3 ms·
People are too free with their phones. Just walk into a bar and say you're too drunk to drive and could the bartender call my wife to pick me up? Not knowing
by VLM 5y ago
People are too free with their phones. Just walk into a bar and say you're too drunk to drive and could the bartender call my wife to pick me up? Not knowing its actually picking up $60M worth of coke instead of picking up me.
Or pull off to the side of the road, walk in well dressed, wave a dead iphone in front of them, ask the receptionist "hey my car broke down and my battery is dead, could you call this number and tell them my car broke down?" Or bonus points if the cops arrive because you're blocking traffic, ask the cop to call on their phone.
(edited I got the best idea that most anyone would fall for: Slip a kid $20 to ask an adult to call his mommie because he got lost...)
- monocasa 5y agoThat's a function of there not being penalties. You'd see that change if the laws changed.
- dredmorbius 5y agoPenalties for what exactly, here? Good Samaritanism?
- monocasa 5y agoThe whole thread here is about penalties for assisting criminal enterprises with a SIM tied to your identity.
- dredmorbius 5y agoAnd if I place a call for someone on good-faith belief that they need assistance?
- monocasa 5y agoI don't get where your point is leading or coming from.
- dredmorbius 5y agoLet's back up a bit here. What specifically in this comment would you penalise? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28620403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28620403 And how would you address the issue of people being good sams --- making calls on behalf of someone else when they ask, in good faith. See for example RMS: When I need to call someone, I ask someone nearby to let me make a call. If I use someone else's cell phone, that doesn't give Big Brother any information about me. https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
- monocasa 5y ago> What specifically in this comment would you penalise? One comment up from that I said: > The easier way to attack this is by instituting a know your customer law for phone systems including prepaid SIMs, combined with accomplice charges for anyone who's SIM is used in connection with criminal acts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > And how would you address the issue of people being good sams --- making calls on behalf of someone else when they ask, in good faith. Prosecutorial discretion. And to be clear I'm not pushing for these laws; I think they're awful. I just see it as a clear direction that .gov is going to go if they feel the need to that's easier than maintaining zero days for general law enforcement. The ability to actually tie phones to personal identity in a way good enough for a court room.
- dredmorbius 5y agoPenalisation under a "KYC" law would have to be extreme. And I suspect there'd be all kinds of challenges to such a requirement. Again, the Good Sam loophole is huge.
- monocasa 5y ago> Penalisation under a "KYC" law would have to be extreme. Yep. It would have to be enacted in the kind of furvor like existed around 9/11. But, the PATRIOT act had been floating around DC for years before 9/11 too. > And I suspect there'd be all kinds of challenges to such a requirement. > Again, the Good Sam loophole is huge. In the US, it really isn't. It's a patchwork of state and local laws that could absolutely be invalidated by the feds in the case of a global communications medium like the phone network, since that implies interstate commerce.
- vkou 5y agoThis is all well and good for communicating a single, pre-planned operation, but you're going to need to communicate a lot more in order to actually do all that pre-planning for it.