Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC fines robocaller record $120M

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#51

Post by bluGill »

dqv wrote: post #14
wtallis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question wasn't about why spoofing exists at all. It was about spoofing where they did not control the claimed number . If you want to place a call with spoofed caller ID info, your provider should require you to prove that the spoofed information is legitimate, not fraudulent. Otherwise, the telco should be obligated to strip the suspect caller ID information from the call so that the recipient can properly iden…

>where they did not control the claimed number. That's the thing though, a lot of times they don't control the spoofed number, but there's a legitimate use case for spoofing it. Authorization to spoof is not the same as having control of a number.

Whoever does own the number should be granting permission to that specific organization then.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#52

Post by codazoda »

mnw21cam wrote: post #26

So, if you take any notice of anything on this web site, you will see that even after the page has loaded, it keeps on making loads of network connections to all sorts of servers. For ever. This is now a browser-hostile web site.

PrivacyBadger blocks all of these but you're right, it does seem hostile. I figure most US companies that run ad's have similar setups. After about 10 blocked calls to geo.yahoo.com it stops making the requests.

With PrivacyBadger disabled the connections keep on coming; especially as you scroll the page up and down.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#53

Post by dexterdog »

codazoda wrote: post #49

I've permanently turned on Do Not Disturb and configured it to allow calls from people on my contact list. This won't work for everyone but it works really well for me. I no longer get unwanted calls. People I don't have in my contact list are forced to leave a message without my phone ever ringing.

That's what I do. If I am expecting a call from a non-contact I just disable it for an hour. Everything else gets sent straight to voicemail after a 4-ring wait.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#54

Post by ryandrake »

codazoda wrote: post #49

I've permanently turned on Do Not Disturb and configured it to allow calls from people on my contact list. This won't work for everyone but it works really well for me. I no longer get unwanted calls. People I don't have in my contact list are forced to leave a message without my phone ever ringing.

This is the only realistic practical solution we have so far. The other ideas here cannot be done because incentives are not aligned properly. Fining telcos? With the FCC and most lawmakers in the pockets of telcos, this is not going to happen. Cryptographically secure CallerID? Who would pay for this? Telcos cracking down on robocallers themselves? No chance, since they make money from robocalling.

It's like asking the post office to solve junk mail. Where's the incentive?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#55

Post by fabianwatkins »

codazoda wrote: post #49

I've permanently turned on Do Not Disturb and configured it to allow calls from people on my contact list. This won't work for everyone but it works really well for me. I no longer get unwanted calls. People I don't have in my contact list are forced to leave a message without my phone ever ringing.

Me too. It's a shame its gotten to this point though. But even worse than a spam call is a spam call from someone's legitimate number. For a period, someone was making sales calls from my Mom's number. She ended up getting about twenty angry return calls a day and had to explain to everyone she didn't call them. She wasn't aware of any alternative, so she changed her number. Sad!

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#56

Post by bdamm »

amluto wrote: post #50
Rjevski wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are legitimate reasons for spoofing to work given how fucked up the PSTN is. Mobile roaming is one for example - when you roam on another carrier and place a call, that carrier directly originates the call and “spoofs” your caller ID to make it look like the call originated from you. Some companies may use different carriers for either load balancing or least-cost routing and so both of these carriers are requi…

I think the correct approach is economic, not technical. Make a rule that, if you get a spoofed call, then your telco owes you $100, not subject to any arbitration clause or other contractual waiver. Give a way out to avoid actually killing the telcos: annual penalties are limited to a few percent of annual gross revenues. The telcos will find a technical solution real fast.

How would you prove the call was spoofed? Record all calls? Prove it with statistics? No telco will pay. This is a technical problem.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#58

Post by bradleyjg »

lend000 wrote: post #3

The real problem is the lack of security and authentication on telephone networks, which enables number spoofing with virtually no chance of reprisal -- foreign callers (realistically out of the FCC's jurisdiction) use VoIP services to create calls that originate from an IP address from the telephone network's perspective, and the phone network makes no attempt to authenticate the metadata (like the phone number that…

What I don’t understand is why no major mobile carrier is offering a solution to this. It’s a pretty competitive market and this could be a big selling point.

When the isp wars were going strong, before broadband put everyone under the thumb of monopolists and also before gmail, spam filtering was a serious competative advantage.

Why can’t phone companies take an RBL like approach? If your VoIP service garners too many complaints because you are selling to robocallers then you don’t get to have calls delivered to e.g. ATT mobile customers anymore?

Are there legal or technical interconnection requirements that would make such a thing impossible?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#59

Post by pboutros »

bradleyjg wrote: post #58
lend000 wrote: post #3

The real problem is the lack of security and authentication on telephone networks, which enables number spoofing with virtually no chance of reprisal -- foreign callers (realistically out of the FCC's jurisdiction) use VoIP services to create calls that originate from an IP address from the telephone network's perspective, and the phone network makes no attempt to authenticate the metadata (like the phone number that…

What I don’t understand is why no major mobile carrier is offering a solution to this. It’s a pretty competitive market and this could be a big selling point. When the isp wars were going strong, before broadband put everyone under the thumb of monopolists and also before gmail, spam filtering was a serious competative advantage. Why can’t phone companies take an RBL like approach? If your VoIP service garners too ma…

I think the answer is that it is not a pretty competitive market.

The two biggest carriers have a 1-2% monthly churn rate.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283511/average-monthly-c...

Post reply on HN