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

Let’s Destroy Robocalls

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 286 posts

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#271

Post by flemming_geir »

Scoundreller wrote: post #240
silvestrov wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark: almost all (cold) sales calls are forbidden by law. Exceptions are sales of books, newspapers, insurance, and research (e.g. Gallup). There is also a "do not call" list that blocks all such calls. In Danish: https://www.forbrugerombudsmanden.dk/hvad-gaelder/markedsfoe...

The exclusions sound... arbitrary? I get the research exemption, and i’m Happy about a politics exemption, but why books, newspapers and insurance? Why not bicycles or theatre or education?

Probably just grandfathered in. I'm guessing at the time of legislation, these things were commonly sold via cold sales calls.

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#272

Post by JdeBP »

reaperducer wrote: post #190
bonobo_34 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get a lot of robocalls from spoofed numbers that have my area code and even the first 3 digits of my phone number in common. I guess the thought is that people are more likely to pick up if the number looks familiar? For me, it's just an indication of a robo call that I won't pick up.

It's called "neighborhood" spamming. You're supposed to think it's a neighbor calling.

No. In telecommunications jargon it is called "local presence".

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#273

Post by JdeBP »

jngreenlee wrote: post #136
bonobo_34 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get a lot of robocalls from spoofed numbers that have my area code and even the first 3 digits of my phone number in common. I guess the thought is that people are more likely to pick up if the number looks familiar? For me, it's just an indication of a robo call that I won't pick up.

I think they get an exit virtual POP in that AC to avoid extra charges, start at XXX-0001, XXX-0002, etc. It lowers cost and looks more relevant.

* It's not really a POP.

* The fact that many geographic numbers are in fact non-geographic means that the idea of being "in" an area has long since gone out of the window.

* It's not done to avoid extra charges. Call cost is determined by routing and tarrif, not caller ID. It's done pretty much for the reason that bonobo_34 supposed.

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#274

Post by JdeBP »

mrguyorama wrote: post #80
WorldMaker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying for a while that Phone UX on our handheld computers is an amazing mistake. There's no other application on any computing device that we allow to be an uneasily dismissable, focus stealing modal with sound alarms in 2019. Sure, phone calls have historical weight behind them, but it is past time to rethink the UX for current usage.

If you want to see how good UX can be on a mobile device, download Microsoft Remote Desktop for android and remote into a Microsoft Windows Server instance. I just want that experience, though preferably with a Linux system, that happens to have a "phone" application. Did anyone ever make a "desktop" phone?

Yes. It was the ICL One Per Desk. (-:

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#275

Post by JdeBP »

Animats wrote: post #237

We need attribution on caller ID info as a first step. Caller ID should read "212-555-1212 per T-Mobile, CenturyLink, Adino". Like mail headers. T-Mobile says the call came in from CenturyLink. CenturyLink says it came in from Adino. The telco knows most of this now, they just don't pass it forward. Someone upstream may be lying, but you can usually tell. If the number is US local but the path goes through Mumbai, so…

Actually, the telephone companies are often in the same boat as you, not knowing anything more than the immediate inbound carrier. Not all signalling protocols could even relay the information that you are talking about.

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#276

Post by JdeBP »

knicholes wrote: post #127
escherplex wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A smart phone app which behaves as a firewall requiring callers to enter, say, a three character PIN code before phone rings may be useful. Incorporate two message files, one for leaving messages from those who know the PIN code and one those who don't, would allow for any contingencies. A front end answering machine box for the home with the same functionalities may be useful as well.

Is there a way to access the call before it hits your phone? I looked briefly, because I'm very passionate about this problem, and couldn't find anything. I don't want to answer the call and wait for someone to enter a pin. I want them to have entered a sufficiently long randomly generated number (spoken to them by some voice generation service) before it even makes my phone send a notification to me.

Learn the lessons of SMTP-based electronic mail. Non-solutions like this just lead to an arms race. And indeed the other side already has a huge in lead this particular arms race. Voice recognition, speech-to-text, and DTMF generation are widely available telephony technologies.

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#277

Post by dbspin »

cletus wrote: post #62

So robocalls are the result of: - Cost of phone calls decreasing to basically zero - Cost of automation going to basically zero - Phone calls that can come from the Internet so there are no national boundaries anymore - Caller ID operating on essentially the honor system - Bad actors (telephone companies) benefitting from this traffic by charging for it - Larger players having no incentive to punish bad actors There'…

You mention 'no national boundaries anymore'. But robocalls are extremely rare in Europe. Presumably both for legislative and commercial reasons. None the less this is an existence proof that they aren't some kind of inevitability of mobile technology.

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#278

Post by bloopernova »

grumblez wrote: post #157
bloopernova wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay t-mobile $4/month for their advanced spam-call blocking feature, and it works very well. I now get maybe 1 spam call every 2 weeks, compared against my worthless work number that has no such blocking which gets maybe 6 spam calls a day.

FYI: T-Mobile's app that they charge $4/month for is a reskin of the Hiya app ( https://hiya.com/ ) that's only $1.25/month when paid yearly.

I'm not entirely sure that is correct, because the behaviour of hiya and t-mobile's offering is different. Hiya will hang up on a spam call, but t-mobile's app seems to make it so they don't even connect to me.

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#279

Post by smush »

craftyguy wrote: post #243
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before 2016, the behavior commonly seen would have been unthinkable. People that hated Obama, didn't start articles about robocolls with the same derangement.... Now... I'm not even slightly surprised. TDS seems to be real.

TDS?

The GP means "Trump Derangement Syndrome"

Re: Let’s Destroy Robocalls

#280

Post by ratling »

tobib wrote: post #98
DenisM wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make a firehose and sell it to {Google|Apple} so that they can use it to increase value of their phones to consumers.

The phone numbers are spoofed so this would probably do more harm than good.

If you can sell it it doesn't matter. Isn't that how all this works?
Post reply on HN