Germany to ban anonymous SIM cards[German]
pressetext.com
pressetext.com
Otherwise it would be a waste of time and money.
" We keep on getting stuck in investigations because of SIM cards not associated to a name!"
" Well let's ban anonymous SIM cards. People should be alright handing over their name for a cell phone."
"Alrighty then, sounds good"
Things like this happen because nobody in the room mentions the drawbacks. This can mainly be a question of social status ("Why would people be afraid of the police? They help you!").
Also, some people's value systems are different...
But in my view, the much more important problem is that the surveillance state makes people afraid of getting wrongly accused of a crime. They stop doing perfectly legal things because they might be difficult to explain. I have observed that in my own behavior and I know others who have become very defensive in their use of the internet.
It would only make no difference if the result of the trial would be independent of the additional evidence that a surveillance state could in principle collect. But this would mean that the surveillance state is not necessary.
(a) Someone who has committed a crime
(b) Someone who was convicted of a crime he may or may not have committed
I was using (a). If you are using (b) then I understand where you're coming from. But I think it's not a good idea to use (b) because that would make everyone who is the victim of a miscarriage of justice a criminal when in fact they are not.
I watched an excellent speech of a law professor giving examples of people who broke the law without realising. Unfortunately, I don't remember how to find that video.
My point is that law makers define what a crime is. The effectiveness of law enforcement doesn't change that fact. It's not good to have laws on the statute book that wouldn't be there if only they could be enforced.
So if the surveillance state highlights the fact that we're all criminals, what that should tell us is that criminal law is in urgent need of a root and branch review.
The surveillance state is a very bad idea for many reasons. But saying that we reject the surveillance state because then laws could actually be enforced is a questionable argument. There are many better ones.
Odds are, in a few hundred years, we'll end up right back where we started.
Most criminals aren't masterminds (and the few who are, are genrelly designed with other names, such as "politicians"); if you make it difficult to procure a phone, and a weapon, and to hide on the net, etc., many of them won't be able to assemble everything they need to commit serious crimes without getting caught.
One of the reasons why gun homicides are so much less prevalent in Europe is that if a minority of hardcore, resourceful criminals can find guns through black markets, most of the random losers can't: too complicated, too expansive, some planning-ahead required... And the many losers are the ones causing the bulk of criminality, not the few hardcore criminals.
This is the same circular non-logic that permits officers to arrest you merely for resisting arrest.
The state decides to make wearing blue illegal; I continue to because I am a strong "blue believer"; thus, merely by insisting on wearing blue, I MUST hang with other law-non-abiders (aka "criminals") and thus become a "person of interest" to law enforcement for no other reason than sticking to principles.
Possessing an anonymous SIM card is no sole indicator that you are up to no good. Assuming so is problematic due to a good privacy argument by Martin Fowler: http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html
However, this was neither the OP's point, nor what I was answering too. He described the measure as ineffective, because most criminals would be able and willing to acquire an illegal SIM before using a phone. I believe this to be false and I explained why. Being dangerous for liberties is not the same as being effective from police forces' PoV; actually, these two qualities are negatively correlated most of the time.
Want to buy AK-47 with ammo in Paris? Just go to shady suburbs, if you know where to go/right people it's piece of cake for few hundred euros (not living there myself, but I have a colleague who comes from there and this is his consistent description).
Most likely, non-exclusive explanations:
* you underestimate the difficulty of acquiring such a weapon without being caught nor robbed;
* you overestimate the abilities of most criminals.
Incidentally, I happen to have spent about half of my life in Paris and its suburbs. I believe it gives me at least as much legitimacy as having watched a couple of sensationalist reports on French TV stations. Which, moreover, I have also watched :-)
Guns are not a fundamental piece or even really necessary, when living in a modern society. A SIM card on the other hand, is pretty darn convenient for the general population.
Whether they're right to belive they don't need one, that's an interesting but different question!
Do you think someone who bought a sim-card from someone else is going to "register" that card with authorities? "Hey, I just bought this card, so you can't follow me. Where do I update my info?"
Once you know a SIM card is suspect, because it's been registered by a known addict and trafficker, you can put a wire on it even if you don't know who holds the phone. With this plus BTS-based geolocation, your chances of catching typical, opsec-illiterate criminals are vastly improved.
It's strange to think that other countries have restrictions on buying SIM cards, I can literally go to the corner store and get one for $20, with $20 credit on it.
http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention
Malte Spitz sued to have his telephone provider hand over six months of his phone data. He gave it to Zeit Online who used it to create this record of where he had been.
It's probably not too surprising to many people any more, but I still find it amazing when I watch it. And it might be interesting to people who don't realize how detailed the information is. I also think the visualisation is nice.
This pisses me off, and I wager a large portion of the German populace. Let's hope this goes down in flames.
My perspective is continually that the existing government fails to represent the people, and any polar opposite party will force the existing government to compromise in their plans, and create policies that do more accurately reflect the will of the people.
Exhibit a
That's why they were invited - they could never introduce such measures, but now they're making you "safe".
At which point you can just get your anonymous SIM from any EU country that still issues unregistered SIMs.
Edit: I may have missed the sarcasm in the parent post..
Roaming is using your SIM outside the geographical coverage area of the home network.
The EU's mandatory maximum 'roaming' prices are lower than the normal prices charged at home. So, when I use my UK Tesco Mobile phone in Germany, things become cheaper.
There are also people that register hundreds of cards on their own name and resell them.
This is just another invasion of privacy and not even worth it imho.
And obviously no identity theft will happen, since no one ever hacked any provider and you cannot ask a homeless guy to buy you a dozen.
Not for long
http://www.gazetawroclawska.pl/polska-i-swiat/a/koniec-anoni...
The Govt wanted to streamline banking and commerce, so they said "federal currency is legal tender for everything". Not because cash is cool. Because they only had cash or barter, and wanted just one cash.
Maybe we should rethink all this - if anonymity is important, cash isn't the best way. E.g. they could chip our coins and paper money, and track it through every transaction. Still cash; but not anonymous.
Anyway just thinking out loud.
If Germany begins tightening up laws (beyond just ID for SIMs) regarding data communications, but other countries don't, and you can roam your data between them - it creates an incentive for people to just ignore Germany as a supplier, and hop across the border and chose someone more flexible.
Besides, what further tightening of laws regarding data communications do you see Germany implementing? I hardly think requiring ID for SIM purchase will be a sufficient incentive to make users lose the advantages of a local phone number, having to figure out a way to credit a foreign pre-paid SIM, etc.
The address data is supposed to be put into a searchable database allowing security officials to search for names even if the exact spelling isn't known (which appears to be a problem with current systems). For privacy purposes, they plan to put a limit on the number of records displayed in response to a search query.
Now they know its coming, won't they just stick up on sims first?
This seems stupid to me.
For at least the last three or four years in Australia there is a requirement to present Photo ID before buying a SIM card. I was quite surprised by this when I tried to buy a SIM at Sydney airport a few years ago.
I have no idea what the government is doing with the data nor how it is protected. At the time, I just wanted a local SIM and to be on my way.
Germany is a bit touchy when it comes to measures like this. After the experiences of the Nazi regime, even things like a census or introduction of a TIN met massive, years long resistance.
One election gone wrong is all it takes and all those data will be used for genocide. Again.
I like to believe we are a bit further away from genocide than one election gone awry. 71 years passed, you know.
It hasn't happened in one of the big powers in awhile, but 71 years isn't that long. It wouldn't be paradise the day before an election and hell the day after, but you never know what event will be pivotal. Until armchair time.
People look up to Germany. Germany setting themselves up for disaster will make other people think they're somehow safe.
I gather they object as I do, to Merkel's arrogant 2015 invitation to migrants which impinges on every person in the EU and particularly in the UK which is a honeypot for EU citizens (which migrants will be in a few years) earning less than the minimum wage.
In Portugal usually you always need to present you ID card and Tax ID together when some form of identification is required.
To the point that the actual ID cards (Ausweis) have the citizen ID, tax ID and social security ID all together.
Identity is a right that government must warrant, not something dirty that should be buried.
I literally just explained how it's not.
> There are no practical negative consecuences
Assuming an ideal, benevolent government.
(Presumably residing on an infinite frictionless plane, feasting on spherical cows.)
While IDs do have negative consequences, I see zero downside in replacing VATIN, passport number (linked list of "previous document" in worst case, down to birth certificate), army id number, employment record book number and "$surname $name $patronymic, born $birth_date at $birth_place, registered $registration_place" official title with single citizen ID.
I am not arguing for using government-issued IDs for non-government services (as in original post), and consider enforcement of such use a direct attack on citizen freedom, but only for having single ID for use in state-person relations.
Not in all countries. Germany used to have explicit laws against combining state and federal record bases, they were only recently eroded to "fight terrorism".
BTW, shame on Chrome for allowing it without a warning :-/ Firefox totally refused to connect.
Rather because of the experience with the Stasi in the former GDR.
Because first they'll come for the contractless?
Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?
No, but census data were extremely useful in organizing the holocaust.
> Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?
Because in these cases that's how the political discussion in Germany in the 1980s/2000s went when the above-mentioned measures were discussed. It's simply the benchmark our governments are judged by. The Nazis are not some boogeymen that you use whenever you need a politically correct movie villain, they were the democratically elected government of a first world nation, and should be treated as such.
More generally: Governments should not operate as efficiently as possible. They should be easy to keep in check by the population.
So, sticking to what it is about, if you think your invoking of the Nazis and the Holocaust was even remotely appropriate in this thread, explain how banning anonymous SIM cards aids a future genocide.
I know, right? You'd think slaughtering a few million people in half a decade or so was some kind of big deal, or something.
As for your invidious attempt to distract from said comparison by slinging mud, I'll just point out that you're severely underplaying your hand here - a goodly fraction of what went into Hitlerism, not least the theory and practice of eugenics, originated with Progressive Era luminaries of the United States. Indeed, our nation might've gone much the same way as yours, were it not for the benefit of Germany's salutary, if horrible, example.
Between collecting data on SIM card ownership and the Holocaust? No, I can't see how any level-headed person can draw such a comparison.
> As for your invidious attempt to distract from said comparison by slinging mud
WTH are you talking about?
I'll let you work out the rest yourself.
What will happen then? Starbuck will need to ask for your ID when you connect to their wifi? Russia is doing pretty much that with internet cafes.
These control freaks need to get over the idea that they will achieve electronically a level of government control which would be absolutely unacceptable in the physical world (the "I want you to report to the police who you talked to during the day and you also need to check their ID to ensure that your reports to the police are accurate", even the Soviet Union - or the Stasi - didn't go that far).
The largest such network that I know of anywhere.
Not where I was going in Australia! The Optus network only worked when it felt like it, and that was just 350km from Sydney.
While visiting Mozambique a month back, I used a passport to buy a SIM card. Seems like Germany is just catching up with the rest of the world.
The policy seems to be inconsistently applied tho, if you buy it at a large store they'll ask for an ID but you could also get the SIM cards at smaller kiosks and even stands at the airport (Libre mobile which is pretty much the provider for cheap migrant labor across Europe) they didn't seem to care that much.
Also opposition in Germany says this might be discriminatory to refugees, since some of them have no documents.
I have a czech prepaid sim, never had to show an ID for it.
> Hungaria
True, ID needed there.
> Ireland
I had an Irish Three Sim. No ID was needed.
> Greece
Looks like an ID is needed there from Googling.
If I want to text, call (VOIP), email, chat, message you over wifi I don't.
Sounds very secure.
Never a truer word spoken.
I bought a 10EUR SIM with a US driver's license (had left my passport in the hostel, and just wrote down the address of the hostel I was staying at).
It takes few minutes. This was done to fight identity theft. We don't have terrorism problem here because people who used to be regarded as terrorists(freedom fighters) by former unjust, apartheid government are now in power. If your SIM card is registered under your name, no-one else will be allowed to do a SIM swap on it. Only you can do such after providing proof of identification.
I feel it makes it easy for the law enforcement agencies to track down criminals if they used the SIM card to commit crime. Our government doesn't have history of invading privacy of their citizens, which makes it easier to trust them.
No, it doesn't. SIM cards registered with false identities are available for about R50 apiece in central Johannesburg, without any need for the buyer to provide identification. The police are aware of this.
>Our government doesn't have history of invading privacy of their citizens, which makes it easier to trust them.
That's naive, there have been a number of stories showing just how badly the government abuses the privacy of ordinary citizens. Amongst these was a story by the Mail and Guardian showing that the government had performed over 6 million electronic intercepts in the first years that RICA was active, along with testimony from current and former intelligence officers stating that they often hid unauthorised intercepts amongst the multitude of authorised ones.
There is also clear evidence that a number of journalists, including two at the Mail and Guardian, have had their phone calls, text message and internet usage intercepted by SA intelligence agencies.
As for authorisation, all the state requires to perform a broad intercept is the say-so of a retired judge appointed and paid by the Minister of Justice. That means that unlike a regular court judge, whose remuneration and service depends on an independent entity in the Judicial Services Commission, the RICA judge is subservient to the Executive.
The access for those intercepts is easy too, given that RICA requires that the major phone companies, internet exchanges and ISPs create real-time data feeds into the various Interception Centres managed by the Office of Interception Centres. This allows them to snoop on the internet and phone traffic of all South Africans in real-time without the need to even inform the companies providing the data.
RICA's main purpose was to make it easier for the state to legally surveil as many people as it wanted to without too much in the way of opposition. It's not a good law.
I doubt this will solve much terrorism-wise though. You can't expect phone shops to verify the validity of every foreign ID and address, just supplying fake data wouldn't be hard (and probably go unnoticed until it was 'too late').
A better question is will this stop terrorism? If the answer is no, or unlikely, then it's just yet another inconvenience (and invasion of privacy) for lots of innocent people.
What problem is being solved then? In the best case it is simply power tripping busywork that makes the world a little bit more annoying.
This is another measure that endangers the innocent and still does nothing to stop the baddies.
Do you want to live in a police state? How will this benefit European people?
This rubbish is what leads to civil wars. You (and people like you) think you should know everything about everyone. People fought and died to protect Europeans from that.
You want to go back to fighting for basic rights that were hard won with peoples blood.
*Posted from my pre-elop nokia w/ a an anon SIM.
If not, why not?
I just gave invented details both times.
So now it's impossible, eh?
A mobile phone might be a 'new invention' that you can get away with not using, but what about transport? In my city it's been game over for years, decades even.
The London Underground is the one subway in London. It uses a smart card, the cash fares are a multiple of the cost, and there are CCTV cameras everywhere anyway so you're tracked.
The red buses removed cash fares and now smart card/contactless bank card are the only way of paying.
The central region is plastered in car licence plate recognition cameras so you can't drive. (They exist ostensibly because there is a congestion charge for driving in the central region).
You can cycle or walk but facial recognition kills that eventually.
So yeah, existing in London basically means the authorities know, or have the ability to know, where you are at all times within a few metres regardless of whether you use a phone or not, it's just a matter of how integrated these databases are and whether anyone can be bothered.
To me it feels a lot like, in major cities anyway, this privacy battle is just completely lost, because there are attacks on all fronts. You can have your anonymous phone, but are you wearing face paints? Do you ever drive? Do you ever take public transport?
The further you go out of the city, assuming you don't have a mobile phone, I suppose there are fewer data points available. You can roam about in farmer's fields or something, no cameras there yet. Maybe the minor cities have analogue cameras, or they're turned off due to funding, or whatever.
It's gone beyond something to be depressed or feel a call to action about at this point I feel - it's a bit like a lion chasing a gazelle - it just is. Fighting against this individual initiative feels good, but is it ultimately futile?
The actions required in order to attempt not to fall into these databases seem to have gone from "don't use your real name online" to "don't drive a car" to "don't take trains with your bank card" to "pay cash on the bus" to... eventually it's just done, all of it's tracked, I can pay with cash at the local store but there's a digital IP camera in the corner so sooner or later they know it anyway.
And the rational amongst us know that it's not about us. It means nothing that I can go 'off the grid'. What means something is that society as a whole is able to appreciate this, and I think the number of intrusions is high enough now that they simply can't. It's like asking people to go without oxygen. It's everywhere.
The fight I'm really concerned with is privacy within the home, in private establishments. I want to know that conversations between me and my friends stay within that box, that private sphere. Miniaturization and propagation of technology just seems to make that an impossible goal, though.
I don't want it, but I really feel like privacy is dead, we just don't fully know it yet.
Has anyone attempted such a thing? For example, on my commute to work I might pass a security camera, tap in my smart card, pass a few more cameras, spend 50 mins on a predefined route (unless I jumped a fence which a camera would probably see me doing), etc etc.
So on the left side of the 'video', you would have me walking about doing stuff, and on the right side, you can have a google-maps overlay of what's actually happening, little pop ups 'stegosaurus buys a pack of chewing gum', etc.
The idea has been floating around in my head for a while, I don't know why or what I'd hope it would achieve, just seems like a fun way to illustrate the problem, if it even is a problem and not just a natural progression.
1) Building up a tree of accounts from anonymous services like mailinator and anonymously bought sim cards and phones
2) Hijacking random people's equipment in order to do 1.
By banning anonymous services, people will have to turn to temporary hijacking to achieve the same ends.
Obviously if I knew I could have just bought one off a shelf I would have.
First you get rid of the public payphones, then you require a valid address for a mobile. Poof! The homeless truly can disappear.
Can we please think of something to stop this?