The FCC’s Proposed “Identity-Verification Regime” for Phone Service

Throwing Out the Baby (Privacy) With the (Robocall) Bath Water

Robocalls are incredibly annoying, and the public’s frustration with them is entirely justified. Consumers should not have to endure endless scam calls, spoofed numbers, and invasive solicitations. Reasonable regulation of commercial robocalling is both necessary and constitutional. Businesses do not have a First Amendment right to anonymously bombard Americans with sales pitches, demands for personal information, or manipulative solicitations.
 
At the same time, the effort to curb robocalls should not come at the expense of the privacy rights of ordinary Americans. Mike Pearl at Gizmodo reports that some critics fear the FCC’s proposed cure “might be worse than the disease,” at least from a privacy standpoint.
 
It’s already the case that tracking technology has made traveling in our vehicles far from the anonymous refuge it once was. According to watchdog groups, the FCC’s plan could have a similar effect on phone communications by creating what Ken Macon of Reclaim the Net describes as “an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.”
 
Among the FCC’s proposed changes are restrictions that could effectively eliminate burner phones while imposing extensive identity-verification requirements on customers. Telecom law firm Wiley reports that both new and returning customers could be required to present government IDs and provide physical addresses, legal names, and alternate phone numbers. “High-volume” customers could face even more scrutiny, including disclosure of IP addresses and intended phone usage.
 
There is a meaningful distinction, however, between anonymous commercial solicitation and the legitimate use of privacy-protective communications tools by ordinary people. Businesses making robocalls to sell products or collect data should be regulated. But burner phones and other forms of semi-anonymous communication also serve lawful and socially valuable purposes. These include:
​

• Victims fleeing abuse or stalkers
  
• Journalists and whistleblowers seeking to protect confidential communications.
  
• Political dissidents, religious minorities, and ordinary citizens who simply wish to preserve a degree of privacy in their personal lives.

 
According to Phil Clark at Mashable, the FCC’s proposed “red flags” are broad enough to encompass many ordinary and lawful activities, including using virtual offices, paying with cryptocurrency, maintaining unusual email addresses, or having phone numbers not tied to residential addresses.
 
Critics worry that such criteria could sweep too broadly and normalize extensive identity tracking for routine communications.
 
The challenge for policymakers is to strike the right balance. Americans deserve meaningful protection from robocalls and phone scams. But regulations aimed at bad actors should be carefully tailored so they do not create a universal government registration system for everyone who purchases or uses a phone.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS