Re: DA Wants to Restrict Pre-Paid Cell Phones

The Montgomery County, PA (suburb of Philadelphia) district attorney

> wants to restrict pre-paid cell phones. > I find this idea very troubling, kind of Big Brother. Does anyone > agree with the DA? > "To get a prepaid phone, all you have to do is plunk down your cash > and walk out of the store -- no paperwork necessary. Castor says > that's a problem for his detectives because they can't track down the > owner of the phone." > For full story please see: >
formatting link
> [public replies please] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, the way the DA would search > for such a person would be the same way he located anyone else; he > would subpoena the sales records. He would ask the seller of the > phone to produce the record of whom the phone was sold to, the > 'mystery caller' as it were. Ditto for any 'non-stationary' phone. > Now, granted, the buyer may have plunked down cash and given a > false ID for the purchase, but I am sure many buyers also used > credit cards or a check.

When was the last time you had to show ID to purchase anything (alcoholic beverages excluded) using cash, at Wall-mart, Best Buy, or your favorite grocery store?

There _aren't_ any records of "who" the phone was sold to to be produced. Just like the grocery stores *could*not* produce a list of who had recently bought Tylenol`when the poison-tainted product was discovered on the shelves a number of years ago. _OR_ who had bought 'suspect' produce in the recent "e. coli" scares.

The retailer simply _doesn't_ collect that information.

That lack of _any_ data (not to mention 'reliable' data) on the purchaser's identity is =exactly= what the above-mentioned DA is complaining about.

The DA also might try dialing the number under some pretense and > seeing what he can find out that way. PAT]

_That_ has been proven to be practical and effective in some circumstances. Unfortunately, newspaper, and especially TV, reporters have written about the kind of techniques law-enforcement has used to "social-engineer" such types into revealing themselves, and, as a result, those who even watch TV don't fall for that approach any more.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As a matter of fact, I went to my local drugstore here in Independence a few months ago, and looked on the shelves where the cold remedies are found. A sign on the shelf said that "Brand X (I forget which one I bought) is no longer on the shelves. Manufacturer has chosen to _not_ change its formulary, so under state law it is now available only from the pharmacist." I went over there to get it, and I had to sign the 'dangerous drug' registry. And if one bought 'too much' of it in one haul, eyebrows would be raised.

Now I grant you I could have scribbled 'Smith' or 'Jones' and taken a couple bottles of it, I suppose. And Walmart *is* sort of itchy these days about people buying large quantities of pre-paid phones, as per the news item from Detroit about a month ago. I was trying to suggest that the day may be coming that whether purchased by *cash* or by some method where an audit trail is available, stores will be required to account for their sales, the same as drug stores have to do now where the ingredients _which could be used_ to make meth are concerned. PAT]

Reply to
Robert Bonomi
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.