Bill Introduced To Require ID When Purchasing "Burner Phones" (house.gov)

insitus quotes a report from Speier.House.Gov: Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced the Closing the Pre-Paid Mobile Device Security Gap Act of 2016, which would require people to present identification when purchasing "burner phones" and other pre-paid mobile devices, as well as requiring merchants to keep records of those purchases. "Burner phones" are pre-paid phones that terrorists, human traffickers, and narcotics dealers often use to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement because they can be purchased without identification and record-keeping requirements. This bill would close that legal gap. "This bill would close one of the most significant gaps in our ability to track and prevent acts of terror, drug trafficking, and modern-day slavery," said Speier. "The 'burner phone' loophole is an egregious gap in our legal framework that allows actors like the 9/11 hijackers and the Times Square bomber to evade law enforcement while they plot to take innocent lives. The Paris attackers also used 'burner phones.' As we've seen so vividly over the past few days, we cannot afford to take those kinds of risks. It's time to close this 'burner phone' loophole for good."

Comments

So no used ebay phones any more

[I'm not god any more]

The bill is going to be useless unless the used phone market is eliminated.

Re: So no used ebay phones any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumingly they mean burner simcards

Re:So no used ebay phones any more

[rtb61]

The bill is straight up 100% stupid. Obviously the phone on it's own is nothing, it is it's connection to the network that counts. So the bill should target the connection ie no connection are allowed to mobile phone network, without the user personally fronting the network representative, showing ID and a photographic record taken, so basically an operators licence, where all pass but must be identified. Then you hold the licences operators of that phone accountable for the actions sourced from that phone, you of course lose accountability on proof of hack or report of theft of the phone.

The incumbent Telecom lobbyists would have blocked this because of cost. They do not give a crap who suffers what as a result of criminal activities being conducted via that all too easy access, that just want more money with fewer responsibilities. The bill needs to target connections to the network and that people are identified and recorded when establishing that connection and held liable for criminal actions initiated from that device to the network.

Re:So no used ebay phones any more

[niftymitch]

The bill is going to be useless unless the used phone market is eliminated.

Not just used phones but battered women shelters.

Also travelers... If I was traveling to various parts of the world
I would take a prepaid phone and not risk getting hacked.
Companies do this for some of their employees.

N.B. You must have ID to get an ID.

Re:So no used ebay phones any more

[blindseer]

What of stolen phones? What if the phone owner is "stolen" and then phone taken from them?

I recall a similar law being proposed in Mexico to address children of wealthy families being kidnapped and taken for ransom. The common response was that the kidnappers would just call from the child's phone.

This bill will do nothing.

This reminds me of a lot of gun control laws meaning to control crime as a lot of the same issues apply here. A background check only checks for past behavior, and any contact information is also from the past. Future behavior may be predicted by past behavior but it can only do so much. ID and pictures are worthless if the phone or gun is stolen. Attacking the phone service is like having to show ID to buy bullets, people will just have a straw buyer, go to a black market, or steal.

Also like gun control a bill like this will increase costs and create an inconvenience for many but do next to nothing to actually prevent the activity it is targeting. I can say this because for every one criminal that uses a phone or gun in a crime there are millions of law abiding people that will have to show ID.

I don't know which best applies, needle in a haystack, witch hunt, wild goose chase, or all the above.

Re: So no used ebay phones any more

[Anonymuous Coward]

Remember, the phone has an IMEI number, also. And THAT can be traced.

The IMEI has the same magical immutability as the MAC of an ethernet adapter.

What could possibly go wrong?

[dskoll]

I mean, no-one has ever faked ID. Or paid a kid $20 to go buy a couple of phones.

And where will it end? ID to buy box-cutters to close the box-cutter loophole? ID to buy nails because they're used in nail bombs? ID to buy pressure cookers?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[fredgiblet]

Why not just eliminate checks and cash? Move to a 100% cashless economy, then you can track everything.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to change the Constitution that's fine but there's this amendment process you have to go through. The end of all those things you mentioned went through a legal process, they didn't just magically change one day.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ok

[The-Ixian]

How about you make getting an ID free then?

It certainly seems to be increasingly required for just about everything these days....

Re:Ok

[Roger Wilcox]

"Papers, please!"

This kind of ID requirement for everything is exactly what the German Stasi became famous for. Soon, all you will have to do to ruin a man is revoke his official identification card.

Re:Ok

[BarbaraHudson]

Somehow I don't think Stevie Wonder has a drivers license. There are plenty of visually handicapped who don't. Same as other handicaps or diseases, like MS or Parkinson's. Just stand behind someone with Parkinson's at an ATM machine - be ready to wait a while for them to punch the right numbers in.

Re:Double edged sword

[dosius]

I'm not afraid of terrorists (even though I live in a power point that they'd probably love to attack). The government, otoh, and don't give me that BS about "if you ain't got nothing to hide, you needn't worry". EVERYBODY has skeletons in their closets.

utterly pointless and ineffective

[ooloorie]

European countries have had these laws for many years. Doesn't seem to help with preventing terrorist attacks. There are also many simple technical ways of getting around these laws: use IP telephony, order SIM cards from abroad and use international roaming, etc.

These kinds of laws are utterly pointless and ineffective in preventing terrorism. They are, however, very effective means by which government can terrorize law abiding citizens, by going on legal fishing expeditions and blackmailing people with legal but embarrassing personal conduct.

Re:utterly pointless and ineffective

[gweihir]

And that is just it: This is not about terrorism at all.

Re:utterly pointless and ineffective

[Natales]

Mod parent up. I feel more ashamed that it's actually MY congresswoman, and I will write her a note, because this is absolutely non-sensical as many have already pointed out. It will stop nothing.
I can get any low-end Android phone, put it in airplane mode and never sign up with a carrier, connect to any public WiFi network, and use a SIP client with ZRTP to connect to a server paid with Bitcoin to do my anonymous calls.
This is classic government reactive approach with no input from subject matter experts, always 10 steps behind.

Re:Anonymity

[aberglas]

+1.

But whistleblowers are far worse than terrorists. They can embarrass governments. Terrorists just justify anti-terrorism policies, we could do a few more of them.

They just HAVE to ban any anonymous communication

[clonehappy]

You know, for the children and because of terrorists and shit. Because before cellphones, absolutely NO ONE EVER stood by a payphone waiting for a call, usually from their counterpart calling from another payphone.

Re:Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

"The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible." -Justice Stevens

"[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all..."-Justice Black

First Amendment is first.

Re:Anonymity

[TheGratefulNet]

I am not going to answer a stupid question like that.

instead, you should be forced to tell us why the right to anonymity should be TAKEN AWAY after so many years of having it?

do not ask us to justify our freedom; instead, demand that we get justification for REMOVING them.

so far, I have not seen a single reason that justifies the removal of anon calling.

and that's because - there IS NO VALID REASON to remove that freedom.

only terrorists (ie, government goons who want to keep us in constant fear and surveillance) would want this. why do you hate america so much, poster?

THE LOOPHOLE

[ArylAkamov]

Getting real tired of this meme.

"EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS A """LOOPHOLE""""

Sure makes for some good fearmongering though.

Re:Double edged sword

[ArylAkamov]

I've got a solution: Make diabetes illegal.

Re:Anonymity

[jtownatpunk.net]

I don't need a "valid" reason to want privacy. The government needs a valid reason to eliminate my ability to maintain privacy.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier

[bmo]

Seems to misunderstand that more "burner phones" are bought by battered women than by terrorists.

Why do you want to see battered women die, Jackie?

--
BMO

Re:Anonymity

[Catbeller]

Reporting that your daddy, the police officer, just raped your friend.
Reporting that a pack of cops just killed an innocent man.
Reporting that a street gang member committed a crime, knowing his cousins are cops and will know who you are.
Arranging to meet with a friend so you can get an abortion in a state where they will arrest you, the driver, and the doctor, if they can.
Reporting a mafia hit.
Shall I go on, and on ...