[Article] Ireland to build register of 3G phone users

Orion

The Irish government is to build a national register of 3G mobile phones - and by extension, their users - that are capable of carrying video clips. The protection of minors is an "absolute necessity" which outweighs concerns over costs and practicality, Dermot Ahern, communications minister, said.

"A national register of picture phones has proven impractical by virtue of the fact that we already had millions of GSM handsets in existence when picture phones became available. "But 3G is different," he said. "Handsets will not be available until the end of the year and we have an opportunity now to provide increased safety mechanisms." Ahern, intends to "work closely" with the mobile operators on the details of the register.

Full Article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/01/ireland_3g_register/

Is there no end to nanny-statism in Ireland? Yet another knee-jerk overreaction from our wonderful government. Note there is no mention of how they will control prepaid 3G phones. There is no compulsion to register them so how will they include these in a register?

MadsL

:rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Macros42
Is there no end to nanny-statism in Ireland?

Would you like to explain why is this nannying? I see it as a very responsible action on the government's behalf.

Yet another knee-jerk overreaction from our wonderful government.

I doubt its either knee-jerk or over-reaction at all. Or - again - can you point out what it is a knee-jerk reaction to, and what would be a non-overreacting reaction?

Personally, I suspect that there are a number of other reasons this is being done as well as the whole "protect the minors", but they don't want to give those as much emphasis, because protecting their kids is the one thing most adults will vote for without significant thought.

Anonymous phones were a stupid marketing idea that someone has finally started to realise was incredibly dangerous and foolish - creating a myriad of problems for the sake of allowing Telcos to gain market saturation a bit more readily. About time too.

This new legislation is firstly aimed to put an end to that. As we move to a new network type, this is feasible. It was not feasible on the current GSM network for the reasons stated in the article - the number of phones already out there. It is feasible when moving to an entirely new network which will not support older phones (moving from GSM to 3G is comparable to when people moved from analog to digital, or dialup to broadband. Its not just some extra bells and whistles, its a whole different technology).

[quote[]b]Note there is no mention of how they will control prepaid 3G phones. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, but its pretty damned obvious (to me) that the whole point of the article is pointing out that there will be no such thing as "anonymous" prepaid phones any more. It just avoids saying it bluntly lest too many people complain before giving themselves time to actually process the reason why its being done (not implying thats what you're doing, incidentally, but I'm sure plenty would).

After all, the phone book is already a national register of all phones except prepaids. So if the govt wants to do something like that for 3G, all they do is take out the one they already have and say "voila". Thats hardly worth a news announcement, so clearly (again, to me) what is being announced is the end of anonymous prepaids.

There is no compulsion to register them so how will they include these in a register?

There is no compulsion to register them at present.

I'll leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Anonymous phones were a stupid marketing idea that someone has finally started to realise was incredibly dangerous and foolish - creating a myriad of problems for the sake of allowing Telcos to gain market saturation a bit more readily. About time too.

This new legislation is firstly aimed to put an end to that.

OK, so you approve of this move because you want to stop terrorists, drug dealers, perverts and other malcontents abusing anonymous prepaid phones. But what's to stop the criminal from using a fake ID when buying a phone? Or using a stolen phone? Sure, it'll make it harder for them, but is this phone register really worth all the expense and inconvenience if it's not even going to perform its stated purpose of preventing anonymous phone use? Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on it?

Originally posted by Dermot Ahern:
which outweighs concerns over costs and practicality

:rolleyes: God forbid that the government take minor petty little issues like "cost" and "practicality" into account.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by bonkey
After all, the phone book is already a national register of all phones except prepaids. So if the govt wants to do something like that for 3G, all they do is take out the one they already have and say "voila". Thats hardly worth a news announcement, so clearly (again, to me) what is being announced is the end of anonymous prepaids.

Right so, I'll take my ex-directory ass down to the nearest (working) phone box for a spot of heavy breathing ohhh yeahhhh.

Seriously though, I think the government have good intentions with plans like this but when they realise the amount of work and loopholes involved, it'll be quitely brushed aside.

Gurgle

How is a national register of any benefit when you can block your caller ID ?

Meh

Originally posted by Gurgle
How is a national register of any benefit when you can block your caller ID ?

The phone company still keeps an internal record of your number for billing purposes, caller id or no caller id.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Meh
But what's to stop the criminal from using a fake ID when buying a phone?

In my experience, it's easier to get a mortgage than a mobile phone. I know of a guy who found it easier to borrow a million pounds than to buy a mobile phone.

I once tried to transfer an 086 number to Vodafone (before full number portability) and at the same time transfer 'ownership' of the number from my previous employer to myself. I eventually gave up and got a new number.

Imposter

Why is he doing this: Protection of minors.
From what: criminals of varying degrees and stuff that's illegal for minors such as porn.

Will these measures stop minors accessing porn and other forbidden things? Not a chance.

Will it stop drug dealers, paedophiles etc. from doing what they do? Of course it won't.

How can people get around registering their phone: Fake ID's, use email/internet, use an international phone that isn't registered etc.

So here's a proposed system that does nothing to really protect minors, costs a lot of money to implement and maintain and invades on peoples privacy.

Banning people from owning a phone until they are 18 would be far more sensible if protection of minors is his actual intention. In saying that such a measure also falls down unless email and internet is also banned for minors.

arcadegame2004

Well I agree with these measures but I would be a little concerned that if someone with a 3G phone innocently and unintentionally received illegal images of children from malign individuals then the innocent receiver might be baged up with I don't think is fair.

Meh

Originally posted by Imposter
Banning people from owning a phone until they are 18 would be far more sensible if protection of minors is his actual intention.

In reality, banning mobile phones for minors would make them more vulnerable, not less vulnerable -- they wouldn't be able to dial 999 for help, or call their parents/taxi to come pick them up.

Imposter

Originally posted by Meh
In reality, banning mobile phones for minors would make them more vulnerable, not less vulnerable -- they wouldn't be able to dial 999 for help, or call their parents/taxi to come pick them up.

How did anyone manage before mobiles?
I wasn't really saying video phones should be banned for minors, I was really pointing out that it's another option that would 100% protect minors from certain things that the proposal wants to protect them from, while causing other problems and/or giving a false sense of security.

I just can't see how the costs of this proposal can balance the risks. The odds are relatively low of catching an adult that may be engaged in criminal activity that targets or abuses minors using their phone. The restrictions can also be circumvented if a criminal really wants too and a child gets no added protection from the government knowing that they own a video phone. So there is unlikely to be any actual prosecutions got from knowing this information yet it costs a fortune to keep and infringes on honest people's privacy rights.

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
Will these measures stop minors accessing porn and other forbidden things? Not a chance.

Whether you like to admit it or not, the implementation of simple things like age-linits requiring ID does have an impact. Yes, its far from perfect, but it still does some good.

Going a bit further, consider how "easy" it is for you to get a subscription mobile phone with fake ID right now. Just how easy is it to provide false picture-ID which a phone-shop will accept, as well as a recognisable form of mail (e.g. a phone-bill, or somesuch) with your fake address on it which they will also accept?

Now, consider how many thousands of un-traceable phones are on the GSM network. Consider how many are likely to be on the new networks, especially if the government decide to spot-checks on shops and land them in hot water if they are found to be not doing such things.

Just as the banks, the services, etc. all encountered a massive drop in fraud when they implemented the need for proper ID for registration, you can be pretty sure that the same will happen with the phones.

Yes, it still won't be perfect. It will lead to a reduction in the problems, as long as they don't just take the complete p1ss with their implementation of it...which I'll admit is highly likely.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
Now, consider how many thousands of un-traceable phones are on the GSM network. Consider how many are likely to be on the new networks, especially if the government decide to spot-checks on shops and land them in hot water if they are found to be not doing such things.

I agree with most of the other things you said but the main questions here are:

• Why does it have to be a national register? Are the phone companies databases not enough (this would be similar to what's done in banks afaik)?
• How many of these thousands of untraceable phones are a problem (by problem we are specifically talking about protection of minors, seeing as that's why they are suggesting they implement it)? Does this number really require such a draconian measure?