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."
The bill is going to be useless unless the used phone market is eliminated.
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about you make getting an ID free then?
It certainly seems to be increasingly required for just about everything these days....
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
How are burner phones any different than the pay phones of old?
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.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Just off the top of my head the only problem I can see with this is it also precludes the possibility of someone being able to make an anonymous call. It's no longer the case that there are payphones everywhere, that you can call 911 for free from, or drop coins into the slot and make an anonymous call that way. If ID is required for a burn phone then for all intents and purposes all calls made can be traced back to the individual.
Can anyone else come up with valid reasons why a non-criminal, non-terrorist would need to make an anonymous phone call?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
... only outlaws will be anonymous?
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.
Some people just like the privacy. And there are legit reasons too, even if it's few. The below is about remaining anonymous when winning the lottery in certain states that don't allow it. I think it's more about making it harder for reporters and such regarding public records I guess. Maybe the person takes it to the extreme. Also, won't potential criminals just steal someone's phone or just buy a used cell from the black market? There are so few criminals compared to the used phone market, right? Also, if ID is required, what about people who are too poor to have ID? Not everyone drives. This is an actual problem in some states regarding minorities voting.
http://luckyyou.alecwest.com/
Not everybody. Some of us mash the bones up, mix them with clay and make sculptures with it. Or plates.
Ummm ... that's what, yeah, a guy said, who was on the creative writing course I took.
BRB, door.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We should just make terrorism illegal. That will fix everything!
More people are killed by our government then by terrorists. Which is the bigger threat?
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.
Democrat (party)
Yes, the "D" stands for authoritarian Dickhole. The more you know!
> 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)?
Democratic party. Democrat party is a slur popularized by Rush Limbaugh and his mouth breathing minions since apparently a study once suggested people associated the shortened form with the word "rat."
No, really?
Didn't see THAT coming... ....whoosh.....
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
No shoes without ID and registration .....
FOR THE CHILDREN!
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Just because you are the owner or the person who bought the phone does not mean you are the one who is using it to make a call. Emergencies are an obvious issue, you do not have a phone and someone has been shot and they have a phone, but are incapacitated. Resale would also be a big problem. Would only licensed individuals be allowed to sell phones? Or if anyone can sell a phone, is the obligation to notify the government on the seller, the buyer or both? What about phone destruction? How is this notification to be done? Some people do not have telephones - Amish. What happens when a phone is lost? If notification is required when the phone is lost, what time period is required before it is considered lost? What happens when a phone is found? Are lost and found repositories now illegal? Does this require a creation transaction / tax? What identifies a physical phone? Counterfeit copies would proliferate. Who elected this idiot?
Lots more stolen phones, and phones smuggled from Mexico/Canada.
Seems to me that, while looking good on the surface, once you really start to think about it this is a bad idea.
It's shorthand for "Douchebag-San Francisco".
Why were you under the impression that one side of The Party would work against the interests of the other side?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
You live IN a power point?
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There is no Good Guys when talking about political big shots.
"Mr. President, we must not allow a burner phone gap!"
- General Turgidson
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
There are some pretty cheap Android tablets out there that can use apps like Skype over the Internet that aren't really phones. Just go to a place where there is an open Wi-Fi connection and talk away. Amazon was selling their Fire tablet for something like $25 awhile ago. Might even be cheaper than a phone. Are these banned in the proposed bill? You gotta have an ID to by a cheap tablet?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
"Sir, our records showed that you purchased ten burner phones that were used for..."
"Oh yea, those - damnedest thing, someone broke into my car and stole them. I have the police report and everything".
The end of anonymity is nigh though, it constantly ratchets tighter every day.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My AT&T phone, with unlimited text and data. $100 per month. Cash deposit;
get it back when you return my phone.
I mean, no-one has ever faked ID. Or paid a kid $20 to go buy a couple of phones.
That still gets you to the Point of Sale. Time and date of purchase. It may get you video of the buyer, copies of the fake ID, and so on. Do you still want to be the kid who fronts for the buyer of a burner phone? I can't say I like the odds.
That won't be enough. Let's attack the root of the problem and make evil, malicious, dangerous and bad illegal.
"Bill" was introduced to "Require ID".
While I do agree that "Require ID" is a really strange name, the title is pretty clear.
That's the reason for the D or R after the name: You literally cannot tell them apart without a score card any more (and haven't been able to for decades).
They all ultimately want the same thing: to go through your pockets for loose change they missed last time.
I noticed before sometimes in the United States when people want your government to control people more it says "D something" by their name. What does the D mean?
Abbreviation for party affiliation. So far I've seen:
D- Democrat
R- Republican
I- Independent (not affiliated with a major party - usually someone who lost a primary and ran anyway, sometimes someone who just ran without going through a party mechanism)
L- Libertarian
A- American Independent (historic: George Wallace's party from the '60s)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Uh, this may be because of something I said...
I called the decryption demand by the FBI stupid in front of her, and pointed out that all the Charlie Hebdo terrorists in the Paris attack coordinated with burner phones that they didn't use before or after the actual incident.
Perhaps she didn't get the fact that they didn't turn the phones in to the local "terrorist burner phone convenience dropbox" after the event?
Getting real tired of this meme.
"EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS A """LOOPHOLE""""
Sure makes for some good fearmongering though.
I've got a solution: Make diabetes illegal.
Look at how many people are killed.by police ever year in the US and get back to me. It's at anywhere from a 9x to 18x higher rate than other civilized nations.
For that matter, you're as likely to be killed by furniture as terrorists.
Yes, they should make it mandatory to have ID if you ever want to talk to another person. That will solve terrorism once and for all!
absolutely NO ONE EVER stood by a payphone waiting for a call
A absolutely agree with you, but...
When was the last time you saw a payphone on the street?
Unless it was an episode of Person of Interest where the plot requires having it.
And in good part that is because of the prevalence of handguns in the US.
Nullius in verba
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
Phones used in Paris were acquired hours before the attacks. The terrorists most likely had no expectation of surviving. The suicide bombers in Paris and Brussels certainly didn't. So unless this information raises a flag with law enforcement immediately, identification is pointless. The next attack will be coordinated using phones purchased with proper identification. So the next step will be to provide law enforcement with real time subscriber information from the telecoms. And maybe a blacklist, like the TSA's no-fly list, of suspects not allowed to purchase phones. Maybe a five day waiting period as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
In Australia when you purchase and/or activate a SIM/Celluar service you must provide ID of one form or another. They accept government issue ID or a credit card number. It can be done in person, online or over the phone. We don't care about the device, just the celluar service. The data is not collected by the government but the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) which is and industry group with the members being our carriers, they also maintain the IMEI blacklist for phones reported stolen and all carriers subsribe to it, so a stolen phone can't be used on any Australian network
Admiral Trigger Happy
I was going to respond but i am being self-censored.
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
With free public Wifi, your IP address can almost be used as a phone number. The internet is rapidly replacing the old phone network.
Beyond killing, en-mass or singly, they can throw you in jail, arrest and jail you, seize your possessions, real property, bank accounts, etc. Government agents can do that pretty much without fear of retribution or harm to their career on the flimsiest circumstance. Might you get out jail without an indictment or conviction? Or your property back? Perhaps, eventually, but there's likely to be a heavy cost.
Require everyone have identification to purchase a phone but don't require people to have identification to prove they are eligible to vote.
Let's hope the miracle of 3D printing will eventually preclude any regulation of who can have a phone.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Burner CB Radio sets. Easy enough to get a hold of, cost parity with cell phones. Available at every store that carries toys.
Once those get tracked they'll move on to HAM radio.
Especially with IPv6...we will miss NAT!
Problem solved.
I noticed before sometimes in the United States when people want your government to control people more it says "D something" by their name.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the news from states like Georgia, Indiana, and Kansas. When those people want the government to control people more, it says "R something" by their name.
There are a lot of authoritarians in both major American political parties. It's our duty to vote for (or against) individuals, not parties.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Free public WiFi assigns you an arbitrary IP address. I guess we could all stab away at random IP addresses and maybe reach our friend, if they're in range of a WiFi access point....
eBay is and always has been 100% traceable. Somebody trying to be anonymous via eBay or any major online retailer isn't all that smart.
I don't respond to AC's.
Burners don't work. I recall an article, which I think was on slashdot, about government agencies using calling "fingerprints" to match people against boxes of burners. In that specific case they were after drug dealers. The only way your burner will actually give you anonymity is if you call someone you don't normally call and then get rid of it. It's fine for a whistleblower calling WaPo once and then ditching the mobile, but if you think you're going to retain your anonymity by switching prepaid phones every month while you make the same calls to the same people from the same geographic locations, you're crazy.
You're more likely to be killed by your own toddler with your own gun than be killed by terrorists.
Different day, same old bullshit line from the progressive propaganda playbook. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Read the Federalist papers, read the Declaration of Independence, read memoirs and biographies. Nowhere do they say it's for only an army, or because they hate the army, or anything else you want to pull out of your ass as a fairy tale. Tyranny is a repeating theme throughout all of written history, you should really spend time learning and repeating history instead of propaganda.
The founders were extremely intelligent, each studied Political Philosophy and contributed to the creation and method of maintaining a Republic. All of the "They never saw this one coming." is pure bullshit. Just because you are a sucker that fell for the lines does not mean other people should be tricked into that way of thinking.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
When they buy the phones hours before the attack it will be completely pointless. Yet another win for terrorists as this will likely prevent nothing related to terrorism whatsoever.
I'm going to have to convince homeless people and drug addicts to buy burned phones to prop up my criminal empire. Oh well, it's not really going to stop me.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Democrats have been Republicans since Kennedy, really, when it comes to guns, cops and wars.
The Republicans? Welll... just look at what they are now. I no longer need to argue. They're just insane.
They've cameras on all the payphones I see. What payphones are left.
Yet the bombers used burner phones. Didn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you don't think it could happen, history says otherwise.
"Powers. I have them."
Leave Slick Willie alone. The man just wanted to bang the young pussy running around. The sad part is he's the best President we've had since Reagan's first term.
How about a VoIP device on an open wireless connection, with a spoofed MAC address of course.
Steal a laptop and Skype at McD's, would you like fries with that international terrorism happy meal.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Next thing you know we'll be outlawing stupid, flippant and ignorant.
You know he's turning flips inside at the prospect of getting head from a sitting president!
Backlash on slashdot was inevitable, and that is perhaps a good thing. Thankfully, people who care about privacy and freedom still exist.
But here's the thing: Where I live, to get a phone (by which I really mean a SIM), prepaid or postpaid, requires submission of documents with ID proof, address proof,, etc. The telco carries out verification and only when all conditions are met are SIMs given out and the connections activated. It hasn't really hurt anyone and has made sure that any phone used for any terrorist activity can be traced back to some address.
My country has been hit by terrorism long before US or Europe were. And regularly. Mobiles made communication much easier for the perpetrators, enabled them to hide better. So the govt put in place these rules, found gaps, closed them, and so on over the course of a decade. You even have to show ID in cybercafes here, and name, address and phone numbers are recorded by the cafe owner should they be required later for investigation.
Today, it is mighty tough to get a phone fraudulently. Phones can be stolen. But stolen phones can quickly be blocked too. All you have to do is inform the telco. You could use fraudulent ID and address proofs, but then, verification would hold your connection up. Or getting verification marked successful will require the connivance of multiple people. All of this raises the degree of difficulty to acquire a so--called 'burner' connection.
Having lived in this regime for so long, I don't really see it as a big issue. You don't switch between operators regularly and so there should be no need to go through the rigmarole all that much. What the US seems to be proposing is in fact quite lax compared to here in India.
That was an interesting post.
I too kind am kinda moderate about guns. On the one hand, I've done my research. Various gun laws have been enacted in various places, and we have the statistics to see what the results are. We don't have to predict what the results might be, we have the numbers. The facts show, unequivocally, that gun bans and strict gun laws are correlated with an increase in violent crimes, and a large increase in sexual assault and rape. That's just a fact- when politicians remove womens' ability protect themselves, many more women get raped. (I can provide a link to full statistics from official government sources , and further explanation, upon request) .
On the other hand, at one time in my life I decided that it would be best for me to not have handguns in my house. Mostly because I had two curious young children in the house, and we lived in a safe neighborhood.
The Constitution guarantees me ten essential rights and the right to make that choice about guns is one of them.
As far as laws go, I did find one thing that was proven effective ; actually a combination of two things. First, Texas added a minimum mandatory sentence for using a weapon in the commission of a felony, then they ADVERTISED it widely, with ads on city busses, billboards, etc. Word got around that robbery would get you five years, having a gun on you when you got caught would get you an additional ten years in the slammer. That worked.
After that was successful, Texas ran a similar advertising campaign about their concealed carry law. Law-abiding citizens might now shoot back, the ads warned. Thinking of robbing a store? You don't know which of the customers behind you is packing a .45. That also worked, though probably not as well as advertising the mandatory sentence for using a weapon in the commission of a felony.
If you think about it, it makes sense. Billions of dollars have been spent figuring out how to create ads which effectively influence people's behavior. If you want to influence the behavior of thugs in your city, it makes sense to leverage that knowledge.
Ps, what was the gun in the closet? A slug gun? An old 50 caliber smooth bore ball gun?
open the stolen phone market.
Don't these shrubs think this shit through?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
nah, she'll be pulling the switch on him - *he'll* be under the desk!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
It is easier to track a small number of unregistered phones than a large number of registered ones and they could not even track the smaller number.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Midnight Massacre (Salina, Utah), July 8 1945: 9 prisoners of war executed by an Army private.
Twin Peaks (Waco, Texas), May 2015: unknown of 9 deaths by Waco PD.
Fort Hood, April 2014: rogue Specialist killed 3 before eating his own gun.
Washington Navy Yard, September 2013: Navy contractor fatally shot twelve.
Information on the Yemen situation is being fully suppressed by Western media.
Information on Syria is spotty at best.
You're welcome.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
uh, no, it's because the police in the US are inariably armed to the teeth and packing ammunition that can crack an engine block.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
you're more likely to be killed by tobacco than by pretty much any other cause.
Let's outlaw tobacco. Hm?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Trivial. They'll get burners issued by their agency/company. To keep liability down, they'd probably require its return after the conference.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Trivial with p2p technology. Connect to a busy, public tracker, put up your public key encrypted packet, eventually both hookup with sweet AES encryption. It probably should be done now, just to get around the metadata collection.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
But no president have been good since Ike.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
there is one at the end of my road. Less than 100 yards away.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
how are they going to get the info on who bought dozens of cheap phones from the grey market in shenzen ?
I can walk into Carphone Warehouse, 3 Store, or EE and buy a prepaid phone with preactivated SIM for next to nothing and NOT GET ASKED FOR ID.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
that would be (G)ungan.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
And require ID to get it!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Next thing you know we'll be outlawing stupid, flippant and ignorant.
That's not possible - Congress always exempts itself from laws!
#DeleteChrome
You're also more likely to be killed by lightening, if you live in the US or Europe.
I'm not so sure about sharks. I've had some trouble finding reliable statistics.
There are other choices.
I would assume that you wouldn't want to ban burners because the set of burners is smaller than the set of all cell phones. I don't know if this is possible, but I would also assume that in their quiet, money-grubbing and totalitarian-enabling way, the telecommunications companies would be able to provide a list of IMEIs and other identifying features associated with "burners".
Basically, it wouldn't seem to hard for the surveillance state to obtain all the information necessary to scrutinize burner devices, which means they can use fewer resources scanning the larger pool of non-burner devices.
Ban burners, and you've prevented the people you want to monitor from self-sorting themselves into a smaller pool by using burners.
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...
I've always wondered about cash for this specific reason though. In a world where every 'person' should have a bank assoc with them, it seems odd that it would be allowable to have cash money transactions able to be used. I understand the myriad of reasons why LOTS of people might want and legitimately need cash, but that ability comes with societal costs such as people using them for 'bad' (TM) reasons...
I hope you see where your argument is easily led. I'm assuming you want a future Utopia where privacy is made illegal for every citizen, while the excuses for the evisceration of privacy rage on...
France, where the phones used by the Paris attackers were bought, already requires ID when buying a SIM.
So, in order to "close one of the most significant gaps in our ability to track and prevent acts of terror," this guy wants to bring in a measure that didn't "prevent acts of terror".
Dummy.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
How does it get around the metadata collection? Surely your public key is too much metadata, even if it doesn't come associated with a name?
Damn man, that shit's funny. I bet she gets more pussy than he does.
I like Ike.
Hey, I like your sig. That is all.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You can say that about some governments, maybe (see other replies for counter-arguments), but here's the thing:
Add up all the people who have been killed in atrocities committed by non-government entities that you want: individuals, terrorist groups, rebel scum, etc. They will always be vastly outnumbered by those killed by governments, period. I'll even spot you all of human history up to the beginning of the 20th Century. It isn't even close.
You want to be safe? Giving more power to the government is not the answer. The government will always tell you that they can keep you safe if they just had the ability to do this one more thing. But they're lying (or stupid (or both)), because the fact is they can't protect you. There is always someone crazier out there who will get around whatever rules we put in place. Then the government will again ask for more power, because this one more thing would have stopped them.
You know what really keeps you and I safe? That most people are good. That the person standing next to you on the subway platform won't just push you onto the tracks as the train is coming for no particular reason. Is there a chance they might suddenly might give you a shove? Sure, but you don't worry about it, because it's so unlikely.
Am I saying that you should fear your government? No. But I am saying that you should be wary of giving the government more power. Most people are good, so let them be free.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Next thing you know we'll be outlawing stupid, flippant and ignorant.
That's not possible - Congress always exempts itself from laws!
That's why "flippant" was included. Congress is very staid and serious about their stupidity and ignorance.
Remember when pseudofed was over the counter? Now you have to stand in line, present ID, and have records kept. It's how we wiped the meth epidemic out. I mean once you had those registration requirements, the whole meth problem went away! Why, addiction to meth went down the very next day and has been virtually eradicated all by that one simple legislative trick! So now we'll just apply that problem to terrorism! Instant! presto-chango! Pass a law and poof! No more problem.
This is like throwing bacon at a wall. Sure it makes a slapping sound and sticks to the wall for a while, but in the end, the wall gets a greasy stain and the bacon is plain wasted.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Dumbfuck.
Fake IDs can be used to purchase prepaid mobile devices.
Good old fashioned communication WITHOUT cell phones. Cell phones are not a prerequisite for enabling of ciminal/spy/terrorist activity.
The fact that we had to have a standing army to both win a revolution and defend ourselves right at the end of that war just means that Jefferson was overruled. Just like many of the founders didn't want slavery to be legal and were forced to compromise. Many to most wanted no taxes at all at the Federal level, and that was not successful either.
You can absolutely cherry pick lots of "but that one guy said" statements, but as I said above the founders were far above average intelligence. They understood that certain ideals are far too Utopian (no standing Army, no taxes) to have any real world value. They all figured out the best compromises they could make at the time (allowing the citizens arms so that they could fight the Government if needed). The standing Army was small because civilians would fight an invader just like the standing Army.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Having weak defense is better than having none at all. The purpose is still the same, and your poor rationalization does not change it. Winning does not require that all the soldiers on a battle field get killed, and it never has.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Let's look at numbers before and after the change. In the chart you linked to, all the crimes are on the same chart, so the scale in such that you can't see most of the crime categories at all. Here are the numbers in tabular form, linked from the page you linked to:
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
We see that in the three years before (1993-1995), there were 38,007 sexual assaults. In the three years after, 43,741. So 5,734 more women sexually assaulted. Do you think that's a good thing, or a bad thing? Personally, I prefer that women NOT be raped, so I support policies that decrease, not increase, rapes.
Can anybody say for a fact whether they have this kind of regulation in France or Belgium?
My guess is that ID most likely is required, seeing how ID seems to required for almost everything in much of Europe. If so, doesn't seem to have hindered the Paris & Brussels terrorists from reportedly buying entire cases of burner phones.
One of the more clear examples was the UK gun ban. Official crime rate data (linked below) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.
For more examples and analysis ( and accompanying advertising campaigns) which did work, see this analysis:
https://docs.google.com/docume...
Raw data:
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
In another post in this same thread, someone disagreeing with me linked to some Australia data. In my reply I pointed out that the numbers on the site he linked to show sexual assault increased about 20% after the Australia law was passed. Again that's based on number linked from an anti-gun person trying to prove me wrong.
Another of the more clear examples was the UK gun ban. Official crime rate data (linked below) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.
For more examples, analysis, and a pair of laws (with accompanying advertising campaigns) which did work, see this analysis:
https://docs.google.com/docume...
Raw data:
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 - 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
If drug dealers, and people smugglers, and terrorists are such a problem then stop pussy footing around and just kill them all.
If not then fuck off you bunch of control freaks. People like you should have been smothered in the crib.
Cash doesn't track your location or give you communication at distance. There's an tangential argument about cash vs digital currency but it's not the same. And to my actual question... Cash is worth the societal costs of the bad (TM) things that can be done with it. Still conflicted...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
And don't forget. You can easily be compelled to use biometrics to unlock your device. Not so much with a pass code.
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
Because everyone is up to something
Jackie Spear says requiring ids in other contexts are racist. https://capac-chu.house.gov/pr.... Why not here?
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
No we won't. If you think your hiding because of NAT your don't understand the internet. Internet has not and never was anonymous on its own. And IPv6 offers something better than NAT (isp or your local lan). But it is not anonymous either. Much of my internet life has been on static IP, a simple reverses name lookup and you could get the phone number of my desk phone. No big deal.
The internet is *not* anonymous, and NAT does not make you anonymous. For reference see how many of anonymous keep getting arrested!
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Regarding your point #2, as you mentioned they reported both ways for a couple of years specifically in order to see how much effect the new reporting would have. The new numbers are about 30% higher than the old. Remember that number - the new rules account for a 30% increase, based on the numbers you posted. (Home Office says a 14% increase, but it turns out that it doesn't matter). In the five years prior, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. That's WAY more than the 30% increase attributable to the change in reporting.
> You mentioned the 5 years before and after the ban
I've found that for me to get at the truth of things, rather than simply finding ways to support my preconceived guess, it's best for me to FIRST define the measurements that seem reasonable, THEN look at the numbers. If I look at the numbers and start selecting some after I know what they are, I'll select ones that I "like", for conscious or subconscious reasons.
> but I'm going to widen that range a bit, from 1981 (chosen because it represents a local minimum) up to 2014/15. ... I realize that I only chose one column, but I didn't cherry pick
You did, however, cherry pick the years - you looked at the data first, then decided to start with the lowest number as the first number, in order to create an upward trend.
> In the entire decade from 2003 to 2013, there was no significant increase in TSO.
So crime didn't keep on increasing more and more forever. That tells us that it's not that crime keeps going up every year, no matter what. Rather, it increased around the time the gun laws were passed, then remained at that (higher) level.
I worded it poorly when I said you "decided to start with the lowest number as the first number, in order to create an upward trend". That sounds like it was intentional, which isn't necessarily the case.
By picking a local minimum as the starting point, that will always create the appearance of an upward trend. Whether or not you realized that when you chose a local minimum as your starting point I don't know. But that is of course the definition of a local minimum - that if you start at that point, you'll definitely go up from there. In other words, starting at a local minimum will ALWAYS make it appear as if the trend is upward.
We must close the Diabetus loophole!
People elected to public office usually have NO technical knowledge. But technology is popular and they often like to pretend that they know something.
For several years now, one has had to provide government issued ID (Driving license, or income tax account card) to purchase a mobile connection. The handset doesn't matter as much as the SIM card (and is an issue in the US probably because operator provided & subsidized handsets are the norm) Not that it has deterred terrorists much.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
http://prepaid-data-sim-card.w... Finland seems very reasonable. Check out the others.