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
whistleblower
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."
No, actually, large numbers of people don't. Many Americans don't drive. I know that many middle-class suburban Americans are shocked to learn that other Americans live differently, but it's true. in fact some Americans are entirely unable to obtain government issued IDs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Getting real tired of this meme.
"EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS A """LOOPHOLE""""
Sure makes for some good fearmongering though.
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.
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
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.