8 ms·
The FCC wants your ID before you get a phone number
- varispeed 5mo agoDomestic abusers rejoice. Just hide the victim's ID and they won't get a phone.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- trollbridge 5mo agoMy state has laws specifically about this which help DV victims replace stolen wallets, birth certificates, IDs, and so on. Whether we like it or not, ID is required to function in society these days. The public has, in general, decided they don't like the alternatives, and I would count myself among those who would prefer to have working phone service again without endless junk calls versus the hypothetical ability to go get a phone without ID.
- nullc 5mo ago> I would count myself among those who would prefer to have working phone service again without endless junk calls False choice. It's quite possible that this will not substantially reduce much less eliminate the junk calls. It will substantially reduce my ability to obtain an anonymized number that no one knows about and has any reason to junk call. I don't get any junk calls on my anonymous numbers, if if I did, I'd toss that number and get another and the junk could not follow it unless whomever I was using the number with was the source of the leak and then I'd stop doing business with them in the future. Past privacy violations are what are driving the scam calls, making their be a mandatory loss of privacy at the moment you get the number will not help.
- tomrod 5mo ago> Whether we like it or not, ID is required to function in society these days. Why?
- simoncion 5mo agoYeah. This USian has reliable access to the following without presenting ID * Telephone service * Internet service * A rental apartment to live in and relevant utilities * Food * Clothing * Entertainment * Medical care * A bank account It has been so long that I can no longer clearly remember, but I think that I didn't have to present ID to get my job and get paid. Maybe things are way worse over in Euroland? Or maybe US-based authoritarians have successfully used the threat of imaginary "Stranger Danger" to turn the screws tighter for access to some of those things over the past ten, twenty years? I know it's not medical care, internet access, food, clothing, or entertainment because I've changed providers for those fairly recently.
- jen20 5mo agoHow did you rent an apartment without ID? Every time I’ve done that they wanted an SSN, a credit check, and the pledge that your first born would be named after whatever dipshit was in the office that day. You absolutely cannot get a bank account without an ID either: KYC is a thing. Finally, you must complete an I9 form for any new job, which requires (wait for it) an ID.
- rkomorn 5mo agoI'm pretty sure I've had to show ID going to the doctor's office as well.
- iamnothere 5mo agoMaybe rent from individuals instead of corporate landlords. There’s no law against it.
- simoncion 5mo ago> You absolutely cannot get a bank account without an ID either. And yet, I have multiple accounts. Go figure. > How did you rent an apartment without ID? I dunno. The paperwork was done like a bit more than fifteen years ago. But I've only been asked for my ID for apartment-related things once and that was to tour a place in a shitty, shitty apartment complex more than... twenty years ago. > ...you must complete an I9 form for any new job, which requires (wait for it) an ID. I'm pretty sure that all I've ever been asked for is name and SSN. Again, maybe this stuff is new as of the past ten, twenty years. Strong, strong anti-immigrant sentiment has a way of gripping people's hearts and making them do stupid shit.
- iamnothere 5mo ago> I would count myself among those who would prefer to have working phone service again without endless junk calls versus the hypothetical ability to go get a phone without ID. And I would count you among the people who shouldn’t have a say in how these laws affect our right to privacy.
- tzs 5mo ago> Whether we like it or not, ID is required to function in society these days. Not in the US. See this thread [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911619
- HNisCIS 5mo agoWill this finally get Signal to stop demanding phone numbers to register accounts? Lots of services you'd rather have an anonymous account with (Google, Meta, Discord) are partially/fully mandating phone numbers as a spam mitigation strategy. Also this paves the way to internet connections/mobile internet requiring ID
- Cider9986 5mo agoSignal's requirement for phone numbers has allowed it to surge in popularity by allowing it to take advantage of people's already established contacts. They do this in a privacy respecting way[1]. Simultaneously, Signal is trying to raise the cost of accounts by requiring phone numbers. Although spammers can get mass amounts of phone numbers, it will at least raise the cost. Email 0 cents, phone # 10 cents–there will be less spammers with phone #s. I don't think we'd have to worry about the spam if people only used usernames instead of phone numbers, because it would be massively harder for spammers to find your account and message you. But, with usernames, you don't get the contact discovery that allows for growth. [1] https://signal.org:8443/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org:8443/blog/private-contact-discovery/
- HNisCIS 5mo agoThat's all nice but it's also the defacto option for non technical people who need state actor resistant security and if they can just be subpoenaed to get the verified ID of the account holder that defeats the entire use case
- Cider9986 5mo agoSignal is not an anonymity tool–it is a privacy tool. It is not anonymous in any way. If you need anonymity you should use SimpleX over Tor.
- HNisCIS 5mo agoSimplex is run by borderline grifters and Tor isn't a messenger. I don't understand why this is so controversial. If you follow the news on the slightest the game right now is feds raiding journalists, taking their devices and then trying to unmask their sources. It doesn't matter what XYZ is "for", when the stakes are this high we need to be protecting people full stop.
- bloomingeek 5mo agoSo, we all go back to land lines for privacy?
- mattmaroon 5mo agoDoes anyone imagine the government doesn’t already know who owns every phone number? Also, couldn’t this system be optional, numbers that are ID-verified are somehow flagged so (assuming I choose) when one calls my phone knows to let it through and when an unverified number calls it doesn’t ring?
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoThey know through indirect means. So they buy all the cellphone data specifically the gps location data in the us and funnel it through huge servers. So they can determine patterns, addresses, etc. This makes that easier and doesn't risk any of the legality if their should be illegal data sources or other likely illegal activities. Tldr: This is a way to defeat vpns.
- mattmaroon 5mo agoYeah I strongly suspect this will allow them to use it in court considerably more frequently. But still, I know they know who I am. Anyone with a cell phone in their pocket has no privacy. It’s the best tracking device ever. Anyone who thinks anything at all can make that problem worse simply doesn’t understand that they have none. I’d rather have zero privacy and zero spam calls than zero privacy and lots of spam calls. Obviously I’d prefer privacy and I think we need a constitutional amendment to that effect, but as far as showing our ID to eliminate spam in a world where zero privacy exists, sign me up.
- KevinMS 5mo agoI can understand the motivation. I've had the same number since the 90's and never once got a spam call until I was in the hospital last year and since then I've been getting 2-3 a day every day. They've probably left at least a thousand voice mails for a great loan opportunity, all from different numbers and different loan amounts.
- panny 5mo ago>until I was in the hospital last year So much for HIPAA huh?
- balamatom 5mo agoScience opportunity! >:] Get yourself locked up in the slammer for a night while carrying a fresh burner; observe them writing down your IMEI and IMSI; see if that makes you start getting robocalls.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoPhone numbers aren't protected health information.
- AnimalMuppet 5mo agoIs the fact that I was in the hospital protected health information? If not, why not?
- reaperducer 5mo agoI wouldn't blame the hospital. It was documented years ago that lawyers were buying cell phone location data from the carriers in order to drum up potential clients in hospitals. Blame the data industry and big tech.
- AnimalMuppet 5mo agoAnd lawyers.
- han1 5mo agoAs always, this will only affect those who either lack the knowledge or the resources to work around it. The innocent people always take the fall.
- axus 5mo agoInstead of forcing people and businesses to do all the work, how about the government does all the work and manages the data, and lets people opt-in to the system.
- airstrike 5mo agoyou trust the government to manage the data?
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoNot this administration. That said sam altman, Elon musk, mark Zuckerberg, and Alex karp, etc are this administration. So either way we are boned.
- Lonestar1440 5mo agoPrivacy has to be one goal among many in a reasonable society. I am very glad to see this change, because phone-based Fraud is a plague on the Elderly and other vulnerable members of society. And an incredible annoyance even to a security conscious professional. The guard against intrusive and oppressive government is the Bill of Rights, not some easy ability to get a phone number anonymously.
- han1 5mo ago[dead]
- panny 5mo agoOkay, but you're telling me kids that don't have a government ID can't have phones now, right?
- trollbridge 5mo agoKids can get government IDs. In my state, it's free for anyone under the age of 17. It's also free for anyone who can provide adequate proof they can't afford the $15.
- tzs 5mo agoWhat about people who can't afford the costs to get the documentation required in order to get the ID?
- trollbridge 5mo agoA birth certificate is $25. My state has a programme for people who can't afford that to get a grant to pay for that, too. I used to be quite anti-"comrade, your ID, please", but now that it's required anyway to function, we might as well get some benefits from it. Such as attestation of phone numbers being "this is from a real person who is an ordinary consumer".
- 5mo ago
- balamatom 5mo agoAlready the case in most EU countries. I don't know if there is a commensurate robocaller problem. Come to think of it, when I get an EU SIM, it does start getting robocalls... as soon as I give the number to some Big Legitimate Business that is supposed to be observing GDPR and whatnot. Come to think of it, from what I know about this "mass surveillance" bullshit, robocallers being an inside job makes perfect sense.
- big85 5mo agoThis is part of the same trend which requires ID to use social media, view adult content, or log into their own computer. The goal is to give government control of computers and communications.
- han1 5mo agoChina has had the requirement to "bind" online accounts to ID for almost a decade. No one complained because they already verified with Weixin (WeChat) so they just linked their accounts to it.
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoAmerica, all the crumbling industries and oligarchs of Russia, all the domestic surveillance of China, none of the healthcare of other developed countries, and more guns then any other nation.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 5mo agoAre you sure that no one complained?
- cjbgkagh 5mo agoAnyone who complained was disappeared so no-one is complaining anymore. China took over Honk Kong and lots of people complained about that before it happened but afterwards not so much.
- SirFatty 5mo agoAnd how would you know that no one complained?
- iamnothere 5mo agoI doubt “no one complained” is accurate, but the people of China as a whole have seemingly accepted it, and it’s their right to determine how their nation will function. Their willingness to accept it likely comes from their unique history and the current government’s progress in stamping out poverty, improving infrastructure, etc. In the West we are declining. Implementing these kinds of control measures here looks like a power grab and an attempt to prepare the ground for war measures (information control and censorship). I don’t want this and nobody that I know IRL wants this. People know they are slowly being herded towards their death but nobody knows what to do about it.
- smcleod 5mo agoThis is the way it works in Australia. I wasn't a huge fan of having to prove who I am and have my identity related to be able to txt and make phone calls or use mobile internet when I moved here.
- dlcarrier 5mo agoIn theory, it's also how it works in the US, but most store clerks don't pay attention to the regulations and let customers buy pre-paid SIMs with cash. There really isn't any punishment for it, which may explain the rule change.
- Smoosh 5mo agoAnd yet we still have a huge problem with spam calls and “nothing can be done about it”.
- delish 5mo agoThe difference between say a think tank and an advocacy organization like "reclaimthenet.org" is a think tank hopefully feels obligated to think about, and pitch, a solution to the identified problem (spam calls). Obviously reclaimthenet.org can post whatever they want on their site. I'm curious about requiring all phone calls except to emergency services to cost a tenth of a cent. Or some amount that permits desired robocalling (prescription drug reminders for those not on the 'net) and excises spam calls.
- danaw 5mo agoyeah think tanks are notorious for pitching honest solutions to problems and not just pushing forward their specific agendas what's your argument here? that what they posted is wrong? that this change isn't harmful?
- taylodl 5mo agoSince numbers can be spoofed what problem is this actually solving? None?
- vednig 5mo agoevery thing happening right now in privacy space including OS level ID verification, then websites requiring ID and now this is strangely alarming right to privacy and speech will soon be very limited in aspects only relating and possible offline and very soon there will be nothing one can do about that
- iamnothere 5mo agoIt’s not strangely alarming, it is obviously alarming and for good reason. Take this seriously and get prepared. It’s not a drill, and it’s not something that the next administration is going to roll back, whoever ends up winning. You can’t vote your way out of this. In the future, privacy and tech sovereignty will be a strictly offline affair.
- rationalist 5mo agoWhat do you suggeat for preperations?
- iamnothere 5mo agoStock up on old computers, maybe small cheap SFF/NUC models. You will want replacements on hand as well as some to hand out to trusted friends. Don’t forget to get spare drives, used is fine considering the price right now. Download and archive (on durable media) ISO, source code, and documentation of simple, durable operating systems that can be easily maintained and modified. I would suggest OpenBSD and a few Linux distributions. If you’re not a skilled programmer I would suggest learning the basics. Make sure you get any software packages you’ll need as well. Mirror the source code of applications like mail servers/clients, UUCP, NNCP, Nostr servers/clients, and any other tools you find that would be useful for storing and later transmitting or copying data opportunistically. Think back to the early days of the internet; the dialup/BBS model is very apt. You want to be able to do work offline, then either connect and exchange info briefly or pass data offline via sneakernet. Get some bulk micro SD cards. Get into packet radio. Make friends and start building a network. Offline.
- declan_roberts 5mo agoYou know the FCC is going to do this and still be completely unable to stop spam calls. You're going to get all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits.
- joquarky 5mo ago> You're going to get all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits. In my 50 years of living this has always been the rule, not the exception whenever politics and technology collide.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoBack when all phones were land lines were you able to get service connected without showing some identity? I honestly don't remember, and I had land lines at several addresses. I would assume they would want to ID the account owner in case they later had to collect, but they at least had the name you gave them, probably SSN or drivers license number too.
- reaperducer 5mo agoYou didn't have to give them an ID because they knew exactly where the phone was going. I had my first phone installed back when you had to walk down to the phone company office and sit at a desk and fill out a form. Then a week later, a guy showed up at your home and put the wires in. When I had my second line installed, it was after the Bell breakup, but again they didn't ask for ID, but I had to give them a $50 deposit to be used against phone rental and per-minute service.
- eesmith 5mo agoCorrect. They knew the address. Someone had to live there to use it. The first time I needed to show id for phone service was for my first cell phone in 1999, and I thought it was odd to need it. By that time I had had 5 different land line numbers, from moving around.
- aspbee555 5mo agospam/phishing/malicious calls do not come from individuals. How about they start with preventing caller ID spoofing/requiring proper caller ID? the spam calls come from call farms that rotate numbers. they should be required to present a unified and verifiable caller ID Phone systems can put whatever they want in caller ID, there should be verifiable reverse lookup to a valid registered number along with fines for violators requiring an individuals ID to get a phone number is going to make the spam/phishing/malicious problem WORSE along with the enormous risks of that database being exposed/abused
- PokedBear 5mo agoBusiness PBX folks really like being able to forward calls off to a cell phone while preserving the original caller's caller ID. And making that work requires allowing arbitrary spoofing. There is some work being done to append the stir/shaken signature from the original caller in a different sip header so the call can still be traced, but ultimately caller id is just too limited of a data framework to relay all the info.
- Chris2048 5mo agoIf they are calling via a business caller ID then what's the problem - just treat the associated business as responsible.
- abtinf 5mo ago> there should be verifiable reverse lookup to a valid registered number This has existed for a very, very long time; its just a business feature you have to pay a lot of extra money for and that is generally unavailable to consumers. Business customers get access to DNIS and ANI. DNIS is the number that was dialed to reach the business. It is used for call routing and marketing analytics. ANI is the phone number from which the call was made. It’s used again for call routing and analytics, but also billing. It’s how they knew where to send the bill back in the days of 1-900 numbers. Because real money is involved, it’s a pretty good bet it’s usually tied to the real entity. You, as a mere consumer, are left with caller id, which no business user cares about.
- 5mo ago
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- jmclnx 5mo ago>FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed it around negligent carriers. Do people remember the "No Call List" ? All that did was provider real phone numbers to telemarketers after they moved their operations to another country to avoid the laws. How is this going to prevent robocalls ? All this is really saying to me is: Some politicians got a bribe (or in the US called campaign contributions) to provide a new list of valid phone numbers along with personal information for use for marketing or other purposes.
- greyface- 5mo agoFCC NPRM: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-enhanced-know-your-customer-requirements https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-enhanced-know...
- JohnTHaller 5mo agoThis will do absolutely nothing to stop robocalls, spam calls, and phishing calls. This is entirely about tying a specific phone number to a specific government IDed individual.
- tamimio 5mo agoI hope it’s clear for some why phone numbers are still required in most online services nowadays to “verify” you, it was never about verification, it’s about linking your digital life to real one. Now that a digital ID is required and tied to that number, knowing your number is enough to know everything about you, including your past as it logs where you have been too. So you post something “not approved” in social media despite being legal, you get a visit.