News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The $24B Data Business That Telcos Don't Want to Talk About by schoen on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @05:21PM (#10461235)
Thanks for the comment -- just a reminder for people reading this that in the wifi hotspot solution case, in order to thwart location tracking you should change your device MAC address, otherwise the wifi providers can identify your device (and some of them will!).

An unexpected obstacle about the privacy-protective MVNO that I heard about from someone who was investigating this is taxes on "telephone lines" that the MVNO is supposed to pay whenever it "activates" a "line". It may be difficult to reconcile this with changing subscriber identities every day (assuming you can get ahold of devices that change device identity every day).

Whenever I talk about this I say: it's too late to change the cell phone network cheaply now (though we should still be vocal about the problem and not give up: we shouldn't accept that there is someone who knows where almost everyone is almost all of the time, which is the case today). If you're designing a new communications system, make sure that it starts with privacy protection and user and device anonymity, and layers optional identity on top where needed, rather than the reverse! Let's not be saying in 2030 "oh, if only people in 2015 had thought about the privacy issues with this technology...".

Re:The $24B Data Business That Telcos Don't Want to Talk About by mindslight on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @07:41PM (#10461983)
It seems like you could solve the "new line" problem within a constant factor - just pay the cost for a pool of triple the number of "lines", which then get allocated a day ahead of time by spending a bearer token (round-tripped through eg TOR such that the provider cannot link the new and the old). Device "identities" can be reused because the mix pool is constrained by the subscriber base anyway.

I'd worry about the IMEI/etc becoming a secret token that could be reused after it was assigned to someone else's device. But even if the SIM's technology couldn't fix that, it could be fixed at a higher level after gaining network transit.

But yeah, I was teetering between $30M and $100M for my estimate, and the unknown unknown wtfs pushed me on up :>

Re:The $24B Data Business That Telcos Don't Want to Talk About by schoen on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @07:48PM (#10462015)
I'm not positive whether it counts as a "new line" if you swap existing lines of existing users, but maybe there's some way to arrange it to avoid triggering the tax every day for every single user.
Re:The $24B Data Business That Telcos Don't Want to Talk About by hackuser on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:07PM (#10461523)
Thanks. This deserves to be repeated:

it's too late to change the cell phone network cheaply now (though we should still be vocal about the problem and not give up: we shouldn't accept that there is someone who knows where almost everyone is almost all of the time, which is the case today). If you're designing a new communications system, make sure that it starts with privacy protection and user and device anonymity, and layers optional identity on top where needed, rather than the reverse! Let's not be saying in 2030 "oh, if only people in 2015 had thought about the privacy issues with this technology...".

Re:The $24B Data Business That Telcos Don't Want to Talk About by rizwank on Thursday October 29, 2015 @05:04AM (#10469881)
Tax basis for mobile in the US is generally usage based to satisfy USAC/USF; not per act.