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

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#101

Post by Paul-ish »

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…

The FCC at some point considered requiring authentication numbers or attaching names to numbers. They ultimately rejected the idea. There were multiple reasons why they rejected it, but from talking to someone at the FCC one of the reasons they rejected connecting numbers to identities too strongly is that victims of domestic abuse may need to call their abuser (eg about child support), but do so without giving away too much information (like address).

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#102

Post by rayiner »

bradleyjg wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking calls from certain VoIP services is almost certainly going to be a violation of common-carrier rules (which still apply to phone service no matter what happens with broadband). At a technical level, spam filtering relies heavily on analyzing email text. Doing similar analysis on voice calls is way harder. Also, there's UI issues. You can redirect suspected spam emails to a folder the user can inspect for fal…

Later on spam filtering relied on analyzing email text, but before that was available there was the blunt instrument of blackholing ISPs that refused to police their users. That approach could work here.

I remember Bayesian spam filters being the first widely used ones. But it was a long time ago.

It’s not clear to me that carriers would be allowed to do that, especially accounting for situations where VoIP traffic is laundered through a legitimate service (so the entity at the exchange boundary with the end-user carrier is a legitimate one).

Could they get around common carrier restrictions by offering that service as opt in? I’m not so sure about that either.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#103

Post by rconti »

mikeash wrote: post #85
rconti wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, looking into it now. iOS and Android app. I'm curious to see how this works. Probably can't get in the way of the calls on the device itself; pushes changes to the network maybe? https://www.att.com/features/security-apps.html

Some of it is just a matter of associating the name “Telemarketer” with a phone number. I still see those calls, but can immediately identify them. Stuff it’s more confident about gets blocked outright. I think they’re automating what they’d do if you went into your account and manually blocked a number.

I already have a /dev/null contact with a silent ringer but the telemarketers (especially the neighbor dialing) almost never uses the same number twice. Still hopeful the ATT app helps though.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#104

Post by gruez »

Paul-ish wrote: post #101
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…

The FCC at some point considered requiring authentication numbers or attaching names to numbers. They ultimately rejected the idea. There were multiple reasons why they rejected it, but from talking to someone at the FCC one of the reasons they rejected connecting numbers to identities too strongly is that victims of domestic abuse may need to call their abuser (eg about child support), but do so without giving away…

payphone? also, can't you call as a blocked number?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#105

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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…

> What I don’t understand is why no major mobile carrier is offering a solution to this.

Carriers have no economic incentive to do this. Most people on AT&T aren't going to jump to Verizon because of the number of robocalls they get on AT&T. It's not worth the hassle of changing.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#106

Post by lend000 »

ikeboy wrote: post #5
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…

I've suggested in the past that every instance of provable spoofing where they did not control the claimed number should result in a fixed fine. $100 sounds about right. Every phone network will then quickly begin passing on that cost to anyone they "peer" with and it will be a non-issue soon enough. Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs?

The reason I would agree with a fine is not because a caller's identity cannot be unmasked, but because phone numbers are so closely connected with identity that robocallers are essentially engaging in identity theft and slander when they use people's legitimate numbers to spoof their calls.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#107

Post by DannyB2 »

The FCC can go after robocalls because the law allows them to.

Back in the day, when there were proposed laws to make SPAM similarly illegal, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) lobbied hard to get exceptions that would allow SPAM. And the rest is history.

Remember the aptly named "Can SPAM" act?

Can could mean:

1. toss it out, eliminate it

2. enable it

3. a metal cylinder it is packaged in

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#109

Post by s73v3r_ »

acdha wrote: post #88
bradleyjg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

T-Mobile offers it as a free option with two levels: labeling the call as Scam Likely and blocking it outright. The latter is quite effective - I was getting 5+ calls per day and it’s now 1-2 per week.

That's T-Mobile? I thought it was Google Voice.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#110

Post by kj4ips »

Shivetya wrote: post #21
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…

Doesn't ANI work? When I worked at a business with a phone system used for time tracking we relied wholly on ANI as caller id is what is spoofed. However I am not sure if the ANI information is a paid for service or is it being spoofed as well? Caller ID data was always malleable and never to be trusted

ANI does not typically come with end-user lines, and is (sadly) also spoofable. There are already some systems for fraud analytics, but thye have their own issues.

A user can request a "trace" (usually by dialing a feature code), but not only does this hit the user with a ~$20 fee each time, but the information gathered can only be released to law enforcement, and since local law enforcement would need to make the request, it rarely happens.

Post reply on HN