The most-respected argument in this debate came from the No side, and it was not a complaint about the state. It was a warning about abuse victims who rely on burner phones. No won comfortably, and that point earned the most respect of any argument posted.
A Yes voter replied that the purchase check would be “only available to the police and only if a crime had been committed”, and another said you can't legislate for tiny numbers. A No voter answered that “many abused people do not keep hold of their photo ID”, and that reply drew strong respect too.
The rest of the No case was blunter and more sardonic. Its fuller version held that fraudsters “will simply use stolen identities, foreign SIMs or other workarounds”, leaving ordinary people with bureaucracy. Others went shorter: “Too Big Brother for me.” and “Police State warning!” The mood was weary and scornful, with one voter laughing at the question outright.
Yes voters made a quieter case, all of it carrying top respect: organised crime makes this “one sacrifice worth making”, and many countries already do it. One Yes voter conceded the weak spot themselves, that there will always be a black market and loopholes. A Yes reply defended India's ID checks as post-2008 security reform, and a No voter countered that the point was beside the issue of living in a free country.
The workaround argument ran through both camps, and only one drew the conclusion that the rule was not worth having.
36 Opinions
Don't forget, many women facing abuse may have a burner phone for safety reasons and may be unable to access these if photo ID is suddenly required.
No. Once again, government proposes restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens because it cannot control criminals. Those intent on fraud will simply use stolen identities, foreign SIMs or other workarounds, while ordinary people face more bureaucracy, surveillance and loss of privacy. Stop treating the entire population as potential criminals. Target those committing offences, enforce existing laws and leave the law-abiding majority alone.
Something that only police states do
No. You don’t require photo ID to vote in the UK so there is clearly no reason to provide photo ID for something so inconsequential as buying a SIM card.
NO another waste of time piece of legislation. Just like the banning/legislating vapes, online porn, cigarettes, alcohol etc etc all those it was designed to stop will just get theirs on online or black market or from some dubious character down the pub or local corner shop. And it'll do us inconvenience those who it's not designed to stop! Edited
It’s no business of the State where you buy a phone or if you go for contracts or sims. I really don’t get how so many of us want to be part of a collectivist system where our Govt hates us so much & trusts us so little that they must know everything about us. I want to know about our Government & who the Civil Servants are who come up with this nonsense. As always they will exempt MPs so please explain why we should comply?
Nanny state striking again. I get there are a few bad actors who use burner phones for mal intent but the majority don't. There'll just be a loophole the worst pockets of society find anyway so it's incredibly pointless
Pointless nonsense
I’m not convinced this is necessary, and look like more big brother. It’s a no from me at this point
Mandating photo IDs for SIM cards is a massive privacy overreach that fails to actually deter crime, as bad actors will simply bypass it using stolen IDs or foreign SIMs (You can literally go online and get one for less than a pound) instead of making us safer, this policy normalizes state surveillance and wrongly excludes law abiding citizens who simply do not possess official photo identification.