Slashdot Mirror
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."
whistleblower
> When was the last time a US government agency massacred dozens of people
Last month, I suppose.
> here in the US?
In the US, I'm not sure when was the LAST time, but I sure remember when they did so a few miles down the road from me, in Waco.
> a school or theater and shot dozens of folks?
Ever notice those virtually always happen in "gun free" zones (aka defenseless victim zones)?
not when you specifically want to be 'invisible'. Stealing phones comes with significant risk...as does using a device known to the network to be stolen.
Sleeper cells specifically do NOT want to attract any unneeded attention.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
ID to buy nails because they're used in nail bombs? ID to buy pressure cookers?
Why don't we just cut to the chase already? Mandatory scanning of an ID and reporting to the government by all retailers, for any transaction where the payment method is by Cash or Personal check.
Draft text
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
If you want to pass a law for its instrumental value, then you need make a case that it's actually going to work.
If this law works as intended, what would success look like? Maybe one of these things:
- Actually intercepting terrorists' communications before an attack?
- Actually intercepting terrorists' communications during an attack?
- Making it so terrorists can only communicate by ways other than cell phone during a terrorist attack?
- Making it so we can easily identify terrorists who used a cell phone during a terrorist attack after the attack is done?
Or something else I haven't thought of?
Are we already achieving any of those things by other means in some cases? If so, when aren't we, and would the law help us with that?
As background for figuring out if we will achieve our goal(s), let's get some more info about the world.
Currently terrorists purchase prepaid phones without ID and use them before and during terrorist attacks. If the proposed law was in effect, what would they do instead?
- Would they still be able to acquire a cellphone from a retailer without actually identifying themselves?
- Also, are there any other ways that a terrorist could obtain cellphones without identifying themselves?
If you want people to think up ideas about that you've probably come to the right place.
* Giving fake info to an online retailer
* Giving another person's info to an online retailer
* Paying an unrelated third party (e.g. a homeless person) to buy a phone and give it to them
* Stealing phones
Supposing that none of that worked and the terrorists lost access to anonymous phones, and they changed their practices, would they change them in a way that would achieve the goal?
When terrorists kill more people than choking on chicken wings, I'll be appropriately scared of them. 9/11 was a significant thing. And it was *entirely* resolved by 3 things. 1. reinforced/locked cockpit doors 2. Me. 3. You.
The old understood contract of just sit tight during a hijacking and get let off in Cuba or wherever was ripped to shreds as evidenced by Flight 93 in PA. NOBODY is going to sit idly by anymore.
I've always wondered about burner phones for this specific reason though. In a world where every 'number' should have a person assoc with it, it seems odd that it would be allowable to have completely anonymous phones able to be used. I understand the myriad of reasons why LOTS of people might want and legitimately need a burner phone, but that ability comes with societal costs such as people using them for 'bad' (TM) reasons; same obviously go's for crowbars and baseball bats.
A burner phone is a tool that can be used for good or ill and should we ban 'tools' simply because it can be abused? In most cases, I'm firmly in the 'no' category and deal with it. In this case, I'm conflicted...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Killing dozens at once? And federal government only? Ok, it's reasonabl rare for the US government to kill lots of people at once here, have to go back to the Waco massacre for that one. It kills lots of people at once in other countries on a regular basis, of course.
Killing people one by one? And including state and local governments? Dude, have you somehow missed the recent uproar over police shootings? And it's nothing new, the War on (Some) Drugs has had cops killing people for decades.
If you're not afraid of the government, that's a sign that either 1) you're white and rich and of sufficient status that you're glad to have the state keep "those people" in line with deadly force, or 2) you don't have a clue what's going on.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Conservatives often mention the need for ID when buying booze or picking up prescriptions as their argument for why they think that requiring certain form of ID for voting doesn't violate voter rights. Well guess what, neither those nor any other need for ID is not only a Constitutionally protected right but a duty for all citizens that is essential for the functioning of our Democratic system.
It's not just conservatives--a solid majority (usually 60%+) in just about every poll I have ever seen, be it Rasmussen, collegiate, PPP, etc, shows widespread support for proving identity when voting.
Voting is a right that is mentioned in the Constitution, and like all other constitutional rights, has limits. For instance, it's universally agreed that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not ok. That is a limit on free speech, but we still have the right to free speech. Likewise, for voting, felons are regularly denied the right to vote. Non-citizens do not have a right to vote. Laws in different states vary about when people can vote and how they can vote (e.g. absentee only!). The constitution, after all, does not say that "voting has to follow the exact process that Dorianny feels happy with." One can also take the argument that by allowing a system that is so clearly broken and open to abuse as many current voting schemes, that other people's right to vote is diminished by fraudulent activity.
An old friend of mine lived in Portland for several years (20-something wanna-be-journalist lesbian--where else would she move after college? :-)) and was always totally candid about how she would gather up ballots--dozens in one case, I gather--from more apathetic friends, fill them in, and mail them in. This kind of fraud would be very hard to catch or prove either way. This example is also tangential to the voter ID debate (since you don't need ID for mail-in ballots anyway) but I think it does just show one way how it's easy to cheat.
Personally, I want everyone who wants to vote to be able to vote, but in general I would prefer lower turnout. I'm just as happy with high-information, motivated voters rather than schlups being bussed in by whatever advocacy group has the best get out the vote effort.
I shouldn't have to justify my privacy.
Do you have a lock on your front door? Curtains on the windows? What are you hiding?
> you should be forced to tell us why the right to anonymity should be TAKEN AWAY after so many years of having it?
Because you don't have a right to have an anonymous phone? Because there is literally decades of proof that anonymous phones are abused constantly by everything from low level drug dealers to terrorists? Hell, back in the day dealers used to call payphone to payphone to keep things anonymous. Honestly I've thought it's crazy that you have been able to get a burner phone over the last 15 years.