The FCC wants your ID before you get a phone number

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-fcc-wants-your-id-before-you-get-a-phone-number

by delichon • 2 months ago

81 105 2 months ago

varispeed• 2 months ago

Domestic abusers rejoice. Just hide the victim's ID and they won't get a phone.

trollbridge5• 2 months ago

My state has laws specifically about this which help DV victims replace stolen wallets, birth certificates, IDs, and so on.

Whether we like it or not, ID is required to function in society these days. The public has, in general, decided they don't like the alternatives, and I would count myself among those who would prefer to have working phone service again without endless junk calls versus the hypothetical ability to go get a phone without ID.

nullc• 2 months ago

I would count myself among those who would prefer to have working phone service again without endless junk calls

False choice. It's quite possible that this will not substantially reduce much less eliminate the junk calls.

It will substantially reduce my ability to obtain an anonymized number that no one knows about and has any reason to junk call. I don't get any junk calls on my anonymous numbers, if if I did, I'd toss that number and get another and the junk could not follow it unless whomever I was using the number with was the source of the leak and then I'd stop doing business with them in the future.

Past privacy violations are what are driving the scam calls, making their be a mandatory loss of privacy at the moment you get the number will not help.

tomrod3• 2 months ago

Whether we like it or not, ID is required to function in society these days.

Why?

iamnothere6• 2 months ago

I would count myself among those who would prefer to have working phone service again without endless junk calls versus the hypothetical ability to go get a phone without ID.

And I would count you among the people who shouldn’t have a say in how these laws affect our right to privacy.

tzs3• 2 months ago

Whether we like it or not, ID is required to function in society these days.

Not in the US. See this thread [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911619

HNisCIS3• 2 months ago

Will this finally get Signal to stop demanding phone numbers to register accounts?

Lots of services you'd rather have an anonymous account with (Google, Meta, Discord) are partially/fully mandating phone numbers as a spam mitigation strategy. Also this paves the way to internet connections/mobile internet requiring ID

Cider99866• 2 months ago

Signal's requirement for phone numbers has allowed it to surge in popularity by allowing it to take advantage of people's already established contacts. They do this in a privacy respecting way[1].

Simultaneously, Signal is trying to raise the cost of accounts by requiring phone numbers. Although spammers can get mass amounts of phone numbers, it will at least raise the cost. Email 0 cents, phone # 10 cents–there will be less spammers with phone #s.

I don't think we'd have to worry about the spam if people only used usernames instead of phone numbers, because it would be massively harder for spammers to find your account and message you. But, with usernames, you don't get the contact discovery that allows for growth.

[1] https://signal.org:8443/blog/private-contact-discovery/

HNisCIS3• 2 months ago

That's all nice but it's also the defacto option for non technical people who need state actor resistant security and if they can just be subpoenaed to get the verified ID of the account holder that defeats the entire use case

bloomingeek• 2 months ago

So, we all go back to land lines for privacy?

mattmaroon5• 2 months ago

Does anyone imagine the government doesn’t already know who owns every phone number?

Also, couldn’t this system be optional, numbers that are ID-verified are somehow flagged so (assuming I choose) when one calls my phone knows to let it through and when an unverified number calls it doesn’t ring?

2ndorderthought4• 2 months ago

They know through indirect means. So they buy all the cellphone data specifically the gps location data in the us and funnel it through huge servers. So they can determine patterns, addresses, etc.

This makes that easier and doesn't risk any of the legality if their should be illegal data sources or other likely illegal activities.

Tldr: This is a way to defeat vpns.

mattmaroon5• 2 months ago

Yeah I strongly suspect this will allow them to use it in court considerably more frequently.

But still, I know they know who I am. Anyone with a cell phone in their pocket has no privacy. It’s the best tracking device ever.

Anyone who thinks anything at all can make that problem worse simply doesn’t understand that they have none.

I’d rather have zero privacy and zero spam calls than zero privacy and lots of spam calls. Obviously I’d prefer privacy and I think we need a constitutional amendment to that effect, but as far as showing our ID to eliminate spam in a world where zero privacy exists, sign me up.

KevinMS2• 2 months ago

I can understand the motivation. I've had the same number since the 90's and never once got a spam call until I was in the hospital last year and since then I've been getting 2-3 a day every day. They've probably left at least a thousand voice mails for a great loan opportunity, all from different numbers and different loan amounts.

panny4• 2 months ago

until I was in the hospital last year

So much for HIPAA huh?

balamatom2• 2 months ago

Science opportunity! >:]

Get yourself locked up in the slammer for a night while carrying a fresh burner; observe them writing down your IMEI and IMSI; see if that makes you start getting robocalls.

SoftTalker3• 2 months ago

Phone numbers aren't protected health information.

Cider99866• 2 months ago

HIPPA doesn't do anything to protect your medical privacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sfIBRTcRpU).

gosub100• 2 months ago

Probably a coincidence. I didn't get any spam calls either, until I did.

KevinMS2• 2 months ago

Sometimes they'd screw up their message and call me "patient", and once even called me "file".

maccard• 2 months ago

Then the FCC have hid this well - they don't want this to stop spam they want it to link phone numbers to people.

If they wanted to stop spam they'd fix it so that carriers were required to ensure the numbers aren't spoofed. This would stop spam overnight.

medvidek2• 2 months ago

Personal anecdata: I get much more spam calls on a number from a country with mandatory ID sim card registration than on a number from a country where anonymous sim cards are allowed. Both numbers are almost 20 years old and I barely use them for anything but calls/sms to friends/relatives and receiving bank 2FA SMSes.

Smoosh2• 2 months ago

Personal anecdote from my wife yesterday. She doesn’t get many spam calls but has noticed that when a particular friend calls her, she gets a spam call later that day. I surmised that the friend has some spyware on their phone which is reporting “active” numbers.

rolph• 2 months ago

"phone number?"

"i dont have a phone"

"emergency contact?"

"911, no one else is better suited to respond to an emergency?"

rationalist3• 2 months ago

Medical establishments are notorious for asking for lots of information they do not need.

For example, every hospital and office I've been to asks for my Social Security Number, yet none have said anything when I leave it blank.

han12• 2 months ago

As always, this will only affect those who either lack the knowledge or the resources to work around it. The innocent people always take the fall.

axus• 2 months ago

Instead of forcing people and businesses to do all the work, how about the government does all the work and manages the data, and lets people opt-in to the system.

airstrike• 2 months ago

you trust the government to manage the data?

2ndorderthought4• 2 months ago

Not this administration. That said sam altman, Elon musk, mark Zuckerberg, and Alex karp, etc are this administration. So either way we are boned.

Lonestar14404• 2 months ago

Privacy has to be one goal among many in a reasonable society.

I am very glad to see this change, because phone-based Fraud is a plague on the Elderly and other vulnerable members of society. And an incredible annoyance even to a security conscious professional.

The guard against intrusive and oppressive government is the Bill of Rights, not some easy ability to get a phone number anonymously.

panny4• 2 months ago

Okay, but you're telling me kids that don't have a government ID can't have phones now, right?

trollbridge5• 2 months ago

Kids can get government IDs. In my state, it's free for anyone under the age of 17. It's also free for anyone who can provide adequate proof they can't afford the $15.

Lonestar14404• 2 months ago

Yes, I think that the phones of minors should be traceable back to their parents; who would provide their ID at the sale of the e-SIM.

jancsika• 2 months ago

Privacy has to be one goal among many in a reasonable society.

I have to say, coming from "Lonestar1440" that implies quite the rebrand for Texas:

Texas: Just One Star Among Fifty Equals.

Edit: clarifications

Lonestar14404• 2 months ago

It's a reference to Spaceballs, not the state fwiw

fwipsy• 2 months ago

The Bill of Rights was published over 200 years ago. It can't possibly anticipate the modern privacy landscape. We need to (and do) extrapolate from the intent of the Bill of Rights to cover modern technology. Protecting phone and internet traffic is an example of this, but no longer sufficient. The US is becoming a panopticon. The Fourth Amendment protection against wiretapping is insufficient when the government also collects so much metadata. If we cede every form of privacy not explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, we will soon find that on their own they provide barely any privacy at all.

Hahaha who am I kidding, that ship has sailed. It's a lost cause.

Lonestar14404• 2 months ago

I agree that we need better case law - downstream of better politicians and better judges - to apply the intent of the 4th to modern society.

And if you think we need a new ammendment to strengthen it, i'm in for that as well.

These are all real solutions

Making "Privacy" easier is not a real solution. The panopticon will get you whether you use a VPN or a burner or whatever.

The only solutions are political.

balamatom2• 2 months ago

Already the case in most EU countries. I don't know if there is a commensurate robocaller problem.

Come to think of it, when I get an EU SIM, it does start getting robocalls... as soon as I give the number to some Big Legitimate Business that is supposed to be observing GDPR and whatnot.

Come to think of it, from what I know about this "mass surveillance" bullshit, robocallers being an inside job makes perfect sense.

big85• 2 months ago

This is part of the same trend which requires ID to use social media, view adult content, or log into their own computer. The goal is to give government control of computers and communications.

han12• 2 months ago

China has had the requirement to "bind" online accounts to ID for almost a decade. No one complained because they already verified with Weixin (WeChat) so they just linked their accounts to it.

2ndorderthought4• 2 months ago

America, all the crumbling industries and oligarchs of Russia, all the domestic surveillance of China, none of the healthcare of other developed countries, and more guns then any other nation.

Eddy_Viscosity2• 2 months ago

Are you sure that no one complained?

SirFatty• 2 months ago

And how would you know that no one complained?

iamnothere6• 2 months ago

I doubt “no one complained” is accurate, but the people of China as a whole have seemingly accepted it, and it’s their right to determine how their nation will function. Their willingness to accept it likely comes from their unique history and the current government’s progress in stamping out poverty, improving infrastructure, etc.

In the West we are declining. Implementing these kinds of control measures here looks like a power grab and an attempt to prepare the ground for war measures (information control and censorship). I don’t want this and nobody that I know IRL wants this. People know they are slowly being herded towards their death but nobody knows what to do about it.

2ndorderthought4• 2 months ago

Yep. Google an offense contractor for the department of war is now going to require phone attestation to access the internet. This goes right in line with the actual desires here. Technofacism is going to hit fast. Especially seeing as how many people here and in other communities have their head in the sand.

panny4• 2 months ago

The creeping is advanced by the blue/red team mentality too. MAGA won't care about this because their guy is in charge. If he were not, there would be conspiracy theories about how this is all a plan to get Trump and his supporters. For now team blue complains until their guy is in charge, like how Biden insisted everyone needed to show vaccine papers to participate in society and they were silent. Few can see that the two teams are different sides of the same coin.

tomrod3• 2 months ago

I'm not going to roll in the mud here. Rather, it is sufficient to point out that generically showing a vaccine record/card for a limited time is qualitatively different from online tracking of all activity, and that COVID killed a lot of people. The US federal government is tasked with ensuring the general welfare of all people in its nation on line one of the US Constitution. Vaccine mandates are clearly and objectively in line with that, the recent internet hostilities have a much harder time making that case.

Also, I've found Costco aluminum foil is substantially more durable than grocery store aluminum foil. I do not work/shill for Costco.

smcleod• 2 months ago

This is the way it works in Australia. I wasn't a huge fan of having to prove who I am and have my identity related to be able to txt and make phone calls or use mobile internet when I moved here.

dlcarrier• 2 months ago

In theory, it's also how it works in the US, but most store clerks don't pay attention to the regulations and let customers buy pre-paid SIMs with cash. There really isn't any punishment for it, which may explain the rule change.

Smoosh2• 2 months ago

And yet we still have a huge problem with spam calls and “nothing can be done about it”.

delish• 2 months ago

The difference between say a think tank and an advocacy organization like "reclaimthenet.org" is a think tank hopefully feels obligated to think about, and pitch, a solution to the identified problem (spam calls).

Obviously reclaimthenet.org can post whatever they want on their site.

I'm curious about requiring all phone calls except to emergency services to cost a tenth of a cent. Or some amount that permits desired robocalling (prescription drug reminders for those not on the 'net) and excises spam calls.

danaw• 2 months ago

yeah think tanks are notorious for pitching honest solutions to problems and not just pushing forward their specific agendas

what's your argument here? that what they posted is wrong? that this change isn't harmful?

taylodl• 2 months ago

Since numbers can be spoofed what problem is this actually solving? None?

vednig• 2 months ago

every thing happening right now in privacy space including OS level ID verification, then websites requiring ID and now this is strangely alarming

right to privacy and speech will soon be very limited in aspects only relating and possible offline and very soon there will be nothing one can do about that

iamnothere6• 2 months ago

It’s not strangely alarming, it is obviously alarming and for good reason.

Take this seriously and get prepared. It’s not a drill, and it’s not something that the next administration is going to roll back, whoever ends up winning. You can’t vote your way out of this.

In the future, privacy and tech sovereignty will be a strictly offline affair.

rationalist3• 2 months ago

What do you suggeat for preperations?

declan_roberts• 2 months ago

You know the FCC is going to do this and still be completely unable to stop spam calls. You're going to get all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits.

joquarky• 2 months ago

You're going to get all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits.

In my 50 years of living this has always been the rule, not the exception whenever politics and technology collide.

SoftTalker3• 2 months ago

Back when all phones were land lines were you able to get service connected without showing some identity? I honestly don't remember, and I had land lines at several addresses. I would assume they would want to ID the account owner in case they later had to collect, but they at least had the name you gave them, probably SSN or drivers license number too.

reaperducer2• 2 months ago

You didn't have to give them an ID because they knew exactly where the phone was going.

I had my first phone installed back when you had to walk down to the phone company office and sit at a desk and fill out a form. Then a week later, a guy showed up at your home and put the wires in.

When I had my second line installed, it was after the Bell breakup, but again they didn't ask for ID, but I had to give them a $50 deposit to be used against phone rental and per-minute service.

eesmith• 2 months ago

Correct. They knew the address. Someone had to live there to use it. The first time I needed to show id for phone service was for my first cell phone in 1999, and I thought it was odd to need it.

By that time I had had 5 different land line numbers, from moving around.

aspbee555• 2 months ago

spam/phishing/malicious calls do not come from individuals. How about they start with preventing caller ID spoofing/requiring proper caller ID?

the spam calls come from call farms that rotate numbers. they should be required to present a unified and verifiable caller ID

Phone systems can put whatever they want in caller ID, there should be verifiable reverse lookup to a valid registered number along with fines for violators

requiring an individuals ID to get a phone number is going to make the spam/phishing/malicious problem WORSE along with the enormous risks of that database being exposed/abused

PokedBear• 2 months ago

Business PBX folks really like being able to forward calls off to a cell phone while preserving the original caller's caller ID. And making that work requires allowing arbitrary spoofing. There is some work being done to append the stir/shaken signature from the original caller in a different sip header so the call can still be traced, but ultimately caller id is just too limited of a data framework to relay all the info.

Chris2048• 2 months ago

If they are calling via a business caller ID then what's the problem - just treat the associated business as responsible.

abtinf• 2 months ago

there should be verifiable reverse lookup to a valid registered number

This has existed for a very, very long time; its just a business feature you have to pay a lot of extra money for and that is generally unavailable to consumers.

Business customers get access to DNIS and ANI.

DNIS is the number that was dialed to reach the business. It is used for call routing and marketing analytics.

ANI is the phone number from which the call was made. It’s used again for call routing and analytics, but also billing. It’s how they knew where to send the bill back in the days of 1-900 numbers. Because real money is involved, it’s a pretty good bet it’s usually tied to the real entity.

You, as a mere consumer, are left with caller id, which no business user cares about.

therealpygon• 2 months ago

It has nothing to do with that. It’s to positively identify all of your collected data as absolutely having come from you before being fed into Palantir/whatever AI systems and data collection they can use. It’s just an extension of the forced ID in states under the guise of “protect the children” which is always the thing used to take away rights of adults. Anonymity is a check on power, hence the reason all systems of government eventually seek to take it away and criminalize it. You can’t threaten who you don’t know, but you can absolutely silence someone you do.

jmclnx• 2 months ago

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed it around negligent carriers.

Do people remember the "No Call List" ? All that did was provider real phone numbers to telemarketers after they moved their operations to another country to avoid the laws.

How is this going to prevent robocalls ?

All this is really saying to me is: Some politicians got a bribe (or in the US called campaign contributions) to provide a new list of valid phone numbers along with personal information for use for marketing or other purposes.

greyface-• 2 months ago

FCC NPRM: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-enhanced-know...

JohnTHaller• 2 months ago

This will do absolutely nothing to stop robocalls, spam calls, and phishing calls. This is entirely about tying a specific phone number to a specific government IDed individual.

tamimio• 2 months ago

I hope it’s clear for some why phone numbers are still required in most online services nowadays to “verify” you, it was never about verification, it’s about linking your digital life to real one. Now that a digital ID is required and tied to that number, knowing your number is enough to know everything about you, including your past as it logs where you have been too. So you post something “not approved” in social media despite being legal, you get a visit.

The FCC wants your ID before you get a phone number

Related Stories