We should allow privateers to go after spammers, and get the seized assets. And spammer is then tortured appropriately. Satan could run a successful single issue campaign on this in the most religious state in the US.
FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
111–120 of 417 posts
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#112I wish they would kill spam calling and texting instead.
Been getting two a day, clearly some ai voice robo call. We have all this technology yet these spam calls still persist.
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#113This is probably part of the larger scope of the system wanting to require ID to even boot a computer let alone connect to the internet.
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flock is being rejected in a number of cities, thanks to citizens.
I am quite confident that there will eventually in any of those cities be some kind of major mass casualty type event that will be attributed to that rejection. I don’t hope for it and am sorry for all of humanity for what we are allowing to seemingly inevitably come about, but here we are; like cattle being herded to the feed lot. “But they’re saying they’ll feed you”, you will hear, “they don’t mean you ill. You sh…
We’ll see how it goes, but we also have suits like this that push back on that narrative as if you’re going to say your tech protects against a certain kind of tragedy, and that tragedy actually happens and you didn’t protect against it, maybe you bear some liability.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/school-shooting-...
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#115Isn’t this already a requirement? Can you really buy a burner phone/sim without providing identifying information?
not at all, it’s easy to buy cash only tracphone, mint, boost, etc. and there are plenty of explicit anonymous providers such as phreeli. That said, I don’t think its a problem whatsoever and we shouldn’t have laws restricting it.
the only solution is to upgrade the phone system to require ID, but that would cost billions to AT&T, so that ain't gonna happen
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#116Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#117This is how it works in Australia, which means it's a pain for tourists as you need to provide a passport for ID and get it activated, as opposed to just grabbing one at an airport kiosk and being ready to go on your way to the taxi or train like most other places.
Don’t eSIMs solve this problem for tourists?
eSIM doesn't change local laws around cell phones - it's not magic.
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#118Great. As if telecoms can be trusted with customers' id. AT&T left my name, address, social security etc in an improperly secured database for others to have, and they tried to open accounts with it; they had retained the information after I closed my account, and they denied the information was coming from them for years before they finally admitted it and gave us all a quarter to call someone who cares and a year o…
And your pin is 1234
Same as their, Samsonite I was way off, luggage.
Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#119Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
#120I expect the FCC to adopt this rule, and I also expect it to be challenged in court, on the basis that there are many other approaches to fighting spam calls that the FCC has not tried, but are much less intrusive.
I hope you're right. I am not informed - is this typically how these decisions get challenged?
There are two ways to challenge FCC decisions. There is the upfront approach where a business whose operations are harmed by an FCC decision sues to block the decision. Then there is the approach where said business announces their non-compliance and dares the FCC to sue them. The FCC does not have criminal charging authority, so it has to rely on courts to enforce compliance. See the Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T case that just wrapped up at the Supreme Court.