4 ms·

Terrible idea. They are also used by investigative journalists trying to uncover government wrongdoing along with people trying to escape abusive ex-lovers. T

by Nrsolis 11y ago

Terrible idea. They are also used by investigative journalists trying to uncover government wrongdoing along with people trying to escape abusive ex-lovers. The desire for anonymity is not synonymous with criminal intent.

nodesocket 11y ago
Let's be realistic, investigative journalists can get phones from their employer. People on HN always seem to bring up the fringe case... The small percentage. Ignoring the vast majority of actual use.
- robryk 11y ago
  > trying to uncover government wrongdoing GP's point seems to be that it's pointful to avoid association of that phone with any news organization at all in such cases.
- sathackr 11y ago
  well then for that matter lets just toss out the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, since they are mostly used by dissidents and criminals to escape prosecution.
- sathackr 11y ago
  Oh, I might add, the vast majority of prepaid cell phone use is not criminal use [citation needed] I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of the use of most things currently being argued (encryption is the hottest one right now) is not criminal. So you want to force the majority use to give up their privacy and trust every retailer of prepaid phones with their personal information, because of the fringe cases of criminal use?
  - Nrsolis 11y ago
    My point exactly. The fact of the matter is that prepaid phone use (much like encryption) is used by people for pretty banal purposes: they want to make sure that their private life stays private. Maybe they are carrying on an illicit affair. Maybe they are running a side business their employer wouldn't approve of. Whatever the reason, people have a certain right to privacy. The burden isn't on US to demonstrate why we need privacy. The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to demonstrate why they need to pull back the curtain on someone else's privacy to further a legitimate government interest. That's the crux of every argument opposing the government keeping records (or forcing the record-keeping by business) on everything a person does in the course of their life. The VAST majority of prepaid phone use is legitimate and non-controversial. Why burden all of those uses with a specious need to identify themselves when conducting perfectly legal business? You don't need an ID to buy a hammer or a knife. Why should you need one to buy a phone?
- marssaxman 11y ago
  The political scaremongers are the ones harping on about the fringe cases, to our general detriment. There's nothing wrong with a desire for privacy, and anyone who wants to buy a phone without having to provide a bunch of records should be able to do so.
gscott 11y ago
Also if they had been bought within a certain time-frame it is not to hard to go back and get video of the purchase depending of where it was bought at. It isn't instant to find the person but not usually impossible. Walmart takes video of every purchase, correlates the items bought to the credit card, etc.

by Nrsolis 11y ago

nodesocket 11y ago

Let's be realistic, investigative journalists can get phones from their employer. People on HN always seem to bring up the fringe case... The small percentage. Ignoring the vast majority of actual use.

robryk 11y ago
> trying to uncover government wrongdoing GP's point seems to be that it's pointful to avoid association of that phone with any news organization at all in such cases.
sathackr 11y ago
well then for that matter lets just toss out the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, since they are mostly used by dissidents and criminals to escape prosecution.
sathackr 11y ago
Oh, I might add, the vast majority of prepaid cell phone use is not criminal use [citation needed] I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of the use of most things currently being argued (encryption is the hottest one right now) is not criminal. So you want to force the majority use to give up their privacy and trust every retailer of prepaid phones with their personal information, because of the fringe cases of criminal use?
- Nrsolis 11y ago
  My point exactly. The fact of the matter is that prepaid phone use (much like encryption) is used by people for pretty banal purposes: they want to make sure that their private life stays private. Maybe they are carrying on an illicit affair. Maybe they are running a side business their employer wouldn't approve of. Whatever the reason, people have a certain right to privacy. The burden isn't on US to demonstrate why we need privacy. The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to demonstrate why they need to pull back the curtain on someone else's privacy to further a legitimate government interest. That's the crux of every argument opposing the government keeping records (or forcing the record-keeping by business) on everything a person does in the course of their life. The VAST majority of prepaid phone use is legitimate and non-controversial. Why burden all of those uses with a specious need to identify themselves when conducting perfectly legal business? You don't need an ID to buy a hammer or a knife. Why should you need one to buy a phone?
marssaxman 11y ago
The political scaremongers are the ones harping on about the fringe cases, to our general detriment. There's nothing wrong with a desire for privacy, and anyone who wants to buy a phone without having to provide a bunch of records should be able to do so.

gscott 11y ago

Also if they had been bought within a certain time-frame it is not to hard to go back and get video of the purchase depending of where it was bought at. It isn't instant to find the person but not usually impossible. Walmart takes video of every purchase, correlates the items bought to the credit card, etc.