Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#51

Post by BonesJustice » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:13 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #42

BonesJustice wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already illegal to place robocalls to cell phones (under TCPA). It’s also illegal to robodial any number on the Do Not Call list, but unlike the TCPA, there is a carve out for political campaigning. Thanks, Congress! Of course, neither does much good when the laws are nearly impossible to enforce. Thanks to caller ID spoofing, it’s usually impossible to tell who actually called you, so good luck collecting damag…

If you really wanted to find out you could just ask the phone company, they know the real number/identity of the person calling you, or at the very least a layer deeper than caller ID. It's not like caller ID spoofing makes you anonymous.

I think there are privacy regulations that prevent the phone company from deanonymizing a caller without a warrant. Or at least that’s the excuse I’ve heard cited before.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#52

Post by josefresco » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:17 PM UTC

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#53

Post by Sir_Cmpwn » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #52

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues and useful in different cases.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#54

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #52

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agents or between not wanting to be spied upon and wanting to know who the fuck is calling you so that you can rationally choose whether to ignore it.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#55

Post by daveFNbuck » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

The title here says the bill is about telemarketing, but the bill is pretty short and I didn't see anything about telemarketing. This is just about limiting bots on "any Internet Web site, Web application, or digital application"

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#56

Post by trumped » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:42 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #2

I'm all for this...but can we just ban telemarketing entirely? Why is that even allowed? I've always thought that the law should be written such that telemarketing is legal, but if you engage in it, it is no longer illegal to murder you. You can do it, but you lose your murder protection.

While you're at it, ban Spam endorsed by the federal government (USPS)... junk mailers even get rebates to fill up your mailbox.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#57

Post by sirsuki » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

How are we able to have discussions on this article when it links me to a page that says: "503 Service Unavailable":

>The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

I mean it's just text right? How hard can that be to serve in high volume? Oh did they get politically DDoS'ed?

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#58

Post by josefresco » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #54

josefresco wrote: post #52

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agents or between not wanting to be spied upon and wanting to know who the fuck is calling you so that you can rationally choose whether to ignore it.

You're right, and my argument is not fully worked out. I had the thought yesterday and didn't post - I just find it odd that we're demanding "real ID" for telephone calls, but recoil in horror when proposals are made to tie "real ID" to IP addresses to online activity.

I frequently advise my clients on website security, and tell them that all day long there are criminals who "jiggle the locks" (to put it tamely) of their website without any legal recourse or ramifications. They always ask why these people aren't identified and criminally prosecuted. I explain to them how they evade detection, and how "anonymity" is built into the ethos of our online world. Clients are shocked there's no way to identify, stop or even prosecute these people. Privacy advocates of course champion this anonymity because of the danger of abuse by government/corporate entities. Why don't we have the same attitude towards telephone calls? Both systems are widely abused, yet privacy for both are important.

Like I said, this one is still rolling a round in my head - feel free to tear my argument a new one ;)

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#59

Post by anonymfus » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:50 PM UTC

daveFNbuck wrote: post #55

The title here says the bill is about telemarketing, but the bill is pretty short and I didn't see anything about telemarketing. This is just about limiting bots on "any Internet Web site, Web application, or digital application"

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker. I made the title by rewriting this sentence to fit into 80 characters limit:

"This bill would, with certain exceptions, make it unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purpose of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election."

Specifically telemarketing was the only English term for "in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction" part that I recalled. Sorry if it was misleading.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#60

Post by josefresco » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 1:51 PM UTC

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #53

josefresco wrote: post #52

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues and useful in different cases.

"most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity"

I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business.

They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"