Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 417 posts

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#161

Post by tgrowazay »

BuildTheRobots wrote: post #153
OptionOfT wrote: post #133

This was the case in Belgium a couple of years ago. Everybody had to go to a store and have their ID read by the system, and if they didn't, the phone number would be shut down. Unsure how that worked for MVNOs though. Now I live in the USA and am well-familiar with the spam calls. I wonder if this new rule will reduce/prevent them. I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled. Someon…

> I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled. This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones and the proposed changes won't do anything to change that. ~5 years ago there was a big push (in the USA) to try and solve it with STIR/SHAKEN but I've not been involved or paid attention since then, so don't know if anything came of it. It's a legitimately hard problem to solve though…

> This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones

That is not correct. There a phone farms operating purely on burner phones / disposable sims. Even for legit use cases, this path is often way easier/cheaper than go through official channels.

Use cases range from carrier-NAT proxies at < $1 per GB to text message spam.

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#162

Post by zmgsabst »

voakbasda wrote: post #41
giantg2 wrote: post #37

Maybe a way around this is for intermediary companies to own the phone that happens to have service and then lease the phone.

And with that suggestion, a clause is being added to close that loophole….

My work can’t provide a cellphone now?

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#164

Post by Terr_ »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #148
IAmBroom wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the way federal agencies work. Details of complex systems are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest. One alternative is that Trump can do it at will. Or, to add a few more steps, Trump can fire the FCC head at will, replace him with a lackey, and then do it at will.

> [Laws] are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest This doesn't sound to me at all like how a democratic country is supposed to function. It feels like you're describing China rather than the US. > Trump can do it at will. Which is also not how our constitution is supposed to work. The executive branch (which includes both the president and his appointees) is not…

Hold up: Parent-poster is obviously talking about federal regulations, not federal laws, and there are important differences between them... so why have you altered the quote to say [Laws]?

That's false. You've put your own words into their mouth to create a "sounds like China" strawman.

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#166

Post by OptionOfT »

jldugger wrote: post #156
OptionOfT wrote: post #133

This was the case in Belgium a couple of years ago. Everybody had to go to a store and have their ID read by the system, and if they didn't, the phone number would be shut down. Unsure how that worked for MVNOs though. Now I live in the USA and am well-familiar with the spam calls. I wonder if this new rule will reduce/prevent them. I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled. Someon…

Wish I could recall the podcast I listened to a few years ago that was telling the history of robo-dialers and caller ID spoofing. The general gist was that AT&T was making money off it from 1-900 operators so they weren't eager to self-regulate. So even though ending spam calling is a bipartisan issue , feet were dragged on the implementation. If anyone's eager to do podcast archaeology, IIRC one of the angles was i…

https://archive.org/details/3f25eeb8affc11e6892a43edc8087050

~~I _think_ this is the one.~~

God I miss this podcast.

Edit: this IS the one.

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#167

Post by rconti »

grishka wrote: post #149

As a Russian: huh, you guys could still just buy a sim card without any kind of identification? Impressive. We had that ID requirement introduced way back in the 00s. Even EU countries seem to require an ID now. When I traveled to France and Belgium in 2024, I bought a French tourist sim card, and the carrier kept sending me some rather insistent messages that my line would get disconnected if I don't upload my passp…

It seems to depend a lot. It's kind of hard in Germany - they wanted my permanent address. I didn't find France as difficult. Iceland didn't care. Italy wanted my passport. Chile, you virtually needed to be a citizen, as I recall.

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#168

Post by rtkwe »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #129

Wants to kill burner phones but somehow foreign phone scams are still rampant.

Disjoint issues really. Phone scams mostly rely on the shoddy/lack of verification of caller id info as calls transit the network where it's not verified so they are unblockable (because they just use a different fake number every time). They're actually calling from one or a pool of numbers but you can't block and report them on the receiving end because the number your phone thinks it's blocking isn't theirs. This will do nothing to fix spam/scam without patching the issues with caller id.

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#169

Post by Ajedi32 »

Terr_ wrote: post #164
Ajedi32 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Laws] are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest This doesn't sound to me at all like how a democratic country is supposed to function. It feels like you're describing China rather than the US. > Trump can do it at will. Which is also not how our constitution is supposed to work. The executive branch (which includes both the president and his appointees) is not…

Hold up: Parent-poster is obviously talking about federal regulations, not federal laws, and there are important differences between them... so why have you altered the quote to say [Laws]? That's false. You've put your own words into their mouth to create a "sounds like China" strawman.

Ah yes I forgot, they're not "laws" just "rules" that the government will come after you if you break. Silly me.

Re: FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs

#170

Post by mcmcmc »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #148
IAmBroom wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the way federal agencies work. Details of complex systems are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest. One alternative is that Trump can do it at will. Or, to add a few more steps, Trump can fire the FCC head at will, replace him with a lackey, and then do it at will.

> [Laws] are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest This doesn't sound to me at all like how a democratic country is supposed to function. It feels like you're describing China rather than the US. > Trump can do it at will. Which is also not how our constitution is supposed to work. The executive branch (which includes both the president and his appointees) is not…

Administrative law is the (suboptimal) answer to congressional gridlock, which is the real problem. If Congress is incapable of making new laws, we still need them somehow. Regardless the overturning of Chevron deference makes administrative rules like this more susceptible to challenge. Assuming the telcos have the backbone to do so of course.
Post reply on HN