Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

* Big Kiss *

You are absolutely right that great care must be taken when trading privacy for security, I've said before that things like random listening to phone calls is asking way too much - I still think that registering pre-paid cell phone numbers is not too much to ask.

Hell, any pre-paid cell phone purchased with a credit card is pretty damned traceable already, so what we're really talking about is the folks who insist, for what ever reason, on paying for the phone with ca$h.

How about the folks who, because they lost their jobs and had their homes foreclosed, cannot get a credit card? Can they pay cash because that is their only option, or do you intend to advocate asking banks to give everyone a credit card? It would make every purchase made in the US traceable, and who knows when it might come in handy knowing who bought a large load of fertilizer.
 
Where is the due process in asking that I prove who I am in order to talk to someone?

Please tell me that you don't really think anybody cares who you talk with.....

You don't have to show ID to call your girlfriend, but it might be damn handy for the police to be able to match a name to your number if your girlfriend is stopped driving a truckload of explosives on the I-10.


What exactly do you think the odds are that my girlfriend, or anyone else's, might get stopped driving a truck load of explosives on I-10?

(If she were my girlfriend I would tell her to stay off I-10 because of all the immigration and agricultural check points around here, but that is just me.)

What difference does my ability to analyze statistics and calculate odds have with this imaginary role-play?

I knew you were a wind-bag of basic intelligence at least!
 
* Big Kiss *

You are absolutely right that great care must be taken when trading privacy for security, I've said before that things like random listening to phone calls is asking way too much - I still think that registering pre-paid cell phone numbers is not too much to ask.

Hell, any pre-paid cell phone purchased with a credit card is pretty damned traceable already, so what we're really talking about is the folks who insist, for what ever reason, on paying for the phone with ca$h.

How about the folks who, because they lost their jobs and had their homes foreclosed, cannot get a credit card? Can they pay cash because that is their only option, or do you intend to advocate asking banks to give everyone a credit card? It would make every purchase made in the US traceable, and who knows when it might come in handy knowing who bought a large load of fertilizer.

QW, do you trust Due Process in all its failings and glory in todays American Legal System?

The rest is just :blahblah: as I drone on repeating myself. Time for a beer...
 
* Big Kiss *

You are absolutely right that great care must be taken when trading privacy for security, I've said before that things like random listening to phone calls is asking way too much - I still think that registering pre-paid cell phone numbers is not too much to ask.

Hell, any pre-paid cell phone purchased with a credit card is pretty damned traceable already, so what we're really talking about is the folks who insist, for what ever reason, on paying for the phone with ca$h.

And what's wrong with insisting on paying cash? Is there something inherently wrong with cash on the barrel head, no commitment, no strings?

Now that sounds like a weekend in Vegas. ;)

I'm looking at everything involved in creating, maintaining and protecting that registry and IMO yes, it is too much to ask without demonstrating necessity rather than preference.

Can I buy you a drink and change this conversation to how beautiful your eyes are?

Flattery will get you just about anywhere. The drink might do the rest. :lol:


(But I'm still right)
 
And what's wrong with insisting on paying cash? Is there something inherently wrong with cash on the barrel head, no commitment, no strings?

Now that sounds like a weekend in Vegas. ;)

I'm looking at everything involved in creating, maintaining and protecting that registry and IMO yes, it is too much to ask without demonstrating necessity rather than preference.

Can I buy you a drink and change this conversation to how beautiful your eyes are?

Flattery will get you just about anywhere. The drink might do the rest. :lol:


(But I'm still right)

Yes ma'am. You're right.

Are you doing something different with your hair? It's cute!
 
People also drive drunk, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

No, we should outlaw drunk driving.
Oh yeah! been there, done that and it saved lives.​

OK, then we should outlaw the using of a cellphone to blow things up, instead of the tool that is used. Correct?

Oh wait, I think that has already been done.

Isn't it already against the law to blow things up? :eusa_eh:

I think this post pretty much sums it up AJ

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nonymous-prepaid-cell-phones.html#post2353598
 
Please tell me that you don't really think anybody cares who you talk with.....

You don't have to show ID to call your girlfriend, but it might be damn handy for the police to be able to match a name to your number if your girlfriend is stopped driving a truckload of explosives on the I-10.


What exactly do you think the odds are that my girlfriend, or anyone else's, might get stopped driving a truck load of explosives on I-10?

(If she were my girlfriend I would tell her to stay off I-10 because of all the immigration and agricultural check points around here, but that is just me.)

What difference does my ability to analyze statistics and calculate odds have with this imaginary role-play?

I knew you were a wind-bag of basic intelligence at least!

You are the one that said it would be helpful if something like this happened. I was just curious what you consider the odds of it happening versus the massive inconvenience and cost I think are going to accompany it. In other words, just how do you justify the cost/benefit analysis against your position that this is not too much to ask? If you are unprepared to justify your position when challenged then I will just accept that it is not one you have put any thought into, and I can go on to debate other people who do think about their position.

Nice attempt to make it look like I am the one who is not thinking about my position though.
 
People also drive drunk, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

No, we should outlaw drunk driving.
Oh yeah! been there, done that and it saved lives.​

OK, then we should outlaw the using of a cellphone to blow things up, instead of the tool that is used. Correct?

Oh wait, I think that has already been done.

Isn't it already against the law to blow things up? :eusa_eh:

I think this post pretty much sums it up AJ

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nonymous-prepaid-cell-phones.html#post2353598

You're right. And any cell phone can be used that way. So can a kid's walkie talkie for that matter. I'm not a fan of targeting a group that consists largely of people who need to budget or cannot afford a cell phone plan when the law isn't really addressing the problem they're talking about.
 
QW, do you trust Due Process in all its failings and glory in todays American Legal System?

The rest is just :blahblah: as I drone on repeating myself. Time for a beer...

As I have repeatedly tried to tell you, due process is not an issue. In order to get a name out of a company all LEOs have to do is issue a subpeona. They do not need probable cause, or even a reasonable suspicion, they just need a piece of paper.

You are not asking me to trust due process, you are asking me to trust that some faceless company is going to go to court and spend their money to not tell the cops who owns a cell phone connected to a number. Would you trust them to do that?

Under the loosest interpretation of the Patriot Act the government could then lock me up and deny my access to an attorney, all under the name of national security. Do I think this is likely? No, but it is possible, and has happened just because someone acts suspiciously.

If this was about due process I might be willing to give it a shot, but it is about denying people basic rights guaranteed under our constitution. As they managed to track down Shahzad without this law, even though he supposedly had one of these phones, the question is, why don't you trust due process? These phones might make it harder for cops to do their job, but they do not make it impossible.
 
No, we should outlaw drunk driving.
Oh yeah! been there, done that and it saved lives.​

OK, then we should outlaw the using of a cellphone to blow things up, instead of the tool that is used. Correct?

Oh wait, I think that has already been done.

Isn't it already against the law to blow things up? :eusa_eh:

I think this post pretty much sums it up AJ

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nonymous-prepaid-cell-phones.html#post2353598

You're right. And any cell phone can be used that way. So can a kid's walkie talkie for that matter. I'm not a fan of targeting a group that consists largely of people who need to budget or cannot afford a cell phone plan when the law isn't really addressing the problem they're talking about.

Isn't someone out there offering a free phone to po' folk?

What's the difference between Poor Folks and Po' Folk?

Give up?

Po' Folk so po' they can't afford the other 'o', the 'r' or the 's'.​
 
Last edited:
QW, do you trust Due Process in all its failings and glory in todays American Legal System?

The rest is just :blahblah: as I drone on repeating myself. Time for a beer...

As I have repeatedly tried to tell you, due process is not an issue. In order to get a name out of a company all LEOs have to do is issue a subpeona. They do not need probable cause, or even a reasonable suspicion, they just need a piece of paper.

You are not asking me to trust due process, you are asking me to trust that some faceless company is going to go to court and spend their money to not tell the cops who owns a cell phone connected to a number. Would you trust them to do that?

Under the loosest interpretation of the Patriot Act the government could then lock me up and deny my access to an attorney, all under the name of national security. Do I think this is likely? No, but it is possible, and has happened just because someone acts suspiciously.

If this was about due process I might be willing to give it a shot, but it is about denying people basic rights guaranteed under our constitution. As they managed to track down Shahzad without this law, even though he supposedly had one of these phones, the question is, why don't you trust due process? These phones might make it harder for cops to do their job, but they do not make it impossible.

You got a link that shows where in the US Constitution I'm guaranteed an untraceable phone number?

I trust the Due Process in America enough to not care if this particular idea becomes law.

Sue me.​
 
OK, then we should outlaw the using of a cellphone to blow things up, instead of the tool that is used. Correct?

Oh wait, I think that has already been done.

Isn't it already against the law to blow things up? :eusa_eh:

I think this post pretty much sums it up AJ

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nonymous-prepaid-cell-phones.html#post2353598

You're right. And any cell phone can be used that way. So can a kid's walkie talkie for that matter. I'm not a fan of targeting a group that consists largely of people who need to budget or cannot afford a cell phone plan when the law isn't really addressing the problem they're talking about.

Isn't someone out there offering a free phone to po' folk?

What's the difference between Poor Folks and Po' Folks?

Give up?

Po' Folk so po' they can't afford the other 'o' or the 'r'.​

I'll tell you what, my elderly next door neighbor who uses a prepaid cell phone isn't poor, but she doesn't want to pay through the nose for an expensive phone and a monthly plan when she only carries it for emergencies and uses it once in a blue moon. I can't blame her.

My cousin has them for her teenagers so they learn to budget their minutes and if they run out she doesn't end up with a huge bill, it just stops working till she loads it again. Sounds like something I might do when my own little people get old enough.

And yes, a lot of poor (and uncreditworthy) folks have them because they either cannot afford or cannot qualify for long term contract plans. Or they're people who just don't want to be saddled with a contract.

Why are these people suspect, again? What's broke here that really needs to be fixed?
 
Speaking of hacks - Modmoron sees one each time he looks in the mirror (and likely scares himself).

We have an Democrat-Administration in the White House that wants to give the FCC control over the internet,
Where is the Lefty outrage?

Well for starters Net Neutrality isn't and never has been about giving the FCC control of the internet.

If you want to see people get outraged over straw men just wait till December or November when people start banging on about the war on Christmas.
 

Forum List

Back
Top