currently I only know of one business that pays employees in cash - Waffle House. It's either that or:

$8-10 fees to cash paychecks, including thumbprint identification. Even if the check is:

DRAWN ON THAT BANK - to which they reply, we are not a check cashing service (?!?!?! are they that stupid?), but of course since the turrists happened, it's because it is now a matter of being a:

National Security Issue to have a check cashed at a bank. Don't believe me? Read the sign near the teller on the end.

Unless your bill is local, it is impossible to pay in cash, and even then often difficult. This can be gotten by:

Buying a money order for $1.50

I see what you are saying, but I'd say it is less a matter of being an ATM to the government, and more a matter of tracking and control, as evidence by the FTA in the very beginning. There is no reason to outlaw cash if it is exceptionally difficult and expensive.

Try to live cash only for a month. You'll probably quit.

I'd still contend the government's primary motivation is to track and control your money, so it can better extract the tolls it believes are due to itself. But the effect is the same -- it's damned hard to do anything without encountering something that, of your own necessity just for ordinary daily life, will cause you to be tracked.

That in turn makes the gov't think that tracking you is the government's natural function.

This is a good case of the side effect being as bad as the disease.

Re:Yep

[Philip K Dickhead]

No mo' whistleblowers.

unintended consequences

[DriveDog]

This will just make phones greater targets for thieves, as they'll be much more valuable on the black market. Oh yeah, and not to mention cloning will pick up again. Gee thanks.

Carriers Require an ID anyways

[Maarek]

All carriers require an ID to obtain a prepaid. The system will not allow the person to put anything in... well unless they were bribed to do that so the number would be untraceable. The result would be a legal address to the someone that actually didn't live there. Other then that carriers like AT&T & Verizon Wireless require the person's information before they can activate the account.

One problem with this law. The phone numbers will be outdated even the IMEI number. Customers can switch numbers and phones faster then a cop can trace them. Especially GSM phones, since the IMEI (traced ID number) can be switched to a new phone just be switching the SIM card.

Or just activate another SIM card. It's that easy ($10) for a SIM card. All it takes is someone greedy at the cell phone store to accept the changes without letting anyone else know.

Re:Carriers Require an ID anyways

[IANAAC]

All carriers require an ID to obtain a prepaid. The system will not allow the person to put anything in

Last year I bought a cheap 15 dollar Tracfone and activated it without a stitch of ID in rural Wisconsin. Plunked down the money and walked out of the Radio Shack with a working, anonymous phone. Don't need any ID to renew minutes either. Each time I walk into a RS and buy a minutes card it extends the validity of the number for 90 more days.

Re:Carriers Require an ID anyways

[besalope]

It was posted awhile back that the large shops like ATT/VZW require ID, but a number of mom & pop shops don't require IDs.

Re:Carriers Require an ID anyways

[sznupi]

IMEI is separate from simcard, locked to the phone...

Re:Terrorists, drug kingpins, etc.

[mpapet]

Terrorists, drug kingpins, gang members, and the like will just use fake or stolen ID's or middlemen to purchase their phones

I am none of those things and see no immediate reason why I would need to circumvent this law. Instead of circumventing it, I'd go to Craigslist.

Welcome to Bulgaria

[VeryLargeNumber]

Hello US, welcome to Bulgaria. Prepaid phones are registered, criminals still avoid being caught. http://sofiaecho.com/2010/04/29/894210_bulgarian-criminals-beating-the-system-of-pre-paid-sim-card-registration

The Premise is False

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You do NOT need to give the phone company an ID for a landline.
Last time I had a landline, all they needed was a cash deposit of around $100.
I gave them a completely bogus name because I didn't want to pay extra to have my name removed from the phonebook (nor did I want to be on the list of people who have paid to keep their name out of the phone book either).

Re:The Premise is False

[kent_eh]

You do NOT need to give the phone company an ID for a landline.

How did you not give them your address?

Re:The Premise is False

[BarryJacobsen]

You do NOT need to give the phone company an ID for a landline.

How did you not give them your address?

I gave them a fake address. Still waiting for them to show up to install it, though...

Re:The Premise is False

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You can give them an alternate billing address - which is with address they will give to the spammers.
Doesn't protect you from the government or a subpoena, but it stops just about everybody else.
And yes, I did that too.

Re:The Premise is False

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Was giving a fake name legal?

As long as there is no intent to defraud, lying about anything, including your identity, is perfectly legal with only a few rare exceptions involving the government itself and even many of those exceptions the penalties are trivial. For example, you may end up in jail for lying on a concealed carry license application, but in most states lying about your name and address for your driver's license carries a penalty of, at worst, getting your license revoked if you get caught.

Re:The Premise is False

[will3477]

Showing an ID is very different from giving them an address. I recently got a landline and I was not required to show any form of ID. This was around February of this year (2010) in Columbus, OH from AT&T.

Re:WHAT?!

[jgagnon]

There is civility in the US?

Re:Yep

[sznupi]

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.

If they're content with it, then they are not losing anything; this is what they want.

Part of the reason I hate cell phones. Worthless.

[pizzach]

Japan does something like this too. The last time I went there I found out my prepaid didn't work and I was trying to get in touch with my most family but I was running out of coins. Something like 50 cents to 75 cents a minute on a pay phone. Since I have an artificial leg, I didn't appreciate the running around it made me do after a a ridiculously long flight from New York. The other reason I had it is because they worry about me if I ever get in a bind. But there was no way for me to get a new one until I met up with them because I can't get a cell phone personally because I don't own an apartment or anything.

Thank you government for not allowing me to get a prepaid right when I needed it and the original reason I got one to begin with. Thank you cell phone companies for phasing out 2G while I was out of Japan for a year and a half so I couldn't get any messages. Sometimes it just feels like people are shitting on you.

Why are paragraph tags now not working on slashdot?

Oh right.

[tthomas48]

Sure, I'm sure this is about security. If the feds can tap all phones and use the gps in them. Who care's who's calling when you can listen to them and know exactly where they are?

Methinks this is a proposal from the bells for additional revenue stream.

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[dmesg0]

Expect equal or better signal while using a foreign SIM (because you get to choose a network,e.g. AT&T or T-mobile, instead of being tied to just one).

And expect to pay a lot for roaming.

but...

[Jafafa Hots]

...will the registration data be shared with Facebook?

Doesn't Cogress have better things to discuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't we be more worried how to make it harder for executives of large oil companies to totally fuck-up an entire ecosystem!? Better yet shouldn't we be making it harder for executives of large finical institutions to fuck over the wold economy? I'd even settle on a discussion about removing liability caps for companies that take shortcuts? Why are we waisting time & money on this? If I were in TX or NY I'd vote these guys out!

----
Tell congress release the names of the wall street execs, and leave finical reform to the mob!

Re:Doesn't Cogress have better things to discuss?

[sconeu]

No, you don't understand. Executives of large oil companies make large campaign contributions. Users of prepaid cellphones generally don't do that.

Re:Doesn't Cogress have better things to discuss?

[Shakrai]

If I were in TX or NY I'd vote these guys out!

No you wouldn't. You'd vote against Schumer, as I've done in every election since turning 18 and he would still be re-elected by the hordes of NYC voters that blindly pull the "Democrat" lever all the way across the ballot. Replace "Schumer" with "Cornyn" and "NYC" with "Rural Texas" and the example still applies.

Re:Doesn't Cogress have better things to discuss?

[robot256]

Doesn't Cogress have better things to discuss?

They do, but they can't agree on anything unless it is completely unimportant and/or to "save the children." Having real debates just isn't as fun as screwing people with an easy vote.

Re:Doesn't Cogress have better things to discuss?

[twoallbeefpatties]

If I were in TX or NY I'd vote these guys out!

Are you daring TX to vote out a sitting Republican Senator? Ah, let me know how that works. Incumbents from strongly partisan states aren't that open to criticism.

You've got a good idea there

[Yergle143]

Maybe we should look for the only cell phone hole left on this whole green earth? Well he sure isn't hiding in this Starbucks!

Re:Hypocracy and Shame

[Major Blud]

You did see that Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, is in on this as well, right?

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[internetcommie]

Not true. Just ask the many foreign exchange students and tourists who are using cell phones from their home countries in the US, with service plans from their home countries as well. They often get more bars than I do with my US cell phone. And they pay less than what my contract costs too.

welcome to the rest of the world...

[medea]

very interesting. while the usa is probably the most surveilled western country this is not beeing standard already? this is standard here in switzerland since years...

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[AGMW]

If your SIM was purchased outside the United States, expect zero bars of signal.

Of course. I hadn't thought of that. Must have been pure luck and happenstance that my UK mobile worked a treat when I rocked up in the US.

Get a pre-paid 'phone from anywhere non-US and use it in the US. Perhaps a bit expensive but I don't suppose the criminal underworld will be too upset about that.

Re:Terrorists, drug kingpins, etc.

[bsDaemon]

I'm no fancy, big city lawyer, but it seems to me that going to craigslist and buying the phone off-market is the very definition of circumvention (going around), where as presenting falsified credentials during purchase is just out-right breaking the law.

Re:Yep

[Sancho]

Over the years, we as a society have become very good at dismantling civil unrest. I don't think a civil war or revolution would be successful.

When anonymous phones are outlawed...

[Comboman]

Criminals, those people bent on breaking the law, will simply buy the phones off-market or use falsified documentation.

In other words: when anonymous phones are outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymous phones.

There are worse places

[dmesg0]

In Italy you have to present your ID even when in internet cafes. It will be photocopied and kept forever along with your IP. And there is no open Wi-Fi anywhere, because any internet user must be identified (there are free hotspots that require your local GSM number and verify it by sending you a code).

Of course you can't buy any prepaid SIM without your ID or passport (and often fiscal code).

I guess USA is slowly getting there too.

Re:There are worse places

[Shakrai]

In Italy you have to present your ID even when in internet cafes. It will be photocopied and kept forever along with your IP

Is that new? I was in Italy in 2004 and was able to use an internet cafe simply by tossing a few Euros on the counter and taking my assigned seat.

Re:There are worse places

[dmesg0]

Since 2005.

Re:WHAT?!

[geminidomino]

There's a US?!

How this would not work

[AnAdventurer]

1) I am in no way connected to the landline in my house.

2) what would prevent someone with a fake ID (as my local mall cellphone kiosk working 17 year old is not trained in spotting a fake ID) from driving around all day buying pre-paid phones then reselling them?

Re:Yep

[jgagnon]

I wasn't talking about success chance, only the likelihood of occurrence. :p

Would it be OK

[DynaSoar]

... if I used a prepaid ID? They aren't much harder to get than the phones.

Re:Would it be OK

[Reziac]

I can see it now -- some enterprising Russian mobster selling fake identities for everyday use by regular non-criminal people, which he generates and maintains for a small monthly fee. I don't see how this is functionally different from the identity theft industry, except for occasionally needing to create "original" documents since it won't use a pre-existing identity.

As I understand the law, it is NOT a crime to call yourself whatever you wish, so long as there is no intent to defraud.

Re:orly?

[CorporateSuit]

Because freedom is fragile, and impossible for politicians to correctly protect.

Re:Now what do I do?

[Jeng]

Use Skype or magic jack.

Easy solution

[Ambiguous Coward]

This is easy to solve: just put a EULA with the phone requiring the purchaser not to use said phone for illegal purposes.

Re:Easy solution

[kbielefe]

+4 well deserved, but Insightful!? If the moderators also vote in elections, no wonder these kinds of bills keep getting considered in election years. Besides, it's much more effective to just prevent criminals from buying prepaid phones in the first place. Or at least make it illegal to possess them on school property.

Re:Easy solution

[Ambiguous Coward]

Of note: that comment only got a +1 insightful. The other half was +1 funny, as intended.

So I guess the situation is only half as dire as it appears. ;)

Let's see...

[geminidomino]

No appreciable hardship to corporate sponsors (in fact, forcing registration gives them a whole new dataset to mine and sell). Check.
Small chance of political backlash from constituents? (Off of slashdot, few seem to care about rights when it comes to tech). Check.
More power to abusive LEAs? Check.

Yep. This things already as good as passed.

From across the border

[retardpicnic]

It really seems to me as a Canadian, that in America the only thing you need to do to pass a law that continues the steady erosion of civil liberties is to pull out the terrorism card. Its all powerful, even if it has no rational place in the arguement. Since I believe that the truth is often just below the surface my question would be what are other reasons for passing this law? Who else would be served by this? America has been busily passing laws since Sept 11th, but how many terrorist attcks have there been on American soil? Oh sure, occasionaly we are told of one that was averted at the last second and, thank God for the near miss, lets pass some laws. Since Sept 11th more people have died from drunk driving than terrorism on American soil, so can it REALLY be about saving lives? BTW- if you disagree with me you are not a PATRIOT, you side with the TERRORISTS and HATE FREEDOM.. I'm just sayin...

Free market

[fulldecent]

I'll start a black market of "lost" prepaid phones, just like how running Tor supports anonymity.

Stolen phone market

[TiggertheMad]

Yes, and I'm certain that drug kingpins would buy the cellphone with their own, entirely legitimate photo ID.

Aye, you touch on a good point. This will just create a demand among criminals for freshly stolen phones. Steal a phone, use it illegally for a day or two and toss it in a greyhound bus bound for opposite coast to fuck with gps surveillance attempts.

Re:Stolen phone market

[Zen Hash]

Yes, and I'm certain that drug kingpins would buy the cellphone with their own, entirely legitimate photo ID. Aye, you touch on a good point. This will just create a demand among criminals for freshly stolen phones. Steal a phone, use it illegally for a day or two and toss it in a greyhound bus bound for opposite coast to fuck with gps surveillance attempts.

They could use a fake or stolen id. They could pay, or pressure, others to buy phones for them. They could buy from a store clerk who's sympathetic to their cause and willing to enter made up identity information. Their options are only limited by the combined creativity of those in their social network.

Re:Stolen phone market

[Reziac]

Why do all that? Just open a legit retail phone outlet, activate them to your own stable of fictional characters, and thereby siphon off as many phones as you need.

Phone laundering, the next big thing...

Re:Stolen phone market

[Hadlock]

Dammit, cellphones just got cheap enough that even pawn shops won't buy them from drug craving petty thieves, now they want to jack the prices up on used cell phones again? I sort of enjoy finding my cheapo blackberry still sitting in the passenger seat when I come back from getting a soda at the gas station and leave my windows down.

Cornyn is my rep

[rhaacke]

Had no real beef with him until now. This just proves that there is no longer any real difference between the two major parties. The only reason they appear to oppose each other is so they can generate enough smoke to keep the public in the dark.

More efficient: outlaw cash

[Pokermike]

Why don't they just outlaw the use of cash already. It will have the same effect, but much more broadly and be future-proof.

Re:Yep

[sznupi]

If that's how the society is, "very good at dismantling civil unrest", then isn't that enough of an evidence that contemplating a civil war or revolution is specifically against the society? (not some "them the gov")

The Wire

[stimpleton]

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.

Re:Now what do I do?

[robot256]

Seriously, /. needs a "+0 Ironic" mod value.

Next up; ID required for all cash purchases

[landoltjp]

If this passes, I wonder how long it will take before the government mandates ID for ALL cash purchases? Y'know, just to ensure YOUR safety (only trying to help, and all)

Re:Yep

[sznupi]

It's not for determining how or what is to be sold, it is to maintain conditions such that commerce between states cannot be limited.

What were you trying to say here again?

Re:You mean THESE drug kingpins?

[retchdog]

Mods: this is NOT offtopic. It can be and has been seriously argued that the "war on drugs" was designed to be unwinnable (compare it for example to smoking cessation efforts which have been much more effective, or even the reduction of red meat in diets). This has, obviously, huge implications for the interpretation of any privacy-infringing law introduced in its pursuit.

Re:Now what do I do?

[dmesg0]

Skypeout calls are not free, so they can be traced back to the payer. I wouldn't trust Skype owners (is it eBay now?) to keep you anonymous.

Re:Yep

[Shakrai]

He's saying that the original intent of the interstate commerce clause wasn't to grant Congress the power to control what we could purchase. It was to enable Congress to prevent the individual states from setting up trade barriers with one another, i.e: New York imposes a tariff on goods made in Pennsylvania.

Somehow I doubt that the framers imagined it being used to pass legislation compelling all Americans to purchase something from private enterprise (the health insurance mandate) or telling them that they can't indulge in cannabis consumption in the privacy of their own homes.

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[msauve]

And expect exorbitant pricing when roaming internationally.

Afterall, what self-respecting terrorist would jeopardize their credit rating by not paying their bill?

Re:Yep

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Step 1: Pay a teenager double the cost of the phone to buy the phone with his identity.
Step 2: Have teenager report the phone as stolen.
Step 3: Sell to terrorist @ 3x the cost of the phone.
Step 4: PROFIT.

Die hard reference...

[Veretax]

Didn't McClain (Bruce Willis) steel a car phone or cell phone or something in one of the movies in order to talk to the terrorists?

cute, so whats to stop

[nimbius]

me from using emerging technologies like RedPhone for droid?
how about I just not use a phone and employ the widely available military grade cryptography for my email? once again on droid.
if we're trying to stop terrorists we're failing miserably. google maps, and most recently the evesdropping on US aerial drones should prove rather concretely that senators drafting security policy makes as much sense as ballerinas making football plays. in short: your doin' it wrong.

Schumer opposes IDs to vote, but to buy a phone?

[Amigan]

I would think that it's more important to prove you can vote than show an id to buy a tracfone. Obviously, Chuckie doesn't. jerry

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[dmesg0]

Sorry, I didn't expect you to erase my second line and then write it again in reply.

Re:Hypocracy and Shame

[Major Blud]

I follow you, no worries.

Total bullshit.

[moxley]

If this has any chance of succeeding, (which I am sure it does) I will definitely have to stock up on pre-paid phones prior to the law going into effect.

No, not because I want to do anything wrong, but because I want the option to be able to make anonymous phone calls whenever I feel like it -and with the way law enforcement operates it doesn;t matter if you've committed a crime or not, you can be jailed, beaten, strip searched - simply for asking a question or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am well aware of the the capabilities of law enforcement, we're beyond triggerfish now - but there still is no technology that can pinpoint a phone with it's batteries removed. The best they could hope for is knowing where the phone was when a call was made.

Re:Total bullshit.

[alecto]

They'll require ID to activate and thus be worthless on eBay--or anywhere else, once something like this goes into effect.

Re:The Premise is Highly Unclear!

[TaoPhoenix]

Dunno where you're from. I was required to give name and SS # signing up for a line yesterday.

Gee, this will be tough to get around

[kimvette]

So, now ter'rists will have to resort to using mobile phones bought elsewhere, or stealing phones. Good thing this bill is being proposed because it will stop terrorism for sure.

HEY ASSHOLES! Want to know what would end domestic terrorism? Deporting the fucking illegal aliens, engage in profiling in airports (rather than harassing soccer moms and 85-yr-old grannies) and closing the Mexican border!

I hate throwing away mod points

[BenEnglishAtHome]

but this sort of ignorance needs to be corrected.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

At a gun show (in any relatively free state), private citizens can purchase from other private citizens without a background check. Neither is in the business of selling firearms, so no paperwork is required. (The dealers at the show must continue to follow all the same laws and procedures that they do back at their shop.)

You can do the same thing at a garage/yard sale. I've gotten some of my best buys at such places. Every time I stop to look at the computer or audio equipment people have put out in their driveway, I never fail to ask "You got any guns?"

You can do the same thing on a person-to-person basis. I've seen someone try to sell a gun to a pawnbroker who refused to give them enough money. The person walked out the door. That didn't stop me from following them out and offering to buy the gun.

You can do the same thing via the want ads in the newspaper. I've bought many guns from people in my town via that method.

You can do the same thing via an online meet-up. I've met people in internet forums who had a gun I was interested in. If they live in the same state as me and we can agree on a price, we both get in our cars and meet at some spot roughly halfway between our two houses. The last gun I bought was in the lobby of a Days Inn (I think; it was one of those cut-rate, business-travel hotels).

In free states, any two people who can legally own guns can trade them for money.

Big freakin' deal!

There is absoutely nothing special about gun shows. There is no "gun show loophole".

The politicians and anti-freedom activists who complain about the fictitious "gun show loophole" are people who simply want to outlaw all private, unregistered sales.

Re:I hate throwing away mod points

[heckler95]

I wasn't arguing against personal sale, but rather pointing out the ineffectiveness of laws with easy workarounds. Maybe the DRM comparison was a stretch, but I still think there is a parallel there in that most of the time, the people that are penalized (even if we're just talking about having to wait a few days to get your new toy) are the law-abiding citizens. The intended targets of the law (heat-of-passion would-be criminals, felons, etc.) can simply take advantage of one of the many trivial workarounds like buying a second-hand gun from somebody listing one in the classifieds or buying from a private citizen at a gun show.

Re:I hate throwing away mod points

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I might even have missed a few. Seriously dude how many guns do you need?

Posting anonymously since possibly enraging people with private weapons depots seems unwise.

That's funny. Thanks.

Seriously, though, guns aren't so much a "need" as a "want". I could make a good case that everyone needs at least two (more likely three) guns. Other people make reasonable cases that no one needs any at all.

However, if you appreciate the fun of shooting, the history that weapons embody, the insanely elegant engineering and design, or even the simple beauty of firearms, then you'll always want more.

Let me put it this way - I like music. (I tried to make a living as a concert bassoonist before I figured out I simply didn't have the talent.) Liking music, it's reasonable that I like records. Now, I don't need a lot of records. A thousand or so would, to most people, be a large collection. So I don't need the ~25,000 LPs that cover the walls in my music room.

But I like 'em.

What's wrong with that?

Hahahah you think Americans would actually revolt.

[OwP_Fabricated]

"You mean if'n we all took up arms against the gov'ment they'd turn off my power and I couldn't go home and watch the Idol after a day of shootin feds? And pretty much all business would stop so I couldn't go to the Wally World or McDonalds? ...I think I'll just vote for the Republicans like Rush sez."

It's like I'm really in North Korea!

[mykos]

Well, not completely yet. But how come there are only steps toward that direction, and not away from it?

Re:Yep

[sznupi]

...wasn't to grant Congress the power to control what we could purchase. It was to enable Congress to prevent the individual states from setting up trade barriers with one another

Again, what you were trying to say here?

Really, don't you people realise the only way to achieve the latter is to have that dreadful power of control what you can purchase? If you think "the framers" didn't see that...well, yeah, what would that tell us about them...

What about gov't supplied free prepaid cellphones?

[Amigan]

The US federal government has a free cell phone policy for those that cannot afford it. These phones are prepaid, guess we'll have to track all of them too.

jerry

Re:Yep

[Shakrai]

Really, don't you people realise the only way to achieve the latter is to have that dreadful power of control what you can purchase?

Bullshit. Congress can prohibit the states from putting up artificial barriers to trade without having the power to tell me that I can't grow my own wheat or cannabis.

So with all the mindpower here

[kaizendojo]

..why is it that no one has a better idea or alternative; just rants on how it won't work. I'm not saying this just to flame bait - personally I think /. has some of the most intelligent folks I've read posts from. So how about coming up with some better alternatives? I'd just like to see some of the creative and experienced people here suggest some ideas rather than just bemoan the stupidity of others.

Re:So with all the mindpower here

[Rob the Bold]

..why is it that no one has a better idea or alternative; just rants on how it won't work. I'm not saying this just to flame bait - personally I think /. has some of the most intelligent folks I've read posts from. So how about coming up with some better alternatives? I'd just like to see some of the creative and experienced people here suggest some ideas rather than just bemoan the stupidity of others.

Not doing something is an alternative to doing it.

Re:So with all the mindpower here

[penguinchris]

As the other replier noted, the correct alternative is to leave things the way they are. Nothing anyone does is going to prevent people from using phones anonymously if they want to, but it *will* inconvenience and annoy everyone else that needs/wants prepaid cell phones.

Therefore it's a complete waste of time to try to come up with other solutions. That's why nobody's doing it :)

A role for anon. communications in a free? society

[gink1]

It is true that there is a role for anonymous communications in a free society.
Just look at how the Internet relies on anonymous communications and how this promotes individual freedom and creativity. Consider that being gone and the effect.

But notice how our current society operates: when a crackpot tries to blow up an airliner with his shoe we all must have shoes inspected, when another tries to blow up liquids, our liquids are removed.

Now an anonymous phone is used an a attempted bombing so no anonymous purchases will be allowed. Committed bombers will just use their fake ID, but everyone else loses yet another freedom (albeit minor).

Maybe we better contact the bombers and beg them not to be so creative or we will all be living in guarded barracks with no freedoms at all!

Free? Sure we are. Just keep thinking that and don't complain as our freedoms are stripped away one by one. Just to make some politician look good!

Re:Yep

[the_one(2)]

Wouldn't reporting the phone stolen make the phone useless for criminals? The police could track or tap the phone couldn't they? Or are you describing a method to catch terrorists?

Re:WHAT?!

[keeboo]

There's a US?!

Si senor, hay Estados Unidos!

because...

[JustNiz]

criminals and terrorists actually have such a hard time faking ID ?

Google Voice?

[kalel666]

I recently got off the Verizon teat and bought a prepaid phone (several, actually). No more contracts for me, thank you. Though I have 4 or 5 prepaids now, I use my Google Voice number with all of them. It makes it easy for my freinds and family to reach me no matter what phone I use. So what good would registering for a prepaid do, hmmm? I don't use the numbers assigned to the phone anyway. I guess they'll have to outlaw Google Voice.

Re:Google Voice?

[splatter]

they don't care what number the person dials into only what number / carrier they need to wire tap. I don't think google helps.

Re:Yep

[lgw]

Oh dear, I'm about to agree with MarxistHacker42.

Don't you just love laws "to fight criminals" that could only possibly affect non-criminals? But I guess the same people who imaging that you can't buy booze with foodstamps think this might work as well.

Heck, I bet the "using foodstamps to acquire booze" and the "using cash to anonymously acquire a pre-paid phone" transactions could be combined for efficiency!

Re:Yep

[dkleinsc]

Still semi-traceable. Pretend I'm a cop/FBI agent/whatever trying to figure out who made a particular call from said prepaid.

Step 1: Locate the teenager who bought the phone.
Step 2: Tell the teenager that he doesn't cooperate then I'll assume that he's the one who made the call, and is thus involved in whatever crime was committed or conspired for with the phone (and, if necessary, point out that his youth doesn't prevent trial as an adult due to the nature of the crime). The teenager, not wanting to do serious time for that $20 transaction, tells the story of whoever is implementing this business plan, where and when they bought the phone, how they got contacted by this guy, etc.
Step 3: Locate the middleman.
Step 4: Tell the middleman that he's guilty of aiding and abetting whatever the crime was, but that if he cooperates I'll instruct the DAs to take that into account. The middleman, also trying to avoid jail time, gives up the information on the terrorist he sold the phone to.

Without the ID of the teenager, you're stuck with (at best) an image of the teenager caught on security tape when he bought the phone, and will have a hard time getting past step 1.

Obviously this process is more complicated and more prone to failure, but it is reasonable to argue that this will help track down terrorists, gangsters, etc. Now, that doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do, but this (unlike trolling through the entirety of Internet traffic and the like) actually would have some legitimate upsides to investigators doing legitimate investigations.

Re:Yep

[mdielmann]

The case you mention is a little disingenuous. He had no intention of consuming the wheat personally. He was feeding it to chickens. What I wonder is what he was doing with those chickens. If he was using them for personal consumption, I think he would have had an easier time, but I honestly don't know how many chicken can be fed on over 450 bushels of wheat per year (his quota and non-quota amount). It seems like a substantial amount to me.

That said, artificial scarcity, government manipulation of markets, etc., etc. One more repercussion from a dubious decision.

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[Chris Mattern]

Um, bill? What bill? Pre-paid means, "When your roaming charges have eaten up the prepaid balance, the phone stops working."

Re:Yep

[Shakrai]

It's worded just fine.

[The Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

You'll note that it doesn't say "require Commerce" (i.e: the individual mandate) or "prohibit commerce" (i.e: the controlled substances act, farm production quotas, etc.) The problem with the Constitution is that there's no way to account for idiots that will read shit into it that isn't there -- like the now debunked claim that the 2nd amendment only protected the right to join the National Guard.

Re:Yep

[Psion]

What if I -- assuming I were a terrorist or one of the other monsters-under-the-bed these legislators are trying to scare us with -- kill the teenager and just steal his phone regardless of the calling plan? As a corpse, he won't be reporting it stolen, and his parents are likely to keep the phone in service for a while in the hopes that dear Billy will call home eventually. I could collect several phones this way and even pull the batteries until just before I'm ready to blow up a building, score a big drug sale, rat on a local government official anonymously, or otherwise do something terrible.

Re:Yep

[sznupi]

It's worded just fine for what it does. Prohibiting here and there is part of regulating things (you really think the "founding fathers" didn't understand that it can be extremelly easily understood that way? Really?!)

If there would be "assuring trade between states without limits" or something in this style there OTOH...

Re:The Premise is Highly Unclear!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Dunno where you're from. I was required to give name and SS # signing up for a line yesterday.

They want the SS# so they can run a credit check. If you have bad credit they will require the cash deposit.
Or you can just volunteer to make the cash deposit and skip the SS# - you just have to ask, because by default they assume you would rather give your SS# instead of give them a deposit.

No.

[Montezumaa]

No one should be required to show identification(ID) to purchase anything. I have no problem with business asking to see an ID when people use credit/debt cards, as it is a means of account holder security and that information is not kept on file. If I purchase something in cash, then I will never show my ID, except in cases where I purchase a firearm.

Felons, and other barred from owning a firearm, are the reason for showing an ID and the point of purchase. Of course, in a private sell I do not have to show ID. I do not agree with showing an ID in this case(as I believe we should "scarlet letter" felons and spouse/child abusers), but whatever.

Regardless, this is a fools dream and will only impact the people who abide by the law. Those that want a phone and to stay anonymous will continue to do so, if and when this bill become laws. I am just tired of the various government working to mass-grab our private information in the name of "security".

How about the U.S. Government just work on completely and utterly wiping our enemy off the map?

Re:You are correct War on Terror = War on You

[gink1]

One thing is certain, these knee jerk laws certainly erode the rights of citizens who in no way were part of the event causing the stupid reaction.

But really, since when has our government cared about freedom and rights? Being elected is a concern and getting tax money also is.
But like dogs, they seem to live entirely in the present and are incapable of extrapolating the long term consequences of all of these laws.

But they sure know how to raise Millions of Corporate contributions and note that these "sponsors" also have no stake in public freedoms.

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[HungryHobo]

Roaming charges the first line of defence against terrorism!

Re:Yep

[theantipop]

Somehow I doubt that the framers imagined it being used to pass legislation compelling all Americans to purchase something from private enterprise (the health insurance mandate) or telling them that they can't indulge in cannabis consumption in the privacy of their own homes.

Or owning slaves.

Re:Yep

[Capt. Skinny]

Successful? It would never get off the ground -- participants would be labeled "terrorists" by federal and state governments, and the rest of our society would concur to avoid being labeled "terrorists" themselves. And the irony of a national aversion to revolution in the US would be completely ignored.

Re:Yep

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Step 1: Terrorists have access to pretty convincing fake IDs. So do active criminals and people who might use the phones for illegal purposes.

Also Mexico

[Requiem18th]

They're even shutting down prepaids unless they register, this, from the government that leaked the electoral records to organized crime.

A right to anonymity

[nurb432]

Still exists for law abiding citizens.

No wonder they had to kill 24

[microbee]

This bill!

Not just surveillance - it's rent-seeking

[Stradivarius]

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.

How much longer will phones be around anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimme a device that has network access, a microphone, and a speaker. That's a phone. Except it's a phone that isn't burdened by legacies, such as oh say, CALEA.

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I didn't expect you to erase my second line

And worse yet, he wrote it again in reply! ;)

(and got more mod points that you for what was then redundant, which is funny in a cosmic way, if you think about it.)

Wrong about SCOTUS

[Prien715]

Any pretense of a limitation on Federal power died when SCOTUS said that the Federal Government has the power [wikipedia.org] to prevent you from growing food for your own consumption.

By "for your own consumption" you mean "using it to grow things that I sell across state lines" then yes. If they hadn't ruled this way, every single farm would have to grow their food for their livestock to be economically viable. If "for your own consumption" you mean "eating", then no. You don't have to.

I'll stock up, too

[twoallbeefpatties]

I plan on selling prepaid phones on eBay at a large markup. :V

Re:Yep

[eldepeche]

Nullification is unconstitutional. This is pretty well-settled constitutional law.

Re:Yep

[KevinKnSC]

How do you anonymously receive mail?

Re:What about gov't supplied free prepaid cellphon

[misexistentialist]

Those phones are well linked to users' identities since income verification is done through government databases for Medicaid, SSI, etc.

Re:Yep

[dgatwood]

Even with the ID of the teenager, you're assuming that the teenager will be able to accurately describe somebody who he/she only met once, possibly years earlier. What, you don't really think criminals would ask their *friends* to do such favors, do you?

This is unconstitutional because it destroys a major venue for anonymous speech. Centuries of history have proven that such venues are necessary to carry out legal acts of political dissent that otherwise result in all sorts of abuses.

Not a problem.

[alexo]

Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society

Not a problem then, right?

Re:Yep

[eldepeche]

I can imagine a reasonable argument that "The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States" refers only to commercial activity undertaken by multiple states, leaving alone commerce undertaken by citizens of those states. The consensus, however, seems to be that it refers to something like "commerce within the borders of the country" in the 21st century.

The Constitution is about process, not results. It's unfortunate sometimes, and often infuriating, but it pretty much lays out how things should work and lets the people get going. If we follow the process, the results are legitimate. Sometimes you get desegregated schools, and sometimes you get local governments seizing private property to build new shopping malls.

In any case, we need a new constitution. I would endorse a constitutional convention if I thought our current political institutions could get us a decent one.

Re:Yep

[DesScorp]

"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."

There is some hope here. Recall that SCOTUS has, in the past two decades, begun slapping the Federal government down occasionaly for justifying everything with the Commerce Clause. Both the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have told the government that the CC doesn't trump the rest of the Constitution, though this hasn't sunk in completely with current politicians. Nancy Pelosi specifically referenced the CC when defending the health care bill.

"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."

It's not so much that American's don't care... many are truly concerned... so much as Americans have now fallen into a comfortable pusher-addict relationship with the government, especially when it comes to dollars that Uncle Sam doles out, either directly or in the form of tax credits. We're simply afraid to fend for ourselves in the event of a real uprising. It's very hard for an addict to rebel against his supplier, after all.

Stealing is better?

[SavSoul]

Ya, force them to go back to stealing phones. That is much more safe for the public. This is a pain in the ass for everyone involved, a huge waste of time and money and will just push the drug dealers to either clone phones or steal them at a higher rate. It will not and cannot help.

What about migrant workers?

[hargrand]

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

At least one of those two senators will withdraw support once he realizes this proposed law will discriminate against undocumented migrant workers.

Two Points

[Sentrion]

Point One: Since when in the last five years have pay phones been an anonymous or pseudonymous form of communication? You cannot use a pay phone today without assuming that a CCTV system is recording your face and the time/date of your conversation. Today just about anything can be traced. Even in 1968 James Earl Ray was caught only two months after he shot MLK Jr. They traced him from a stamp placed by a laundry cleaner on an article of clothing that he left behind. And the stamp only showed that the laundy service was located in California. And today's technology can identify a person from their voice just like a fingerprint.

Point Two: This law if passed will make the private after-market for prepaid phones virtually dissappear. Do you want the cops raiding your home after your phone is used by a drug lord or terrorist? People are going to stop selling their phones to lesson their liability. And the providers will likely be quick to shut-off service after a phone is reported stolen, or use telemetry to help cops locate the theif.

Drug lords and terrorists will go back to using walkie-talkies and satellite phones purchased overseas.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you profit after SIM and IMEI are disabled?

So, let's see.....

[Stanislav_J]

So, we have a proposed law that will do nothing to stop criminals from:

-- Using a fake ID to purchase the phone

-- Forcing, coercing, or paying some sap to buy the phone for them

-- Stealing phones, either from a store or an individual

On the latter (and expect such thefts to multiply several-fold if this passes), if they steal from an individual, they often think they've just misplaced or lost it, and it may be some time before they contact their provider and have the service suspended. Even a store theft can go undetected for several hours, add on a few more to determine which phones (numbers) have been stolen, a few more for the bureaucracy to get those numbers blocked, etc. In either case, a thief could easily have 24-48 hours of use before the phone is disabled or monitored. Considering many crooks go through prepaid phones like candy anyway, this won't slow them down too much. That only leaves the dumber crooks, and if they're stupid enough to buy a phone with their real ID, they're probably stupid enough to get caught pretty quickly even without this law.

On the other hand, this law would enable law-abiding users to be more easily tracked and identified by criminals, private eyes, general snoops, bill collectors, stalkers, blackmailers, and so on. Not to mention the guvmint, should you happen to hold ideas or engage in activities that, while not necessarily unlawful, are considered a "threat" by whomever is in power.

So, all in all, we have a law that would (a) do nothing to reduce crime and, indeed, likely increase it (the aforementioned assumed rise in phone thefts), while (b) inconveniencing, harrassing, and possibly endangering law-abiding citizens.

In other words....typical.

Idiots

[RegTooLate]

All the criminals have to do is purchase tons of phones prior to the law take effect. Prohibition anyone? http://www.alwayshungryny.com/images/content/Screen_shot_2010-03-25_at_2.23.30_PM_thumb.png I bet it sure makes it easier to track your political enemies too.

Re:Yep

[khellendros1984]

Can you set up a PO Box anonymously? Or have it delivered to a business with which you have an arrangement?

Re:Yep

[demonlapin]

Which, conveniently, was prohibited by a constitutional amendment, not a simple majority of Congress.

Re:Yep

[Reziac]

Thanks for the link. That's one seriously ugly decision. :( Essentially says "you're not helping someone else make enough money, therefore we're going to punish you." Do you see a parellel in recent legislation?? :{~

Re:Yep

[Reziac]

As I've said before, we no longer have enough people who are actually starving (and I'd guess it takes around half the populace) to achieve a stste where unrest overwhelms both social inertia and the average person's desire to just not get involved.

So to agree with you in another way, one might say that prosperity is very good at dismantling unrest, so long as the ratio of prosperity to unrest remains positive. And so long as that's the case, gov't oppression doesn't really enter into it.

Re:Yep

[Reziac]

If there was no limit on the number of *chickens* he could produce, why does that matter??

The real point of that case is that it says, "We forbid you to produce this, and require you to purchase the exact same thing from someone else (so the someone else can make as much money as we think they should make)."

But if the object is to encourage economic recovery -- it backfires, because if this guy foregoes the wheat entirely, now can't produce as many chickens, and he becomes LESS properous. If he does buy the wheat, he incurs a greater cost per chicken, so again he becomes LESS properous. In either case, he loses prosperity by exactly the same amount as the cost of that wheat which he was required to buy rather than produce for himself. Net economic gain = at best zero.

Times Square

[tsotha]

Didn't the Times Square bomber use a prepaid phone? And didn't they catch him in a day or so?

When reporting about bills in Congress

[Luke has no name]

Name the act or the bill's number! I want to look it up, read it, then protest it. I have to dig through the net now trying to figure out the title.

2600

[bmearns]

Not for anything, the spring issue of 2600 has an article on prepaid phone use by drug dealers.

Re:You are correct War on Terror = War on You

[msimm]

Our government is just a group of empowered citizens. As always I believe ignorance is the most insidious enemy of freedom.

I also believe taking an us/them attitude is not only illogical, but dangerously foists power onto a small number of inherently flawed (human) individuals.

They are always us. Never let yourself fall into thinking any differently.

Re:Signal strength: [Y__]

[GameboyRMH]

expect to pay a lot for roaming.

You think? I'm pretty sure criminals would be better off setting up their own VoIP-over-WiMAX networks.

Re:Yep

[Curunir_wolf]

Can you set up a PO Box anonymously? Or have it delivered to a business with which you have an arrangement?

Maybe. PO Box, not really. They now require a "permanent address", and I was asked for ID last time I got one.

At one time, you could get a mailbox with any kind of address you wanted with one of the private mailbox places (like Mailboxes, Etc., for instance). In the name of fighting mail fraud, as of June 24, 2000 the USPS delivers only to CMRA (Commercial Mail Receiver Agents) customers who have filled out a new Form 1583 and produced two forms of identification, including a photo ID. Copies of each ID will be kept by the CMRA and the USPS. Customers using their boxes for business will have to provide home addresses and phone numbers, and the information will be made available to anyone for the asking.

You'll be hard-pressed finding a business that will let you use them for a mail drop without following the rules above. Plus the USPS won't deliver anything there if it doesn't look like it's addressed to the business itself. And if the business thinks you may be getting contraband delivered, they won't touch it, because they can actually be held liable for mail fraud - a federal crime.

The point is you CANNOT communicate anonymously - that's the ultimate goal. This is why I'm now skeptical about the push for "Network Neutrality". Is it just a bait-and-switch? It's sold as a constraint on carriers, but seems likely to end up being an excuse to track everyone's activity. After all, how do they make sure they're properly regulating the Internet "utilities" and "protecting the children" online unless they can do deep packet inspection on every transmission line, and know who is posting to message boards?

Re:Yep

[Curunir_wolf]

If that's how the society is, "very good at dismantling civil unrest", then isn't that enough of an evidence that contemplating a civil war or revolution is specifically against the society? (not some "them the gov")

That could easily change, and you can see a clear trend starting to emerge. Typically, the far left and far right tend to balance each other, and the vast majority keep them in check by supporting moderation. But that left-right paradigm is starting to fall apart. As the political class gains more and more power, and the only beneficiaries turn out to be the politicians and the corporate executives (often the same people moving from one role to another), the far right and far left is starting to see some common ground. The moderates are beginning to wake up to the idea that there are no politicians in the current power structure that have any real loyalty to a reasonable middle ground.

Events like this one really provide the perfect example, where one politician from the established left joins up with a politician from the established right and propose a measure that can only benefit the political class. Yes, they can fool a few people with cries of "OMG! BUT TERROR! DRUG DEALERS!!", but I don't think there are a whole lot of people buying into that rhetoric these days. It was the big excuse for implementing "asset forfeiture" - they were going after "drug kingpins". Of course, anybody that looks into how it's really being used will find out that the real drug kingpins are the only ones getting off these days: Once the police realize they are faced with a well-funded legal battle over the seized property, they just get the prosecutors make a deal and drop any drug charges in exchange for dropping the battle over the cops' new mansion and sports cars.

Re:Yep

[Curunir_wolf]

Nullification is unconstitutional. This is pretty well-settled constitutional law.

I call bullshit.

If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing. Either that, or they would be arguing using this mythical "well-settled constitutional law" you claim, and not just trying to use the old "no standing" defense.

Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead. These laws were supported and upheld by the state supreme courts.

Re:Yep

[Curunir_wolf]

Gee, thanks for explaining how we can now get "Constitutional Tyranny".

Re:Bought one this morning...

[alecto]

If you're carrying it with your regular cell phone, "they" already know who you are. Unless they think it's your siamese twin.

Re:Yep

[jesset77]

I don't understand why everyone is overthinking this. The law as proposed is perfect! Don't you see?

This is the same well vetted "no ID, no merchandise" approach that ensures that all of our teenagers stay sober. And everyone knows that 16 year olds are way cagier than professional criminals and terrorists, so there is no way this could go wrong. :D

Re:Yep

[Shakrai]

That's it exactly. At least when they outlawed booze they did it in a Constitutionally correct manner. They couldn't be bothered to do the same when they outlawed pot.

The sad thing is that they probably could have gotten 3/4 of the states to go along with it back during the days of "reefer madness" but they couldn't even be bothered. Why go through the proper channels when we can just assume powers not delegated to the Federal Government?

Re:Yep

[celle]

"Or owning slaves."

I thought that's what marriage was. Come on guys, who's the real slave in that scenario?

Re:Not quite correct.

[Shakrai]

It's amazing the crazy shit you wing-nuts will make up in your heads to justify your positions.

That's not a uniquely right-wing trait.....

Re:Yep

[mr_mischief]

One could also get a foreign SIM and roam, or could get a satellite phone, or use Skype on a wifi device from outside a coffee shop. Oh, dear. I seem to have just convinced Shumer and Conyers to ban anonymous Net access.

Been there, done that and it sucks

[i ate my neighbour]

In my country, you have to get through all the formality of subscription even to get a prepaid SIM card. Leave a photocopy of your ID and sign a paper nobody reads and wait for 1-2 days to get the communication on-line. I don't know what a foreigner must go through just to have a prepaid account.

Re:Yep

[mxh83]

Well, if someone is ready to murder or blow themselves up, then many things become possible..

Re:Yep

[jcr]

Nullification is unconstitutional.

Like hell it is. Nullification is the entire purpose of our right to trial by jury, among other things. When the government exceeds its constitutional authority, it's our right and duty to nullify that action.

-jcr

Lowering the bar.

[Jave1in]

Maybe I'm alone in thinking that the duties of policing are intended to be difficult. Why do we need to legislate away liberties to save a few man hours on some cases? If you take the argument to the Orwellian absurdity, you can have children police citizens when we cater to lazy work ethics.

Re:Yep

[SacredNaCl]

Well, they certainly wont be having a 'revolution' over registering their cell phone. At worst the drug dealers, and those who truly need/want to keep that ability will import activated phones from somewhere else, or pay the homeless guy $10 or a vial of rock to register the phone for them. Speaking of which, it could end up being a nice niche market for awhile until the loophole gets closed if you were to say buy a huge block of airtime from a major carrier, and setup your shop just outside of US jurisdiction. Regulation creates opportunity, and often profits which make the illegal drug trade look paltry.

Re:You are correct War on Terror = War on You

[gink1]

Reading your post I find I agree with you in principle but not in practice. What our representatives feel is best for us is not necessarily the beneficial.

For instance if they are trying to solve a problem, a solution that removes freedoms but solves the problem can easily gain the votes to become law.

Also consider that our politicians typically do not campaign as champions of individual freedom. They all speak of freedom in a general sense, but how many of them even see this as an issue?

Our representatives start out as prominent citizens, usually passionately committed to the ideals of government and the nation. When the get to Capitol Hill they tend to adopt the conventional wisdom and conventions approaches to solving problems.

If our representatives understood the this problem and were called on to maintain freedoms by citizens these laws would be different and preserve freedoms.

Re:Yep

[neurovish]

Really, don't you people realise the only way to achieve the latter is to have that dreadful power of control what you can purchase?

Bullshit. Congress can prohibit the states from putting up artificial barriers to trade without having the power to tell me that I can't grow my own wheat or cannabis.

Sounds like all you really care about is sitting around and getting high. Have you posted anything yet that doesn't involve cannabis?

Re:Yep

[neurovish]

Step 1: Pay a teenager double the cost of the phone to buy the phone with his identity.
Step 2: Have teenager report the phone as stolen.
Step 3: Sell to terrorist @ 3x the cost of the phone.
Step 4: PROFIT.

Step 1: Fraudulant papers
Step 2: Buy phone
Step 3: (fork goto step 1)
Step 4: Profit

Re:Yep

[Myopic]

As a point of fact, not to disagree with your point at all, smoking weed is not illegal -- rather, possessing weed is illegal, and possession is normally a necessary condition to use.

Obviously, no serious person opposes legalization.

Re:Yep

[mdielmann]

As I alluded to in my second paragraph. And none of that supports his case that it was for personal consumption, when it clearly wasn't, either directly or indirectly.
If you want to go to court with a bad argument, prepare to lose, whether or not your case is in the right.

Re:Yep

[Reziac]

Ah, yes, you're saying he should have picked a different point to argue, and I think you're right. Arguing that this was about personal consumption was too open to interpretation or contradiction. Arguing that it did not actually do the purported economic harm, with hard numbers to back that up, might have been more successful.

Re:Yep

[treeves]

I don't think the American Revolution was fueled by starvation or poverty. What we lack is not hunger but moral conviction. I include myself in that accusation.

So now I'll have to use Skype?

[John.Banister]

So if I want to make an anonymous mobile call, I'll have to use my phone's wifi and make an anonymous VOIP call? I suppose that keeps me in range of a hotspot. No wait, there's a fellow with a Froyo phone tethering his laptop...

Re:Yep

[eldepeche]

If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing.

Unless Ken Cuccinelli were a political grandstander.

Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead.

"Refusing to enforce" is not the same thing as "nullifying." Many states also attempted to use nullification to avoid desegregating their public schools. Federal court decisions supersede those by state courts.

Re:Yep

[eldepeche]

Nullification is the entire purpose of our right to trial by jury

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Yep

[Curunir_wolf]

If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing.

Unless Ken Cuccinelli were a political grandstander.

Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead.

"Refusing to enforce" is not the same thing as "nullifying." Many states also attempted to use nullification to avoid desegregating their public schools. Federal court decisions supersede those by state courts.

Yea, just ignore the part about the how the Administration response to Cuccinelli's suit was "You don't have standing", and nothing about the segregation case, which was supported by the 14th Amendment.

You also ignored the state court cases about escaped slaves, which went far beyond just some "refusal to enforce", and went without response by the Federal courts. The state courts basically said that slavery was state issue, and that the Feds could not interfere with the states' rights to set those laws. Through silence, the Federal courts agreed. Nullification.

I get that your ideology recoils from the idea of state governments opposing Federal tyranny and upholding the original intent of the Constitutional constraints. Nevertheless, it happened, and it will happen again. If you don't like it, maybe you should call McCain and get him to declare me an "unprivileged enemy belligerent". I'd love to see them try to enforce that one.

Re:Yep

[Reziac]

But it was propelled by the jackbooted thugs of its era doing whatever the hell they wished, including simply taking any property they cared to. Today's thugs wear three-piece suits and pretend to do the will of the people, including all manner of "support" (despite that we pay for it with our taxes).

When you simply take, the descent into poverty is obvious. When you get people to "give" because it's how society has trained them, it's not.

I would say, WRT the issue of moral convictions, that this is because of a general failure to mature past the "mommy save me!" stage of social development... witness how many people turn first to the gov't to save them from everything, including poverty indirectly inflicted by high taxes.

Re:Yep

[jandersen]

I see a revolution or civil war happening long before a political solution would ever arise.

Perhaps - the problem, though, is that revolutioneries never can agree. For each Bolshevik, there will be a Trotskyist, Maoist and whatever they call themselves these days, and that is only on the left; there will be an equal number of Christian radicals, Fascists, Neo-Nazis, White-Supremacists, etc etc. The amazing thing is, they will all claim to be fighting for "The Freedom of The People" - for given values of "Freedom" and "People", of course.

The way I see it - never, bloody mind these ID schemes. You may be uncomfortable knowing that you don't have full and exclusive control over the information you regard as your own, but that is a simple fact of life, and the only thing one can do about it is to learn to live with it.

There are far more important problems to address; not least of which is the problem with what Capitalism or Consumerism has been allowed to turn into. I don't believe what people really want is some sort of "Total Freedom" - they just want to be allowed to live their lives without unreasonable restrictions like the ever more idiotic attempts at keeping people from copying digital media, or drug laws that are founded in fearful views from a previous century rather than scientific knowledge.

There is no real, perfect freedom - it is like art: in the 60es and 70es there was a trend towards completely free art, which turned out to be things like paint being splashed idly on canvases and so on; now, perhaps it has been realised that before you can truly express yourself with freedom, you need to learn a lot of technique and disciplin, which you can then transcend. I think this teaches us a valid lesson about society too: that you can't have true freedom, unless you have good discipline (ie "Laws"); it is simply a matter of finding the right balance - what we vaguely call "fairness".

Re:Schumer opposes IDs to vote, but to buy a phone

[econ2010]

I would think that it's more important to prove you can vote than show an id to buy a tracfone. Obviously, Chuckie doesn't. jerry

When you say it out loud, it becomes even more absurd. You do not have to show ID or prove citizenship to vote, but you have to show ID to buy a phone. This scenario is absolutely ridiculous. What's next, showing ID to buy a computer since that device can be used to transmit information? Why stop there? How about walkie talkies? Why not CB radios too?

Are we even a free society anymore if I am required to show ID to purchase something that is not unreasonably dangerous? We, the citizenry, have to put our foot down and say enough. It starts small and is done over time so it doesnt seem like such a big deal. Before you know it, the constitution will be meaningless because we will have to protect you from the scary people.

I didnt believe this was real, so I went to my local t-mobile retail location and bought a prepaid phone and 10 mins of airtime. They would not let me buy it without showing ID and this bill supposedly hasnt passed yet. It is very real. Apparently this carrier is already complying before the law has passed.

Unfortunately, not having to show ID or even prove you are a citizen to vote in a U.S. election is the direct result of a system that allows career politicians. Currently, we have representatives in congress that put the integrity of our nation's election process second to their own self interest, which is treasonous IMHO.

It is definitely time to remove the statute that allows these people to live in congress forever. 1 term limit sounds good to me.

Maybe we should start requiring a competency pre-test for Congressional candidates before the debates can even begin, involving the constitution and hypothetical situations. Nothing serious, just a test of what do you vote for in such and such case according to the constitution. If they cannot pass a basic skills test regarding the most important document in our country, how in the hell can they expected to govern properly?

Clearly, not enough people watch c-span; therefore, I would be happy to debate little Chuckie on American idol or dancing with the idiots, maybe then people would listen.

Re:Not quite correct.

[sznupi]

Generally, it's a bit revealing how some seem to be convinced that the "founding fathers" were some ubermenschen; while its reasonably clear that they themselves wouldn't want to be considered anything of that sort. That the legal foundations of US are golden; while it's inevitable for them to be flawed.

Perhaps that's one of the problems; if the place has such approach...hell, what the "founding fathers" really said doesn't even strictly have to enter the equation - what's important is ability of finding support in what you want via them.

Re:Yep

[sznupi]

I'm not sure I follow one initial premise in your post; typically the far left and far right tend to be...hard to distinguish, really. Generally all kinds of trouble stemming from assuming left, right, and moderates between axis... (what's stopping "moderates" from such actions)
A show. What such society ultimatelly wants.