Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

[AVG-JOE]

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

Assumptions.

Why does the government have to know my cell phone number or even if I own cell phone?

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Cell phone service contracts already require name, address and social security number.

Land line phones are obviously tied to the address of the person they belong to.

Since the authorities have found these disposable cell phones are a weak link in identifying the terrorists who use them to plot our destruction, I don't see any problem with requiring ID to purchase these phones which are otherwise untraceable.

So if the weal link to cracking terror plots was that the government didn't know who had explosives in their basement, it would be OK with you that the government search every house in the country?

THAT would be a classic example of "asking too much".

Registering every cell phone number is good government because doing so is NOT asking too much.

 

[WillowTree]

Cell phone service contracts already require name, address and social security number.

Land line phones are obviously tied to the address of the person they belong to.

Since the authorities have found these disposable cell phones are a weak link in identifying the terrorists who use them to plot our destruction, I don't see any problem with requiring ID to purchase these phones which are otherwise untraceable.

any measure they take is useless as long as we have open borders and cannot ask brown people for ID.. it's just that simple. it's all about destroying us by using our own stupidity to do so.. yep.

 

[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.

 

[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 agree with you, kiddo. If one has nothing to hide, one should be proud to show his / her ID.

If someone is point-blank against proving who they are, the valid assumption can be made that he / she is up to no good.

The only other thing required for a happy society is reasonable rules regarding what is or is not acceptable behavior.

What about me just not wanting my name and address in another data bank that can be hacked at will?

 

[goldcatt]

Here they are referring to phone call records without attaching names, just calls and locations...Numbers only. Then, if the numbers point to something, law enforcement can seek a probable cause warrant for info which shows who is connected to that phone, etc.

Cops Need Warrant for Cellphone Location Data, Judge Rules

September 11, 2008

The government appealed, arguing the records only reveal a phone’s location when it is actually used and that there’s no constitutional right to have these stored records protected.

"Wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user’s whereabouts at certain time in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest," the government wrote (.pdf).

Cops Need Warrant for Cellphone Location Data, Judge Rules | Threat Level | Wired.com

I don't disagree that there are 4th amendment privacy concerns, I just don't think requiring a credit card or ID with cash payment for disposable cell phone service is any different than other phone service requirements.

Here's why I disagree with this idea, and what the difference is:

There is no law in place requiring people to show ID for a long term cell phone contract, that is a practice used by the companies providing the service as a basis for billing and collection in the case of default. With a prepaid phone the service contract still exists, but is for a limited amount of time and is paid up front. The reason they can be anonymous is the lack of continued billing or collection in case of default. It's business practice, not law.

I am very concerned about the 4th Amendment concerns implicit in registering all cell phone numbers, as well as more practical concerns with things like the cost.

First, why should users of prepaid cells be treated differently under the law simply because of the type of contract they prefer? Many people who use these services are not criminals, they're not even using it to cheat on their spouses or something else where anonymity is important to them. Often they are simply not creditworthy for a long term contract, or use the prepaid service as a method of budgeting.

Second, the burden of data collection and recordkeeping (assuming the government will not take over and create a central registry) will be heavy on the companies offering these services. Why should they be punished for offering a legal service people want, need and use? Will they be compensated for collecting the data and turning it over or storing it securely?

Also, without prepaid service a select few companies will hold all of the power over who can and cannot qualify for cell phone service, which also disturbs me. Prepaid service provides choice and competition, which helps keep the colossal providers honest. If the cost or hassle destroys the profit incentive for prepaid service, millions of people won't have any options. And it's not like there are pay phnes on every other corner like there used to be.

I don't like it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

I guess they didnt get the message.

…The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or [sic] one’s community.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not that the government needs to know, just that the sale would be traceable if necessary...Available from service providers upon warrant.

If the government wants the records kept, the government will keep the records.

Are you really that naive?

How is it any different from phone records being available to law enforcement already?

The government hasn't deemed having a land line is a terror threat.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Assumptions.

Why does the government have to know my cell phone number or even if I own cell phone?

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

 

[AVG-JOE]

Cell phone service contracts already require name, address and social security number.

Land line phones are obviously tied to the address of the person they belong to.

Since the authorities have found these disposable cell phones are a weak link in identifying the terrorists who use them to plot our destruction, I don't see any problem with requiring ID to purchase these phones which are otherwise untraceable.

any measure they take is useless as long as we have open borders and cannot ask brown people for ID.. it's just that simple. it's all about destroying us by using our own stupidity to do so.. yep.

Interesting, but off topic. IMHO.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

I agree with you, kiddo. If one has nothing to hide, one should be proud to show his / her ID.

If someone is point-blank against proving who they are, the valid assumption can be made that he / she is up to no good.

The only other thing required for a happy society is reasonable rules regarding what is or is not acceptable behavior.

What about me just not wanting my name and address in another data bank that can be hacked at will?

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

I agree with you, kiddo. If one has nothing to hide, one should be proud to show his / her ID.

If someone is point-blank against proving who they are, the valid assumption can be made that he / she is up to no good.

The only other thing required for a happy society is reasonable rules regarding what is or is not acceptable behavior.

What about me just not wanting my name and address in another data bank that can be hacked at will?

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....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Assumptions.

Why does the government have to know my cell phone number or even if I own cell phone?

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The roads aren't private.

 

[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?

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.