Technology

4831 readers

259 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. Use original link

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

A New Anonymous Phone Carrier Lets You Sign Up With Nothing but a Zip Code (www.wired.com)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.zip

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Privacy stalwart Nicholas Merrill spent a decade fighting an FBI surveillance order. Now he wants to sell you phone service—without knowing almost anything about you.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20251205050710/https://www.wired.com/story/new-anonymous-phone-carrier-sign-up-with-nothing-but-a-zip-code/

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

By asking users for almost no identifiable information, Merrill wants to protect them from one of the most intractable privacy problems in modern technology: Despite whatever surveillance-resistant communications apps you might use, phone carriers will always know which of their customers’ phones are connecting to which cell towers and when. Carriers have frequently handed that information over to data brokers willing to pay for it—or any FBI or ICE agent that demands it with a court order

This is pretty pointless i believe. Your sim location can always be triangulated which means you will immediately identified if you ever go home with the sim card active.

All the feds have to do is either know where you live, or any specific location they know you were at, or your phone number and they will instantly have the same degree of insight as they would have had if you signed up to the provider with your name.

[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

You’d be surprised how little work feds want to do themselves. The fewer people to buy your data from, the better

[–] janus2@lemmy.zip 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

seems like it'll still keep some demographic and payment info out of the data resale market though, no?

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's good to reduce the number of parties that can be accountable for leaks.

If the authorities that can triangulate the locations of everyone's phone numbers are the only ones that should be able to identify you, then at least you know who any ID leaks are coming from. That data being resold on the market should at least make those authorities look worse than if they were just letting random people get away with it.

At the same time, if it's being oversold as more of an absolute privacy thing, making promises it can't deliver, that makes the whole thing dubious to trust.