x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • California Congresswoman proposes law that would require new phone buyers to present personal ID

California Congresswoman proposes law that would require new phone buyers to present personal ID

Posted: , by Alan F.

California Congresswoman proposes law that would require new phone buyers to present personal ID
A California Congresswoman by the name of Jackie Speier has proposed a new bill that would require new phone buyers to register with a personal ID before they are allowed to purchase a new handset. The goal is to prevent the use of burner phones by those planning, or in the midst of committing, an illegal act.

The "burner" phone is a cheap handset that use pre-paid SIMs which can't be traced to the actual user. After they are no longer needed, the burners are destroyed and discarded. By demanding ID before allowing the purchase of a mobile phone, officials believe that they can make it more difficult for terrorists to communicate with each other.

On a Facebook page introducing the proposal, the Congresswoman says, "This bill would close one of the most significant gaps in our ability to track and prevent acts of terror, drug trafficking, and modern-day slavery." This issue is different than the one about encryption. Law enforcement officials are hoping to force phone manufacturers to add a backdoor on all handsets so that the authorities can figure out what the bad guys are up to.

"The 'burner phone' loophole is an egregious gap in our legal framework that allows actors like the 9/11 hijackers and the Times Square bomber to evade law enforcement while they plot to take innocent lives...As we've seen so vividly over the past few days, we cannot afford to take these kinds of risks. It's time to close this "burner phone" loophole for good"-California Congresswoman Jackie Speier

Would it bother you to have to present personal ID when purchasing your next smartphone? Or is a little inconvenience worth it to stay protected from the evil in this world.

source: Independent

38 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 27 Mar 2016, 16:50 2

1. lyndon420 (Posts: 4385; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


The world is a big place...California not so much.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 22:33

26. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 479; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)


Not sure I follow you. She represents California in the House of Representatives. This would end up being a national law.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 16:54

2. mistercarter (Posts: 360; Member since: 01 Sep 2011)


in Spain it's mandatory to register every phone number with a personal ID since early 2000's due to the terrorist attacks in 2004

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 18:59 5

12. zunaidahmed (Posts: 809; Member since: 24 Dec 2011)


phone number is one thing, every phone is another. Most carrier require to present ID to buy a phone anyway. But, how about online purchase? She just proposed a stupid bill that will no way go through.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 17:02

3. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2478; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


This is a good idea.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 18:59 1

11. vincelongman (Posts: 4431; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)


IMO criminals will just pay homeless or junkies to buy phones for them
Or they will buy second hand phones from online

But this is better than banning encryption

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 18:59 2

13. CanYouSeeTheLight (Posts: 1116; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)


Is it really? So if they steal someone's phone and use it the innocent person will be convicted for something they didn't do, same could be said about buying a phone second hand.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 19:07 1

14. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2478; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


That's why you report things stolen. And post people have an alibi when they are innocent.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 22:29

24. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 479; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)


In addition to that many phones come with or have been upgraded to include theft deterrent tech in the OS that lets the victim lock stolen devices remotely or track its current location.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 23:42

30. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2478; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Even burner phones?

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 23:42

29. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2478; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Most*** not post, I really need to start proof reading my comments lol.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 19:45 3

15. Furbal (Posts: 980; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)


You really love government oversight.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 20:08

18. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2478; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


I don't really love anything, If I think something is good then I just think it's good.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 21:41

21. Adreno (banned) (Posts: 755; Member since: 12 Mar 2016)


Not every law is good.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 23:43

31. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2478; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Of course not?

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 23:02 3

27. xondk (Posts: 1402; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)


Dunno, seems like it would only really catch the criminals that are unaware of it, which I seriously doubt will be that many, or the stupid ones.

Which last I checked aren't the 'main' problem? so it seems like another "Lets put a law in place that will have no real effect on the issue and call it a win" political move..

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 17:07 1

4. techman82 (Posts: 39; Member since: 08 Oct 2015)


It's going to happen sooner or later

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 17:29 1

5. Trakker (Posts: 283; Member since: 11 Feb 2016)


Reminds me of a few years ago in UK when we started having to give our name and address over to any store you buy a TV from.
At least here they only ask and don't ask for I.D

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 17:53

7. UglyFrank (Posts: 1652; Member since: 23 Jan 2014)


Isn't that for TV licenses?

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 17:29 4

6. Nissan (Posts: 3; Member since: 27 Mar 2016)


Then they will just buy used phones and use WiFi with encrypted messaging platform. Not so hard after all

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 18:12 2

8. Planterz (Posts: 2079; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)


Someone's been watching "The Wire" too much.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 18:13

9. Subie (Posts: 741; Member since: 01 Aug 2015)


I remember 10 - 15 years ago hearing that this practice was being used by drug dealers. Somewhat surprised the Feds haven't suggested this kind of legislation before.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 18:42 1

10. avalon2105 (Posts: 258; Member since: 12 Jul 2014)


And then second hand phone market booms and you achieve nothing but pi**ing off your customers.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 22:30

25. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 479; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)


Don't think for a second that second hand phone purchases won't also fall under such a new law.

posted on 28 Mar 2016, 06:37

32. elitewolverine (Posts: 5183; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


you cant track the black market

posted on 28 Mar 2016, 06:41 1

33. avalon2105 (Posts: 258; Member since: 12 Jul 2014)


May be, but I fail to see how can government force me to check somebody's ID when selling my old phone.
Let's say I put some old phone for sale and you call me saying you are interested in buying. I tell you to bring 50$ and meet me at coffee shop XYZ. You give me the money and I give you the phone. How can government regulate that sort of transaction?

posted on 28 Mar 2016, 10:55

34. LARPkitten (Posts: 5; Member since: 05 Jan 2015)


Yes, but then the seller falls under suspicion and is responsible if something happens. thereby 1. limiting the number of people who would be willing to do such transactions, and 2. giving the police a starting point for investigation if something happens.

Then again, there's always fake IDs, people willing to take the heat for a price, etc. There is no perfect system.

posted on 28 Mar 2016, 13:32

36. avalon2105 (Posts: 258; Member since: 12 Jul 2014)


I was mainly talking about old phones that one has purchased before this becomes a law. I have 2 Nokias 3210, one 3310, Sony Ericsson K510i and K700i, and couple of Nokia Asha phones that me or my family used over last 15 years. That is almost 10 phones in a family that seldom changes phones. I imagine there are households with 20+ old phones lying around.
And like you said, normal (non law enforcement) person is unlikely to recognize a fake ID (something criminal is likely to use).

posted on 28 Mar 2016, 11:45

35. 0kax0el0 (Posts: 171; Member since: 15 Nov 2012)


It would have to be like selling a car, where you make a letter signed by the one selling it and the one buying it, stating that from that moment on, any activity related to that device is now responsability of the buyer. Of course it would be almost an obligation of the one selling the device as to avoid future inconviniences.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 19:53

16. Quicksword_Phantom (Posts: 30; Member since: 15 Jun 2015)


Who the phuc keeps putting women in power positions? The world is doomed. This old hag has no idea that this bill is pointless when there are other forms of communications and like someone else already said, they can get anyone else to buy them a phone. Also fake identities, etc.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 20:08 2

17. newuser1 (Posts: 257; Member since: 10 Dec 2010)


US government think anybody can be 'terrorist' , then make good reasons to spy on people.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 20:49 1

19. S-R-K (banned) (Posts: 304; Member since: 15 Mar 2016)


They have every rights too. After what's happened in the past.

They should kick out all immigrants out back to where they belong.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 21:46 2

22. Adreno (banned) (Posts: 755; Member since: 12 Mar 2016)


So, you mean only migrants can commit crime?

Kicking them out is pointless.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 23:11 3

28. ninawka (Posts: 21; Member since: 07 Dec 2010)


So we should all be kicked out because we are immigrants or descendants of immigrants ourselves unless you're Native American.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 21:05

20. Chuck007 (Posts: 1110; Member since: 02 Mar 2014)


Well, that'll be a major hit for iPhone sales in California given how many Chinese travel there to get their iPhones when global stock is scarce.

posted on 27 Mar 2016, 21:48 2

23. Adreno (banned) (Posts: 755; Member since: 12 Mar 2016)


I don't just see this bill working. There are many ways to communicate.

posted on 28 Mar 2016, 20:38

37. strudelz100 (Posts: 644; Member since: 20 Aug 2014)


How often do laws come OFF the books?

This is why everything can't be legislated. Soon we will have to ask Uncle Sam to Wipe.

And if we do it wrong, we will get fined.

posted on 29 Mar 2016, 10:42 1

38. TechieXP1969 (limited) (Posts: 10115; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


The terrorist that communicated 9/11 were mostly American. There names were Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, the guy who woned the Trade Center property which I forgot his name and more.

Terrorist didnt perform 9/11. The US Governement orchestrated a plan to start a war, but killing their own people to start it. Sorry its just fact.

If a plane could have actually taken out the building, it would have fallen down immediately after the planes hit them and they would have fell to the side.

Please explain all the white smoke from the foundation. SIMPLE. As will all controlled demolitions, it si done 3 ways. First you must blow the foundation. This was proven to have heppen before the planes hit when bombs went off in the New Yourk subway right by the train stop at WTC.

Eyewitness who saw the blue flashes of light that went down the center of the building and felt extreme heat come from the building. This was the blowing of the central comlumns, to insure the building falls straight down.

The fact that a building with 110 floors, with all that concrete, cabinets, desks, computers and more were all rubble which means the only way all that could ahve been turn to rubble is using explosives.

There is no way terrorist could have planned all of that, and have 4 planes flying unseen for hours. In order for all those things to go wrong and happen right when they did at the same time, it would have taken inside work from several people with authority.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Sponsored deals

Latest stories