Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

[chanel]

The federal govts #1 job is national security, We are at war.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Aren't you glad that it's your Government that holds your Social Security file and not some private corporation, for sale to the highest bidder? Think about what's on that file before you answer... if you don't know what We know about you, you're a fool.

I know about what the government knows about me, I also know things about me the government does not know, like all of my phone numbers, and I intend to keep it that way.

If you've nothing to hide, why would it bother you, especially knowing that the data base is being used to catch people who're doing something they don't want the rest of us to know about? The cops will still need probable cause to associate a file with an address....

Principle. That might be a foreign concept to you, but it made this nation what it was a few years ago.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The federal govts #1 job is national security, We are at war.

Their number one job is actually to protect our freedoms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice quote. I still don't think it's asking to much to register for the privilege of using the cell phone infrastructure - even if that infrastructure is private. We wouldn't think of letting people race up and down the roads with out ID - most states require insurance to boot - one more case where use of the infrastructure can affect others, registration makes sense.

Are you suggesting that people need special training and permission to use a phone? No one under 18 can use one without parental supervision?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. I can't think of why anyone would buy these unless they were up to no good. Just my 2 cents.

I own one because it doesn't tie me to a long term contract, and I only pay for air time when I need it, and they are actually less expensive than a contract phone. Many poor people opt for them because there is no credit check.

And if you're not "doing" anything, why object to showing ID (and having your ID recorded with the number) to get one?

Because it inconveniences me, and does not benefit me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I still say it's not too much to ask, especially with the understanding that the cops have to get a warrant to put a name with a number... trust but verify.

All it takes is a subpoena, not a warrant. Actually, it doesn't even take a subpoena, and cops do abuse it. You go ahead and trust the government, I know better.

FBI Found to Misuse Security Letters - washingtonpost.com

 

[oreo]

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) joined forces and announced a new bill that would require an ID at the point of sale. Phone companies would need to keep this information on file in order to help police thwart "terrorists, drug lords and gang members," along with the occasional hedge fund manager.

Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

They really do use any excuse to chip away at our civil rights, don't they.

Ridiculous--any criminal/terrorist is not going to walk in and use "their" ID to get a phone in the first place. They'll just use a fake I.D. or steal someone else's to use---

Man--these politicians are getting a little nutty aren't they.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because it is not asking too much, ass-u-me-ing you have nothing to hide and the policy would more than likely prevent at least 1 horrible death.

Besides, knowing who made a call, ass-u-me-ing the phone number makes a list, is NOT the same as listening in without damn good reason.

At some point in time we have to start trusting. Trust but Verify.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Benjamin Franklin

Nice quote. I still don't think it's asking to much to register for the privilege of using the cell phone infrastructure - even if that infrastructure is private. We wouldn't think of letting people race up and down the roads with out ID - most states require insurance to boot - one more case where use of the infrastructure can affect others, registration makes sense.

Privilege?

It's a service for which one pays. No different from mailing a letter IMO. Would you like to have to register with the government in order to mail a letter even if it was with a private company like UPS ? After all you might be a terrorist sending instructions to another terrorist.

Getting a driver's license is nothing like owning a cell phone. Anyone who drives has the possibility of getting into an accident and causing damage. There is not that same risk with a cell phone.

 

[chanel]

You need ID to pick up a package at UPS. From their website:

Pickup Requirements

Present the following identification at the time of pickup:

* Recipient: Government-issued photo ID, such as a driver's license, passport, or military ID
* Recipient's Representative: Company ID or a letter authorizing package release

Faisal was tracked because entering the U.S. months earlier, he had given Customs officials the same phone number he used to call the seller of the car used in the plot. If he hadn't, he would have been much harder to find.

"We caught a break in catching the Times Square terrorist, but usually a prepaid cell phone is a dead end for law enforcement," Schumer said.

Read more: Prepaid cell phones can be a weapon of terror, Sen. Chuck Schumer says

 

[Devin]

The Internet is not 'owned' by the USA. It's international. Content is duplicated on servers worldwide, redundancy. And cell phone manufacturers/providers don't want to be regulated by any kind of big brother which will make it harder and more complicated for the public to buy phones or change providers. Some of these providers make most of their money off cheap cells to those who don't use their phones constantly all day long to talk and text. An $80/month plan is ridiculous or impossible for them, so these other solutions are a great market niche. Many 3rd world countries have ubiquitous cell phones and Internet without an ID (they don't have ID); has to be portable and cheap. Don't think it will happen..

 

[manifold]

I'm truly surprised to see Avg Joe using the if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care about government intrusion on your privacy argument.

If you're not up to no good, why would you care if they recorded all your phone calls and had a camera mounted on your living room wall.

 

[chanel]

Wow. Another amazing leap. ID = peeping Toms?

I'm with avg. Joe. I believe that people should have to show ID to cops, to vote, and to rent a hotel room (which is now standard in NYC). The jihadists laugh at the inability of Americans to agree on ANY method to prevent terrorism.

I supported the Patriot Act, and I will support this President with any reasonable ideas his administration comes up with to keep us safer. Sheez.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's a matter of privacy, and constitutionality. Not only does the federal government not have the authority to impose this on the American people, it's ridiculous for a free people to have to be subjected to this as if we're all criminals.

I still say it's not too much to ask, especially with the understanding that the cops have to get a warrant to put a name with a number... trust but verify.

Trusting the federal government only leads to violations of our rights, because they always start off small and work their way up. That's why you have to fight even the most minor of governmental violations.

Considering the fact that we couldn't have the lifestyle we've become accustomed to without using the tool we affectionately call 'government', doesn't it make sense to fight for "better" government rather than "less" government?

When it comes to something like government, sheer size matters a whole lot less than quality.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The roads aren't private.

EXACTLY why I specifically mentioned that, in MY humble opinion, it doesn't matter if it's public or private infrastructure. If it is open to anyone to use - even if a fee is required - registration to use it is not too much to ask.

Mandating that a privately owned company has to take down private information from their customers and give it to the government is too much to ask, and is certainly not authorized by the Constitution.

Try "buying" a bank account without giving your name and address.... Anyone think allowing the sale of guns without getting a a name and number from the buyer a good idea?

There's PLENTY of precedent for asking people to register in order to use a product sold through private enterprise.

Asking people to register the phone numbers they use JUST IN CASE one of those numbers hits a list of numbers that a proven bad guy has had intercourse with is NOT asking too much.

 

[Devin]

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) joined forces and announced a new bill that would require an ID at the point of sale. Phone companies would need to keep this information on file in order to help police thwart "terrorists, drug lords and gang members," along with the occasional hedge fund manager.

Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

They really do use any excuse to chip away at our civil rights, don't they.

Ridiculous--any criminal/terrorist is not going to walk in and use "their" ID to get a phone in the first place. They'll just use a fake I.D. or steal someone else's to use---

Man--these politicians are getting a little nutty aren't they.

That's exactly right. Terrorists & bad guys will always game the system in some way. So instead, this would be removing even more privacy rights from average Americans (not terrorists).

 

[AVG-JOE]

Aren't you glad that it's your Government that holds your Social Security file and not some private corporation, for sale to the highest bidder? Think about what's on that file before you answer... if you don't know what We know about you, you're a fool.

I know about what the government knows about me, I also know things about me the government does not know, like all of my phone numbers, and I intend to keep it that way.

If you've nothing to hide, why would it bother you, especially knowing that the data base is being used to catch people who're doing something they don't want the rest of us to know about? The cops will still need probable cause to associate a file with an address....

Principle. That might be a foreign concept to you, but it made this nation what it was a few years ago.

Assuming your number never gets connected to a bad-guy and a warrant issued, your name will NEVER be associated with it.

Maybe this is a fundamental choice here - do we want to live as cooperating neighbors, willing to give a little for the safety of all or do we want to foment the attitude of America's youth and say "fuck you" to our fellow citizens just because we can and there's plenty of dirt to the west if my neighbors get to nosey?

I'm definitely not one to advocate the government telling me who I can or can't talk to, and I've stated before that I believe that We need a damn good (warrantable) reason for matching a name to a number (that reason alone is one to make sure it is We, The People who maintain the data base, not some private, for sale to the highest bidder on the world market corporation). But is registering your phone numbers REALLY too much to ask?

Quick poll: How many people posting on this thread currently have an unregistered, pre-paid cell phone in their pocket? I know I don't.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Nice quote. I still don't think it's asking to much to register for the privilege of using the cell phone infrastructure - even if that infrastructure is private. We wouldn't think of letting people race up and down the roads with out ID - most states require insurance to boot - one more case where use of the infrastructure can affect others, registration makes sense.

Are you suggesting that people need special training and permission to use a phone? No one under 18 can use one without parental supervision?

That's reaching pretty deep to find a fight.

Do We require special training to buy a gun, or just the registration of the serial number with a name and address?

Stretching an analogy out and trying to make it blanket policy applied in order to start an argument on the side is just not good debate.

 

[chanel]

The only ones I know who have them are the drug dealers,

I'm curious what ideas the privacy folks on both the left and right have for combatting terrorism. Or shall we just accept it as the "price of freedom" Personally I'd rather show my license to anyone who asks than to have my family suffer a fiery death. But I guess that's just us, Joe.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I own one because it doesn't tie me to a long term contract, and I only pay for air time when I need it, and they are actually less expensive than a contract phone. Many poor people opt for them because there is no credit check.

And if you're not "doing" anything, why object to showing ID (and having your ID recorded with the number) to get one?

Because it inconveniences me, and does not benefit me.

Sorry Bud, no sympathy from this average Joe - registering cell numbers is NOT too much to ask....

As far as benefit goes, why should I have to pay for a global war on terror? I don't live in NYC, LA or D.C. - not much direct benefit for me.... but maybe, just maybe - being an American is not supposed to be all about "what's in it for me?".

 

[AVG-JOE]

I still say it's not too much to ask, especially with the understanding that the cops have to get a warrant to put a name with a number... trust but verify.

All it takes is a subpoena, not a warrant. Actually, it doesn't even take a subpoena, and cops do abuse it. You go ahead and trust the government, I know better.

FBI Found to Misuse Security Letters - washingtonpost.com

If you don't trust your government, you have but 3 and only 3 options:

-Change governments by moving.
-Work to improve the government you have.
-Whine about it unproductively and in general terms, offering no solutions whatsoever.

Choosing lawlessness over rules because of abuse of those rules, both real and perceived, gives more power away than it preserves, IMHO.