Germany to ban anonymous SIM cards[German](pressetext.com)
pressetext.com
Germany to ban anonymous SIM cards[German]
https://www.pressetext.com/de#news/20160415021
28 comments
Those SIM cards are also banned in Bulgaria, but people find all kinds of way to buy hundreds of cards that belong to retired or mentally ill people, and others or import cards from abroad.
When I was vacationing in Germany years ago I couldn't get a prepaid phone or a sim without having a German address. Did they make it easier only to now make it more difficult?
Did I read that right? Complete address required?
First you get rid of the public payphones, then you require a valid address for a mobile. Poof! The homeless truly can disappear.
First you get rid of the public payphones, then you require a valid address for a mobile. Poof! The homeless truly can disappear.
Couldn't find link in English. German government is planning to make it impossible to buy SIM cars anonymously.
Link 404s
unlinker(1)
This is terrible news. I wanted to get a sim card for Japan, but you can only get a pocket wifi device, which isn't so bad, but not as straightforward as swapping your sim out for a local sim as i do when in the states or malaysia.
That's not true. You just can't get a sim card with voice/SMS capability.
Foreigners can get data only SIMs no problem, most airports will sell them (often out of a vending machine)
e.g. https://t.iijmio.jp/en/
Given VOIP, what is the rationale of making this distinction?
So voice SIMs can't be used as throwaway cell numbers, I'd guess.
According to the text, they want to achieve this by forcing vendors/providers to check the ID of the buyer, even for prepaid SIMs.
Main points of the article: For purposes of terrorism prevention, the current German government wants to require sellers of SIM cards to check photo ID and ask for current address. If this happens, it will be (theoretically) impossible to own a German phone number that isn't connected to a name.
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.
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.
How many terrorists are entering Europe using real names and papers? How many have faked photo ids?
Now they know its coming, won't they just stick up on sims first?
This seems stupid to me.
Now they know its coming, won't they just stick up on sims first?
This seems stupid to me.
as we learned from paris and 9/11 they bring and lose their IDs.
I think these checks are probably already pretty common in other parts of the world.
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.
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.
> I think these checks are probably already pretty common in other parts of the world.
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.
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.
> 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.
I like to believe we are a bit further away from genocide than one election gone awry. 71 years passed, you know.
Societies pass from peaceable to terrifying all the time, and it generally happens pretty quickly. Nobody ever seems to see it coming, although it's always obvious in hindsight to armchair analysts.
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.
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.
Yup. Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur. Four genocides since WWII.
People look up to Germany. Germany setting themselves up for disaster will make other people think they're somehow safe.
People look up to Germany. Germany setting themselves up for disaster will make other people think they're somehow safe.
Russia being a good example.
When was the transition? I don't remember Russia ever being a peaceable society.
1989. Most of the west expected communism to fall eventually, but nobody expected it to end as it did, when it did.
Probably a decade away, but Turkey is in the process of turning into a nondemocratic state, as is Hungary. Suppose the Syrian civil war spreads to Turkey (which already has its own ongoing conflict against its Kurdish minority). The collapse of Turkey would dump tens of millons more refugees into Germany. A few years of that and the people running on a platform of expelling Turks at gunpoint might start becoming popular.
Comparing Hungary to Turkey is insulting for Hungarians. Just because they oppose some mainstream EU bullshit does not make them less democratic than Germany or France (in fact I would consider Hungary MORE democractic).
It is a little bit difficult to find websites that represent Hungary's point of view in the controversial issues, though I'm pretty sure that the common presentation (that is biased towards the EU one) is not the whole truth...
And? People aren't less manipulatable than their grandparents were. Just look at the recent election successes of the AfD.
This is a cheap smear. If you want to criticise the AfD - fine - but be specific and give your reasons.
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.
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.
They are a protest party. Being right-wing is incidental here – they appeared out of nowhere, gained support fast due to unforeseen political circumstances, but they don't exactly have a mature political agenda. They're most likely no new NSDAP, but who says we'll be that lucky every time protest parties sprout up?
The CDU moved more into a more left direction under Merkel, so there are politicians who will try to capture the more right-wing voters who don't feel themself represented by the CDU anymore. Voila - AfD is born. As a German I don't like the AfD but really don't worry about it.
FYI: the TIN is a unique number associated to each person living in Germany. New born babies are getting a TIN faster than most of the congratulation cards... It is issued by the tax authorities and as a foreigner living in Germany you also get one.
Germany is not alone.
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.
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.
Resistance to ID is just an americanism. There are no practical negative consecuences and a lot of good ones.
Identity is a right that government must warrant, not something dirty that should be buried.
Identity is a right that government must warrant, not something dirty that should be buried.
> Resistance to ID is just an americanism.
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.)
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.)
Government will identify citizens anyway. It's not choice between ID and no ID, but between simple ID and ad-hoc scheme (Name/Surname/Birthdate/Residence composite, or issuing separate id for each institution).
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 $registration_place" official title with single citizen ID.
While IDs do have negative consequences, I see zero downside in replacing VATIN, passport number (linked list of "previous document" in worst case, down to birth certificate), army id number, employment record book number and "$surname $name $patronymic, born $birth_date at $birth_place, registered $registration_place" official title with single citizen ID.
Centralization and slack are inversely proportional. If everybody is reliably and unambiguously identified from birth by a single government-issued and -maintained key, and that government turns against its citizens (or is overthrown, compromised, et cetera), you're basically hosed.
That data is already centralized and interlinked. There is no 'slack' (ambiguity and leeway) as far as government is concerned.
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.
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.
> That data is already centralized and interlinked.
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".
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".
You need to assume nothing. Your government is spying on everybody without an ID. Your explanation just doesn't qualify, sorry.
>
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.
Rather because of the experience with the Stasi in the former GDR.
Rather because of the experience with the Stasi in the former GDR.
The Gestapo used the same – and worse – methods as the Stasi did, and in the 1980s, when the general census was planned, the Stasi's exact methods weren't well-studied in the west. The 1983 census decision mainly evolved around theoretical threats (panopticon effect) and the provisions of the German constitution (basic law), which was made in the immediate aftermath of WW2 and grounded on the concept of inalienable human dignity.
For the census (in the 80th) you are right, but today the political activists rather use comparisons with the Stasi. For example when Wolfgang Schäuble was Interior Minister activists against the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz (Access Impediment Act) often used the slogan "Stasi 2.0" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_2.0). The same slogan is used by activists against Vorratsdatenspeicherung (data retention).
"SSchäuble" was also used when referring to him in general.
Correct, but SSchäuble was a slogan of rather low level (in my opinion), just as "Rollstuhl-Nazi" (wheelchair nazi).
> One election gone wrong is all it takes and all those data will be used for genocide. Again.
Because first they'll come for the contractless?
Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?
Because first they'll come for the contractless?
Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?
> Because first they'll come for the contractless?
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.
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.
This is not about collecting census data, is it?
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.
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.
Banning anonymity in any form infringes on your right of expression, as it results in the panopticon effect. The BVerfG put it far more eloquently than I could: https://web.archive.org/web/20101116085553/http://zensus2011...
Great. Now explain how banning anonymous SIM cards causes genocide.
> Why is it some people are incapable of discussing Germany without tiresomely invoking the Nazis?
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.
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.
To be honest, studies have shown that we're all capable of that. But, no harm no foul, so its all on the Germans at present.
What happened to Native Americans was "kind of a big deal" too. So was slavery. Should people therefore bring them up every time there's a completely unrelated discussion about the USA?
Completely unrelated? A German government legislates the use of technology to make identifying and tracking its citizens easier, and you can't see how people draw the comparison?
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.
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.
> and you can't see how people draw the comparison?
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?
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?
In a "completely unrelated" discussion? No. But bringing up past German government failures in a discussion about a German government tightening up blanket surveillance of all their citizens is not "completely unrelated".
Let's hear it, then, what's the relationship between banning anonymous SIM cards and genocide.
Why is it some ppl always have to complain about that?
They do it here in Thailand. Last year they set a cutoff date - if you had not registered your SIM + gov issued id by a certain date your service was cutoff and you couldn't get new service until you did. The reason was "terrorism", because southern insurgents kept using cell phones as remotes to set off bombs. Now the government uses the information to round up pesky people who use chat apps on their phones to organize protests against the military junta. That's the pattern, right? Start with /terrorism/think of the children/war on drugs/ and transition to general oppression of the populace.
I think it is sort of pointless. You have free wifis pretty much everywhere now. You don't really need a SIM card to communicate - even by voice - with other people.
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).
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).
Free Wifis are a lot more scarce in Germany though.
https://freifunk.net/en/
The largest such network that I know of anywhere.
The largest such network that I know of anywhere.
Check out https://seattlemesh.net/
I don't know about Germany, but a friend of mine visited London without roaming, and I was surprised that he achieved pretty much constant connectivity. There is almost not a single restaurant, coffee shop, airport or train without free wifi.
That's completely different in Germany, because here everyone with an internet access is legally liable for any misconduct done using their connection.
There are movements to change this, but Germany still is the country with the lowest free-wifi coverage worldwide (I assume).
The equivalent of that in the physical world would be the restaurant being responsible for what its guest are discussing about at its table. How do we know that these guys in suit at that table aren't planning a fraud?
I think it's safe to say you have probably better free wifi coverage than somewhere like Somalia or Liberia.
> I think it is sort of pointless. You have free wifis pretty much everywhere now.
Not where I was going in Australia! The Optus network only worked when it felt like it, and that was just 350km from Sydney.
Not where I was going in Australia! The Optus network only worked when it felt like it, and that was just 350km from Sydney.
Australia is particularly bad at the Internet because of state meddling. But Australians like a large amount of state meddling, so don't expect this to change any time soon.
In South Africa, we had this kind of checks since 2003. Not only are you supposed to present an ID book, you are also required to bring a verifiable proof of residence.
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.
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.
I had to bring my passport to get a pre-paid SIM card in Germany over 3 years ago, this isn't anything special.
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.
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.
Is there any detail regarding how the requirement will reduce terrorism?
Is this so bad? I remember back in 2012 when I visited Berlin I had to register my SIM with my Belgian ID and address too. It only took a few minutes, it's not that much of a hassle. At the phone shop in Belgium where I work we were required to ask for a name and address too (but didn't check ID's for prepaid cards).
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').
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').
For me it's certainly bad. Terrorism isn't a real issue, it's an excuse for governments to take freedom from people. I want to be able to use phone and internet without being tracked by anyone.
This is exactly spot on.
> Is this so bad?
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.
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.
Some vendors require you to show an ID but right now you can get many SIM-Cards that can be registered online or via phone call and the data provided doesn't get verified.
That's the thing they want to change.
> Is this so bad? ... I doubt this will solve much terrorism-wise though.
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.
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.
If I'm really a bad guy, I just steal a bunch of SIM cards or entire phones.
This is another measure that endangers the innocent and still does nothing to stop the baddies.
This is another measure that endangers the innocent and still does nothing to stop the baddies.
If you use a non-EU passport they'll take a copy of it and ask you to register where you are staying.
I think this is a good move. Whether it can solve terrorism issue or not that does not mean the government can't even try.
How would this solve terrorism?
I never said it will solve terrorism. I said it's a good thing that government is trying at least.
How is gathering more data on citizens a good thing?
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.
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.
It's a good thing for data farmers, marketeers and opressors in power. Remember who the governments are beholden to and their actions(elimination of anonymity, TPIP et al, constant surveillance) all make sense... from their perspective.
*Posted from my pre-elop nokia w/ a an anon SIM.
*Posted from my pre-elop nokia w/ a an anon SIM.
How about we put you in jail? You might be a terrorist, so at least we are trying to stop terrorism!
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
Shouldn't the government be trying things that are expected to work? Otherwise this is just another example of the Politician's Fallacy.
Thankfully because there's no roaming in the EU, there's absolutely no other way to get an unregistered SIM card to work in Germany..
There is roaming in the EU, but it's not cheap - but that is changing very soon https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/roaming-tariff...
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..
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 in the EU is cheap. On pay-as-you-go (prepaid), it's cheaper for me to send a text or make a call from Germany than it is back home here in the UK.
Are you sure you're roaming? Or did you buy a pay-as-you-go local SIM? I'm unaware of any provider who actually discounts texts/calls while roaming. Three in the UK charge you the same price in some European countries but that's the best deal I know of.
Roaming is using your SIM outside the geographical coverage area of the home network.
Roaming is using your SIM outside the geographical coverage area of the home network.
Yes, I'm roaming.
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.
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.
If even if there was roaming, there isn't any internet to order foreign SIM cards online.
There are already methods in place to get an anonymous SIM card even if this law gets passed.
There is a SIM exchange service run by privacy activists. [0]
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.
[0] http://www.daten-speicherung.de/index.php/kartentausch/
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.
[0] http://www.daten-speicherung.de/index.php/kartentausch/
Get a car in Berlin, drive for 1h to the first gas station in Poland. This is yet another stupid law. No problem for bad guys, just hurting legitimate businesses.
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.
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.
> drive for 1h to the first gas station in Poland.
Not for long
http://www.gazetawroclawska.pl/polska-i-swiat/a/koniec-anoni...
Not for long
http://www.gazetawroclawska.pl/polska-i-swiat/a/koniec-anoni...
Presumably all european nations will harmonize in the next year or two and it will be a requirement to provide government identification prior to purchasing a data SIM.
An ID is required in France (and presumably in other EU countries) to buy a SIM card and has been for some years... and yet no harmonization has taken place.
Might be technically required, but.. http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/10/free-will-sell-sim-cards-us...
Where do I put my passport in this SIM vending machine? :-)
At least in the picture of the vending machine I see no possibility of using cash. Instead you probably have to use your ATM card or credit card, which leaves a strong data trace.
I'm thinking, the anonymity of cash is currently very popular, but probably unintended. See, used to be anybody could print currency, but not everybody accepted all the different kinds.
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.
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.
The name on the credit card is a much weaker data point than an actual photo ID. Assuming terrorists have access to guns and explosives, but not to stolen/registered to a fake name cards is not very reasonable. Even with the photo ID requirement, it's shouldn't be that hard to buy a stolen phone with a prepaid SIM that the owner didn't bother blocking.
And it stopped how many terrorists?
I'd be willing to wager this will change very quickly, no later than end of 2018.
Why is that presumable?
In general, Europe tries to have consistent policies regarding commercial activity, such as mobile data communications. Otherwise you run into odd arbitrage situations, or scenarios where people dodge legislation/laws in one country simply by hopping across the border, potentially putting businesses at a commercial (dis)advantage based on the country they are in, which is counter to some of the EU objectives.
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.
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.
Sure, yet thousands of my compatriots have and continue to travel every month to the neighboring country to fill up their gas tanks, due to much lower fuel taxes. Just because Germany decide to cripple their providers does not necessarily mean the EU will impose the same on every other member state.
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.
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.
Harmonisation in general is one of the main aims of the EU. I can't comment on the two year timescale though.
Anon SIMs are already banned in many EU countries. It does not really work, some homeless people have thousands SIMs registered on their name.
Also opposition in Germany says this might be discriminatory to refugees, since some of them have no documents.
Also opposition in Germany says this might be discriminatory to refugees, since some of them have no documents.
In which ones? I have manu prepaid sims from all over Europe and the only one with a name on is an old italian one when they required it. Which i think they no longer do.
In Spain you must present a valid ID since a few years ago. After a grace period they deactivated all SIMs not linked to a name.
Italy still requires to link a SIM to a person. I don't remember if I had to show my id or my fiscal code last time I got a new SIM. No more than a 30 seconds procedure. They note it down and that's it. It's been like that for so long that I forgot when and why they introduced this legislation.
It is still required to have your name tied to SIMs in Italy. You are asked to show an ID (or driver's license) and your fiscal code[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fiscal_code_card
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fiscal_code_card
I had to show ID in Czech Republic, Hungaria, Ireland and Greece.
> Czech Republic
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.
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.
I confirm: in Ireland you can buy a sim (I have a tesco mobile SIM) with no ID
In South Africa, we have had this kind of legislation since 2003. It is called RICA(Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act). Shops aren't allowed to sell a SIM card without proof of identification. Foreigners can use their passports to register a SIM card.
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.
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.
>I feel it makes it easy for the law enforcement agencies to track down criminals if they used the SIM card to commit crime.
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.
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.
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that there is so much surveillance from our government. Snooping on journalists isn't on at all. Now I know my text messages aren't safe.
If I want to text or talk to you over a cell network I need to show ID.
If I want to text, call (VOIP), email, chat, message you over wifi I don't.
Sounds very secure.
If I want to text, call (VOIP), email, chat, message you over wifi I don't.
Sounds very secure.
What I dislike about it is as more sites require sms verification, your sms number becomes a 'real id'. Given that your mobile subscriber likely sells your demographic information, it's pretty shit for privacy. A lot of services reject voip numbers for verification.
This is why 'free' online services require your mobile number to activate & "protect access" to your account. Sure it works for that purpose, but more importantly, for data/digital tracking, the modern mobile has become the new tracking super-cookie to your digital ID.
> the modern mobile has become the new tracking super-cookie to your digital ID
Never a truer word spoken.
Never a truer word spoken.
Are these services really that important for you that you are willing give them your phone number for verification. I personally don't even own a cell phone and up to now I never felt the need of a service that requires SMS verification.
On my personal accounts, when it was pitched as a security measure, it made a lot of sense. I have been thinking more about privacy and tracking recently, and now it is not nearly as appealing.
And again, a new measure that will affect everybody except criminals, who pay a drug addict to register hundreds of these cards.
It's not intended to stop criminals. It's intended for surveillance and tracking of the population.
Otherwise it would be a waste of time and money.
Otherwise it would be a waste of time and money.
I think you might be overestimating how valuable mass surveillance is for any individual actor in the government, and perhaps the level of foresight necessary... and the amount of thought that goes into this.
" 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...
" 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...
How is survaillance of the entire population not a waste of time and money if it's not ultimately intended to catch criminals?
It's not ultimately intended to catch criminals, it's ultimately intended to gather dirt on dissidents and rivals for sleazy purposes.
Define "criminals" in the context of a panopticon.
Why would the definition change in that context?
For example the case of the social scientist Andrej Holm
(https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrej_Holm&oldid... - in German) who researched in the internet using some keywords ("Gentrification" and "Prekarisierung" (casualization)) that were also used by the terror group mg (militante gruppe ("militant group")) and thus got into the crossfire of the surveillance state.
So someone was wrongly accused of a crime because the methods of catching criminals (that is the surveillance state) turned out to be flawed. I still don't see how that changes the definition of what "criminals" are.
If there weren't the surveillance state, he'd never be put into pretrial imprisonment (for which strong prior evidence that he is indeed a criminal is necessary). So thanks to the surveillance state he was handled as a criminal.
Yes he was accused and then acquitted. That doesn't change the definition of "criminals". The surveillance state may change the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
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.
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.
I think his point is that when you watch anyone long enough, they become criminals. So if you watch everyone, everyone becomes a criminal.
Possibly, but that doesn't change the definition of "criminals".
It does: One is a criminal if the prosecution in a lawsuit can convince the judge that the accused is a criminal. Some evidence can only be collected in a panopticon which can make a difference in the trial.
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.
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.
Then the source of our disagreement is simply this: Is the definition of "criminal"
(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.
(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.
Almost every person on this planet has committed a crime at some point. Sometimes we do it, because we believe it to be insignificant. Sometimes we are not aware that we are committing that crime.
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.
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.
Absolutely, and I'm not a proponent of the surveillance state as some here seem to think.
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.
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.
Start over from zero: We have these civil rights and no one, not even the government, may not impede on them. And then criminalize things that make sense to criminalize.
Odds are, in a few hundred years, we'll end up right back where we started.
Odds are, in a few hundred years, we'll end up right back where we started.
But then, the simple fact that you're using a SIM card bought from a known SIM-trafficking criminal makes you worthy of interest. The phone being instrumental in a first crime, it'll be easy to get a wire warrant and listen for the subsequent crimes you'll commit by using it.
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.
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.
> But then, the simple fact that you're using a SIM card bought from a known SIM-trafficking criminal makes you worthy of interest.
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
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
I'm not arguing that it's a very dangerous slope for public liberties. I believe the checks and balances against executive branches are increasingly broken in most western democracies, and that robust online privacy pushes in the very desirable direction of re-establishing a bit of that balance. I'm really concerned that most citizens don't see this as a major voting issue.
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.
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.
Ah, thank you for the clarification
You sir have apparently no idea how easy is to obtain guns in european underworld, and I don't mean Ukraine or Albania.
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).
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).
Yet empirically, only a tiny, tiny fraction of crimes committed in France are committed with AK-47s.
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 :-)
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 :-)
The comparison with guns doesn't really hold up.
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.
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.
The comparison was only between illegal guns and illegal SIM cards. Very few people have untraceable SIM cards, nor consider that they need one.
Whether they're right to belive they don't need one, that's an interesting but different question!
Whether they're right to belive they don't need one, that's an interesting but different question!
> But then, the simple fact that you're using a SIM card bought from a known SIM-trafficking criminal makes you worthy of interest.
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?"
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?"
No, but I think most of those who make an habit of registering SIM cards on behalf of others will be known pretty fast.
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.
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.
Well, only the criminals that put some effort. Somewhat effective at tracking down the lazy criminals. Also, in places like Singapore, you can only own 5 Data SIMs before they start asking tougher questions. I wasn't aware there were countries that you could purchase data SIMs in without having to hand over passport/government ID, I'd just assumed that was a ubiquitous practice.
In the Netherlands you can buy sim cards without any ID. If you pay them cash, there is no link to you, except maybe a security camera in the shop. You don't need to activate them - they work right away.
In some countries, law enforcement can get a list of devices (IMEI numbers) the sim was used in. Then ask of a list of sims used in that device and a list calls and texts made to / from any of those sims. So, one slip up and the sim will have a link to you.
It is also possible to buy the whole package: SIM card + a disposable 50$ worth dumbphone. Which IMEI will be equaly untraceable.
I've seen dumbphones for sale for $10, including a SIM with $20 credit. Handy for emergencies and for dodgy people.
I've bought several sims in the UK and Ireland over the past year, and none of them have taken an ID.
Same in most of Eastern Europe, just hand over cash and get a SIM card.
In New Zealand, >90% of phones are pre-paid and anonymous (unless you opt to fill in your personal details online).
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.
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.
Yet another example of "terrorists hurt you, so we're going to hurt you to compensate".
Can we please think of something to stop this?
Can we please think of something to stop this?
I know for a fact that there are big banks that don't even have the ID of lots of clients. I'm skeptical of the speed that telcos will apply on the remediation of all these clients. I actually believe the existing clients might stay undocumented forever.
Dang, I wonder what would happen if someone were to use fake ID "issued" the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
I'm an official in the country of Nagorno-Karabakh, all of our ID's are fake.
I bet all citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh also hold perfectly valid Armenian passport.
Anonymity can be obtained in one of two ways:
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.
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.
I didn't even know you could get an anonymous sim. The gauntlet of questions I was asked and the paperwork the salesman thankfully filled out for me, for a prepaid sim, was dizzying.
Obviously if I knew I could have just bought one off a shelf I would have.
Obviously if I knew I could have just bought one off a shelf I would have.
An ID document and proof of address are already required in Germany when buying SIM card directly from mobile network operators (i.e. Telekom, O2, Vodafone). Apparently they plan to apply the same to resellers and virtual operators.
The ID requirement and address requirement were not enforced all that strictly when I was last in Germany.
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).
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).
Oh well. I will create a MVNO in some of the tax heavens. Couple of roaming agreements and we are set. And just issue sim cards at large. It will be more expensive. But doable.
let's just add to the servicewüste[0] of dealing with communication companies in Germany.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicew%C3%BCste
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicew%C3%BCste
I live in Germany. In general Germans are very privacy conscious, due to, as others have mentioned in this thread, experiences with the Stasi. Up until recently with the refugee situation, border control hasn't been too strict, and agents generally don't berate you with questions if you possess validate documents.
This pisses me off, and I wager a large portion of the German populace. Let's hope this goes down in flames.
This pisses me off, and I wager a large portion of the German populace. Let's hope this goes down in flames.
A lot of germans I know are concerned about the new representation of extremist parties in the last elections.
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
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
> Up until recently with the refugee situation
That's why they were invited - they could never introduce such measures, but now they're making you "safe".
That's why they were invited - they could never introduce such measures, but now they're making you "safe".
The last time I visited Germany I was asked for my details in order to buy a phone, and the same to register the SIM card.
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.
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.
One thing I am interested in is visualizing a journey, or an average day, and considering the global view of it.
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.
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.
as a tourist, first priority on the ground in a new country is to get a data connection. I had more difficulty in Germany than other EU countries visited around the same time. Despite promise of a handful of prepaid sim's available everywhere, activation was a roadblock because no local credit card. Eventually found my way to an O2 store where they used their own store address to activate for me and it was all good
There's a Wiki specifically for that purpose [1]. I had minimal problems buying Fyve (Vodafone MVNO) SIM cards two years ago, activated at the point of purchase if I remember correctly. I had to cut them to Nano SIM size myself though..
[1] http://prepaid-data-sim-card.wikia.com/wiki/Germany
[1] http://prepaid-data-sim-card.wikia.com/wiki/Germany
In a tangentially related topic, here's an interesting animation of location tracking of a German politician based on his phone records:
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.
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.
If you've got an Android phone and location history is on, take a look at your own: https://www.google.com/maps/timeline