[monocasa]

> What specifically in this comment would you penalise?

One comment up from that I said:

> The easier way to attack this is by instituting a know your customer law for phone systems including prepaid SIMs, combined with accomplice charges for anyone who's SIM is used in connection with criminal acts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And how would you address the issue of people being good sams --- making calls on behalf of someone else when they ask, in good faith.

Prosecutorial discretion.

And to be clear I'm not pushing for these laws; I think they're awful. I just see it as a clear direction that .gov is going to go if they feel the need to that's easier than maintaining zero days for general law enforcement. The ability to actually tie phones to personal identity in a way good enough for a court room.

[dredmorbius]

Penalisation under a "KYC" law would have to be extreme.

And I suspect there'd be all kinds of challenges to such a requirement.

Again, the Good Sam loophole is huge.

[monocasa]

> Penalisation under a "KYC" law would have to be extreme.

Yep. It would have to be enacted in the kind of furvor like existed around 9/11. But, the PATRIOT act had been floating around DC for years before 9/11 too.

> And I suspect there'd be all kinds of challenges to such a requirement.

> Again, the Good Sam loophole is huge.

In the US, it really isn't. It's a patchwork of state and local laws that could absolutely be invalidated by the feds in the case of a global communications medium like the phone network, since that implies interstate commerce.

[dredmorbius]

By "huge" I mean that the plausible set of circumstances in which someone loaned out a phone for a call is large.

It's one thing to put leverage on the already marginal. Another to haul upstanding citizens off for offering a stranger a phone call. Resistance would be huge. No matter how weak any perceived legal shield would be.