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.
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
whistleblower
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.
+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.
We should just make terrorism illegal. That will fix everything!
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.
"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.
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?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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
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.
I don't need a "valid" reason to want privacy. The government needs a valid reason to eliminate my ability to maintain privacy.
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
I'd like to say "right, you never hear about a mass shooting at an NRA meeting" and then.... my "neighbors" held a 'Draw Muhammad' event. To your point though, despite an attempt, idiots with guns vs idiots with guns ended quickly with one wounded security guard and two dead would be mass shooters.
Maybe more idiots with guns would prevent mass shootings more effectively than only criminals with guns. But you have to ask what is worse, the rare mass shooting in the headlines that statistically has no relevance to your personal safety or the far more statistically relevant suicides and accidental deaths.
I know that's a pretty cynical and wishy-washy stance to take, so where am I coming from? I grew up around guns. At my local farmers co-op store, the natives would gather round and discuss the weather over coffee while their unlocked pickups with guns in the racks sat outside unlocked, windows often open and sometimes with keys in the ignition. Nobody would think of stealing a vehicle knowing there were fifteen old hunters with no better dream scenario than a chance to shoot a deserving stupid thief. There are two mitigating factors to temper my comfort with an armed populace. First, the accident, and second the depression. I'd want more details if I was reading so I'll share.
The Accident. I was in my mid to late teens, I don't remember exactly. I do recall the gun. It was a bolt action gun I'd never seen before in my grandma's closet. The bore was way to big to be a rifle and it had an adjustable choke, which would make sense on a shotgun, but shotguns are single shot, pump action, and double-barrel. I mean, I've never used an over-under but I would have recognized that! Bolt actions, like lever are just for rifles. Even semi's could be either, but a bolt? That's not a shotgun, it can only be a rifle, but the smooth bore, huge barrel size, and adjustable choke could only be a shotgun.What's a young teen to do? Obviously, I had to examine it. Grandma's closet had guns for as long as I can remember, but they were never loaded, cause that would be irresponsible and nobody in my family would be irresponsible with guns. Cool, I could play with it and find out exactly what kind of gun I'd discovered. Despite my confidence and comfort with the situation, I know how to handle a gun safely. I always treat it like it is loaded until I confirm otherwise for myself. As I searched for the safety and tried to work a bolt stiffer than I'd ever worked before I must have brushed the trigger because it went off. Did I mention it was at a family holiday gathering? That kind of sound, in house, even if in a closet, draws attention. I mention this because you might worry somebody was hurt and the only thing hurt was my confidence and pride. Also a ceiling and a luckily placed two-by-four in the attic. Turns out, it was loaded and not everyone in my extended family had the same "it's always unloaded in the house" rule.
So the moral of The Accident is that with proper training and experience even kids are protected from dangerous gun situations. The second factor has a shorter story. I've experienced depression. It sucks. Not having a gun probably isn't responsible for my survival, but I can't absolutely rule it out.
So I guess my stance is that guns aren't the problem, education and safety training combined with thoughtful consideration are the real solution. Shortest version: it kinda sucks to be a moderate libertarian.
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
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.