> Burner phones are mostly associated with criminal activity, so tying phones to identities feels like a legitimate function -- which many countries do. And if

> Burner phones are mostly associated with criminal activity, so tying phones to identities feels like a legitimate function -- which many countries do. And if criminals are trying to register phones through identity theft, this seems like it would be an additional protection. > If you're concerned with privacy, that's what encrypted communications are for... That's all true, but the real question is: what exactly is "criminal activity?" That's how a policy can be made to seem legitimate on the surface, but can actually be quite sinister when examined more closely. Policies like this one cannot be examined in isolation, and must be interpreted in context [1]. > If you're concerned with privacy, that's what encrypted communications are for... I'm pretty sure that E2E encrypted communication products are de-facto banned in China, at least for private citizens [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusade-of-chinas-human-rights-lawyers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... [2] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2064587/chinas-move-clean-vpns-and-strengthen-great-firewall https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/20...