Live data from Hacker News

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

404media.co

311–320 of 417 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you break a rule you get fined. If you break a law you can go to jail That's a distinction without a difference when talking about the kinds of ruinous fines government agencies levy and how equivalently ruinous lawyering up to fight them is. Most people receiving these fines happily spend a month in prison for six figures because six figures is years of discretionary income to most people.

> That's a distinction without a difference Criminal versus civil is a distinction with massive difference. > Most people receiving these fines happily spend a month in prison for six figures Most civil monetary penalties are for reporting and filing violations to the FEC, HHS or FinCEN; submitting false information in a Medicare/Medicaid claim [1], grant, contract or bid; or violating consumer protection, employer,…

>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 of civil asset forfieture.

>Most civil monetary penalties are for....

They're for things where they generally could never hope to convince a jury the fines are reasonable for.

You list broad categories because when people dig into the nitty gritty of it they find it unconscionable. Municipalities threatening landowners hundreds of dollars per day multiplied by years for not having the proper permit to clear vegetation on their own land. OSHA fining businesses thousands because unsupervised line employees were doing dumb shit they were told not to that only endangers themselves. And then these people have to lawyer up and defend themselves for more thousands because the fines are always way higher if you don't. All at the literal whim of an enforcement official.

All of this civil enforcement stuff is basically BS end runs around the rights that people (even legal fictions of people) are supposed to have. The government, federal or otherwise, is not supposed to be able to meaningfully punish people (even corporate people) without the consent of the people (i.e. a jury). The way civil process cuts the judiciary out entirely is worse still.

Just declaring "well it's civil" because the accused's name isn't going on a naughty list and jail isn't a potential penalty doesn't change the fact pattern of serious fines being issued without the accused party having any real rights of due process beyond hiring someone who knows their shit to argue in front of the arbitrary kangaroo process owned by the same agency that issued the fine (of course you can sue if you want but the enforcement agencies avoid creating situations where that's practical).

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

#313
post #234
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the late 2000s-early 2010s you could grab some Verizon bubble pack flip phones and just dial an activation string on the handset itself and it'd set up a new phone number for you and you'd just have to go add airtime with a prepaid card or credit card without having to provide anything . Some of the LTE tablets even powered up and put you into a walled garden with data (heh, DNS tunneling worked out of it) to…

They'll just add regulation that requires KYC for roaming agreements.

So basically people from Africa won't be allowed to use their phones in the USA by order of the government? (If they can even get into the country without ending up in an ICE camp, of course)

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

#314

I've got my popcorn and lawn chair out to watch the "voter id is racist" crowd to take a stand on this issue. Context: Voter ID Laws may seem like a good idea, but they’re actually pretty terrible! On the surface, these laws appear to be a reasonable way to stop people from pretending to be someone else when they vote. But the reality is that this kind of voter fraud almost never happens!!! Instead Voter ID Laws prim…

Isn't this the exact same thing? If you don't have a valid ID to vote, now you don't have a valid ID to use a cellphone either. And if you wanted to go and get one, too bad because you probably need a cellphone to do that.

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

#315

Good luck with this. You can't make the desk clerk in a ghetto cell phone store care. I say this speaking as someone who has a T-Mobile account under the name George Washington with a Valley Forge, Pennsylvania address.

Don't those clerks go to jail?

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

#316

This is already a thing in most countries btw

Which is depressing

Fun fact: in India, it is a crime to connect the IP network to the telephone network in any way whatsoever that allows calls originating in IP to terminate at telephones. This is because IP network users don't have to provide ID. (It does not prohibit calling from telephones to IP networks, or IP apps calling other instances of themselves)

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

#317
post #117
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t eSIMs solve this problem for tourists?

eSIM doesn't change local laws around cell phones - it's not magic.

It can if it's a roaming eSIM. I'm sure all the countries mentioned here e.g. Australia still handles US SIMs roaming there fine even when the US SIM dossn't have ID tied to it.

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

#318

Good. Telecoms should have a duty to know who uses their networks.

The person using the network is the one who put a quarter in the payphone.

Payphones are rather seldom seen these days, friend.

Not to disagree with the principle, but it's somewhat opaque as to what your point is.

I've hazy memories as well of reports that payphones were being more surveilled (a camera placed nearby, for example), or tapped / monitored more than other phones, particularly if in areas with other known issues. Nothing that's turning up in DDG searches though...

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

#319
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Congress is incapable of making new laws, we still need them somehow. Do we though? When there is a lack of consensus on what federal law should be, those are exactly the times the federal apparatus should be silent and leave it to the states.

So states can regulate interstate commerce, congressional stock trading, foreign policy, military spending guidelines, federal lands and financial exchanges now? This is just dodging the question of why can’t Congress do its job.

The US is a large country with a large economy and a very diverse economy. It is probably not feasible for Congress to deal with the low level details of managing all that.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a distinction without a difference Criminal versus civil is a distinction with massive difference. > Most people receiving these fines happily spend a month in prison for six figures Most civil monetary penalties are for reporting and filing violations to the FEC, HHS or FinCEN; submitting false information in a Medicare/Medicaid claim [1], grant, contract or bid; or violating consumer protection, employer,…

>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 (even legal fictions of people) are supposed to have Not a federal issue!

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

> doesn't change the fact pattern of serious fines being issued

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

> without the accused party having any real rights of due process beyond hiring someone who knows their shit

...how do you think criminal proceedings work?

This is a wild conversation. I've gone from being somewhat sympathetic to your argument to now wondering if that entire platform is baseless. (I'm increasingly convinced we need a principles of law course mandated in high school. It doesn't even need to be a full year. But our republic suffers when folks don't understand the basics.)

Post reply on HN