Live data from Hacker News

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

404media.co

371–380 of 417 posts

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

#371
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Btw you can still buy an anonymous SIM card with cash in the Netherlands in pretty much any supermarket/kiosk/whatever. And if you just need Internet, I haven't had any eSIM provider try to verify my ID so far. Although those can't easily be paid in cash.

Are there services in the EU similar to Privacy.com? They along with US arm of Revolut lets you use disposable digital cards to buy things, but I don't know if such functionality is legal in the EU.

i use revolut in the eu and disposable cards work. its legal because kyc is only between you and your bank (revolut is a bank operating out of latvia), they are not required or allowed to give your personal info to anyone other than payment processors and police.

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

#372

This has been tried in Mexico at least twice - crooks are still finding ways to have burners and smuggle anonymous phones into jails etc.

It's not about stopping crime, it's about control.

Sure but that’s not how they’re selling it.

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

#373

We at some point will have to stop complying. Not because we are doing anything at all wrong, but because we cannot trust our govt and the corporations they are beholden to.

They will just run a PR campaign highlighting how anonymous SIMs have been used by pedos and terrorists so that majority of population will actually willingly support such laws, unfortunately.

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Criminal versus civil is a distinction with massive difference. And the sky is purple. See, we can both make baseless assertions. You can say it all day long. Doesn't make it true. At the end of the day the executive agencies are unilaterally costing people money that's on the same order as real deal criminal fines for comparable conduct. The word "civil" doesn't change that anymore than it changes the true nature o…

> They're for things where they generally could never hope to convince a jury the fines are reasonable for Juries don't determine sentencing, either. The Seventh Amendment has broadly been interpreted to preserve jury trials for most civil liability, including from the federal government. > Municipalities... Not federal! > All of this civil enforcement stuff is basically BS end runs around the rights that people (eve…

>Juries don't determine sentencing, either.

They do in some states but that's beside the point. Juries are people from outside the legal system who will balk if things get too unreasonable. That is one of their primary value adds to the system.

>...do you know the difference between a civil and a criminal case?

That's entirely my point, the government is imposing the same penalties (fines) on people they do for criminal matters but without any of the protections. You can drive drunk, get caught and be out substantially less money (and enjoy your rights along the way) than if you sink sonotubes for a shed too close to a stream and get caught. Heck, there's not even a statute of limitations for many civil enforcement things.

Just because government and those like you who simp for it wave around the word "civil" (or it's relative "administrative") like a magic want doesn't actually change the fact that people are being punished in the same manner they would in criminal law situations but without any of the protections.

I'm not arguing that the laws and jurisprudence haven't been twisted to enable this. I'm arguing that it's no less of an affront to everyone's rights than the civil asset forfeiture people do when they take stuff and then say "well we're actually charging the money and therefore..."

>Not federal!

The municipalities states and feds behave the exact same way and leverage most of the same legal precedents. The feds also deputize states who deputize municipalities to do their enforcing for them in many cases. Like the EPA isn't gonna shoot you're dog or whatever. Your local DEP or whatever will shoot your dog or whatever on their behalf.

>Straw man. Nobody argued civil penalties aren't serious.

I meant serious as compared to something "unserious" like a $20 parking ticket.

>...how do you think criminal proceedings work?

Do you? You can tell the police to fuck off and come back with a warrant. You can not talk to them and the burden of proof is on them. Try that with the SEC or the EPA or the FCC and see where it gets you.

Once you get into an actual court things are much, much more comparable. But criminal matters more or less go straight to court. Administrative matters you're usually forced to go rounds (and your lawyer is billing you the whole time) with some internal kangaroo pretend oversight system (much has been written about ICE's for example) before you get to say a word in front of a real judge who doesn't get his pay stub on their letterhead.

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

#375
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually because you can't do anything with the source phone number being tied to an identity if the scammers are freely able to spoof the number that the end networks and users see. Even if every network in the world adopted this it wouldn't matter if caller id isn't fixed so that you can actually see the source number to go ask who it is!

You can. Finland forces operators to stop routing non-verified and spoofed numbers. Spam gone. https://www.tieto.com/en/cases/telecom/global-anti-fraud-mod...

From your link: "The scam-blocking service is based on modern cloud technology, and it’s scalable, and easy to deploy" - I don't think we need another SaaS parasite for this as protocol-level solution like STIR/SHAKEN is a better approach IMO. The problem is that operators are not incentivized to do anything with spam/scam.

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

#376

Had to buy one of these SMS activation services from a guy in Nigeria using a memecoin because claude decided to ban my account because they didn’t like my credit card brand and Claude requires sms activation for new accounts. Guess these guys are going to make more money in the near future.

Walmart.com recently deleted my phone number from my decade+ old account and refused to let me purchase anything until I coughed one up. When I put my actual number in it told it was no good. Possibly this is because my wife has an account using the same number, which was never a problem until sudden phone numbers only belong to one person I guess? I'm trying to give these guys money.

I gave them a google voice number and apparently that satisfied them. Then lost access to the google voice number because I never used it for anything else.

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

#377
post #113

This 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.

More than that, a ban on all general purpose computing. You can only use specific applications downloaded from walled gardens. You cannot write and execute arbitrary code. If you are an engineer, all code must be generated via LLM and it passes through some verification through a centralized security and compliance authority on the way to you. You must be fully licensed. This will be, the end of malware.

As kooky as I thought he was, Stallman seems to be more prophetic each year. His essay The Right to Read seems to be a vision of how knowledge gets locked down. Every American college/university student has been trapped into renting textbooks. Elsevier and Pearson seem to have used that essay as a roadmap.

https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/st...

I think he's wrong that DRM violates the 4th Amendment, I contend that it is - first and foremost - a violation of the 3rd Amendment.

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

#378
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about networks is that we can create our own.

Citizens creating informal horizontal networks between themselves is threatening to social harmony, and as more states around the world learn from the highly successful Chinese model, they are unlikely to permit the Wild West à la the old-school internet you are thinking about.

[deleted]

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

#379
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This doesn't sound to me at all like how a democratic country is supposed to function." There is a family of interesting theories, or perhaps if you prefer, simply a way of looking at history in which you don't consider the "United States" as a single governance structure that has existed back to 1776, but as a series of related, but distinct entities with distinct "social contracts" (a term laden with some philosop…

> how much worse off would it be if we still "representatives per person" numbers from 1776 and had a Congress of many thousands? Isn't that actually a major cause of the trouble? You expect Congress to deal with more and more complexities but limit the number of people (i.e. experts) who are members of it, causing them all to be generalists and moreover to have to spend more of their time campaigning rather than deb…

> Suppose it actually had ten thousand members. Then they would be ordinary people.

I thought that's how it originally was supposed to be. You were supposed to be represented by a peer, not by a career politician.

And then of course, we have fun gerrymandering, where unelected officials will draw random lines to see how they can eke out more votes for their guy. Redistricting is important to do but I'm not convinced any redistricting committee in the US does it with the people's best interest at heart.

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

#380
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More and more things require having a smartphone. Scan this QR code to install the app to cross the border. Install the app to use the street parking in this city. Install the app to board the bus. Install the app to get your filing status with department xyz. I admire your spirit of rebellion, but avoiding using a smartphone in daily life in most places will result in a lifestyle contorted specifically to avoid usin…

This is not meant as an argument or a counterpoint, I'm just not familiar with some of your examples. Would you be able to elaborate? >Scan this QR code to install the app to cross the border. Would this be a national border? I haven't traveled internationally for a while, but this would be quite troubling. >Install the app to board the bus. Is there no option to pay without an app? >Install the app to get your filin…

> Would this be a national border? I haven't traveled internationally for a while, but this would be quite troubling.

Yes.

> Is there no option to pay without an app?

No option.

> Surely the government also allows you to just call and get an update?

The time I saw this, the non-app option was waiting in line for several hours.

Post reply on HN