Smartphones grant internet access which can allow criminal networking in a way that feature pones cannot. But yes, I agree that in principle, many crimes can be committed without internet access.
Should a person be legally required to register a prepaid smart device?
- Thread starter White_Unifier
- Start date
Smartphones grant internet access which can allow criminal networking in a way that feature pones cannot. But yes, I agree that in principle, many crimes can be committed without internet access.
So, since a small minority of the populace uses smart devices for illegal purposes, you want to punish everyone. Well aren't you a special fu cking dic khead. Anything else you want to see "registered" so the government can keep even closer tabs on us?
How about computers, laptops, tablets. You can get online using smart tv's, and game consoles. Want them registered also?
And fuk you too.
Are you saying that only foreigners actually break laws?
For all we know, Gerryh uses the internet to access all kinds of nude kiddie pics.
And Tecumsehsbones, if you think my recommendation is extreme, even I cringe at reading this article:
Lawmakers pushing to make owning an unregistered prepaid phone illegal - Android Authority
My recommendation is like disneyland compared to the recommendations coming from your country's legislators.
https://thehackernews.com/2016/03/prepaidp-burner-phone.html
She says, "terrorists, **** yeah !
Illegal immigrant to UK 'supplied more than 400 SIM cards to jihadis in Iraq and Syria so they could promote ISIS propaganda'
- Rabar Mala, 32, alleged to have provided 437 cards and phone numbers to ISIS
- He is accused of helping them create platforms to post their propaganda online
- He allegedly activated them in UK, gave them to ISIS members in Iraq and Syria
- Mala denied possessing property for the purposes of terrorism in court today
And what I'm proposing is so moderate that it would not necessarily have prevented this since it would not even require the registration of SIM cards. If the smartphones themselves could be acquired anonymously abroad, then my proposal would not have prevented this. At most, my proposal might reduce organized crime somewhat, perhaps even mostly comparatively petty crimes too.
Yet some in this thread propose that my moderate proposal is somehow tantamount to establishing a police state.
Is it actually possible for you to post a reply without going out of your way to insult the original poster? No wonder you're not taken seriously.
Yup. If the original poster deserves it. So far, they have been few and far between these last 12 years.
Or is Gerry just giving you a touch of your own medicine?
My thoughts EXACTLY!
In this case it could probably save money on at least two fronts:
1. It could make it at least somewhat easier for police officers to trace a crime to its perpetrator, at least in some cases.
2. It could discourage at least some people from committing certain crimes and so reduce the workload on the police.
1. It could make it at least somewhat easier for police officers to trace a crime to its perpetrator, at least in some cases.
2. It could discourage at least some people from committing certain crimes and so reduce the workload on the police.
Let me guess, you are also going propose to forgo the need for warrants or due process?
When did I ever propose that? Even I would not want police officers to be able to intrude on my privacy without a warrant. With that, we could require the police to obtain a warrant even just to access the database identifying me as the registered owner of the smartphone. But such a database would exist at least for smartphones.
But this way, once the police do get a warrant, they could do their work at least somewhat more efficiently.
Also, everyone's sarcasm aside, my proposal is actually more moderate than what is already in the law books in Germany and other EU states and what a few bipartisan bills introduced in the US senate have proposed.
I suspect the smart devices 'phone home' with or without that consent being given. Many will do it as it is tied int warranty issues, for smart devices like cars.
One question, if all the instant tellers can be shut down from one location is there a similar place for all smart devices that can just be told to shut down.
One question, if all the instant tellers can be shut down from one location is there a similar place for all smart devices that can just be told to shut down.
And you figure that should make it ok, and we should all be more than happy with the potential government and police intrusion into our personal lives.
The issue isn't the collection of data it is more about who has access to it. Relatives should be able to follow their 'kin' as close as the system allows, friends should be able to verify that their 'new friend' is not a killer even if he is on Craig's List. Tracking high profile people is where the opposition would come from and to hide that they make it appear that welfare people are the ones who don't want to be tracked. That alone shows the 'owners' are the ones that need to be watched, very closely.
The FED, JFK and a host of other criminal event would have never taken place if they had been watched a bit closer. his current effort is about burying stuff rather than exposing it. It is in place already but just not acknowledged and if it isn't it never will be and it's all a bluff and they don't even have the ability to track the ones on their side let alone the opposition that would take some steps to prevent that.
The FED, JFK and a host of other criminal event would have never taken place if they had been watched a bit closer. his current effort is about burying stuff rather than exposing it. It is in place already but just not acknowledged and if it isn't it never will be and it's all a bluff and they don't even have the ability to track the ones on their side let alone the opposition that would take some steps to prevent that.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...become-the-frontline-of-human-sex-trafficking
Some things need to be registered.
And as I said before, what I proposed in the OP is even far more moderate than what already exists in many other democratic jurisdictions worldwide. We should not fanatically interpret the right to privacy as being absolute.
It has to be balanced with public safety too.
From the article:
'Though it makes sense that traffickers would use prepaid phones to do their business, Latonero says they use them in a slightly different way than drug dealers. Traffickers can use cell phones to set up meetings with clients, but they can also use a smart phone's GPS signal to make sure the people they're exploiting don't try to run away.
'"They can keep tabs on those they're exploiting with the various apps that tell them where their [workers] are," Latonero says. "There's a control element to it."'
Last edited: