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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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').
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
[+] [-] arviewer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] na85|10 years ago|reply
Otherwise it would be a waste of time and money.
[+] [-] fab13n|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ghshephard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swimfar|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] IvyMike|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] titzer|10 years ago|reply
This pisses me off, and I wager a large portion of the German populace. Let's hope this goes down in flames.
[+] [-] cloudjacker|10 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] tdkl|10 years ago|reply
That's why they were invited - they could never introduce such measures, but now they're making you "safe".
[+] [-] 05|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwolf|10 years ago|reply
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..
[+] [-] cm2187|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DominikPeters|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nicelynicely|10 years ago|reply
Now they know its coming, won't they just stick up on sims first?
This seems stupid to me.
[+] [-] phillc73|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dogma1138|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] appleflaxen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkot|10 years ago|reply
Also opposition in Germany says this might be discriminatory to refugees, since some of them have no documents.
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donohoe|10 years ago|reply
If I want to text, call (VOIP), email, chat, message you over wifi I don't.
Sounds very secure.
[+] [-] TACIXAT|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JazCE|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] expertentipp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffasinger|10 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] Bouncingsoul1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opless|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikolay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junto|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madiathomas|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] _djo_|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Ambroos|10 years ago|reply
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').
[+] [-] vbezhenar|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartpuff|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cheshire_cat|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodman|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tempodox|10 years ago|reply
This is another measure that endangers the innocent and still does nothing to stop the baddies.
[+] [-] dogma1138|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azazqadir|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stegosaurus|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gedsic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] harperlee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kequc|10 years ago|reply
Obviously if I knew I could have just bought one off a shelf I would have.
[+] [-] gozur88|10 years ago|reply