Was there a reason the author redacted parts of the robocall phone numbers? They're robocalls, the numbers should be garbage by definition.
Probably to avoid tipping off the robo-callers' authors
Eliminating Robocalls
11–20 of 276 posts
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#12Was there a reason the author redacted parts of the robocall phone numbers? They're robocalls, the numbers should be garbage by definition.
They're often spoofed numbers of actual real numbers.
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you think that?
Because individually they'll do a worse job of mitigating spam than if they try to mitigate it collectively.
This is almost certainly true, but they might make more money if (for example) one carrier's half-assed spam mitigation technology is shown to work better than a competing carrier's quarter-assed spam mitigation technology.
From the perspective of some analysts, collaborating with competitors over a technology that might otherwise be used as a competitive advantage is leaving money on the table, even if the end result is a worse situation for everyone. And from an analyst's perspective, shareholders are the company's customers, not the people who use their services. Which has a certain logic to it, but we'll see if these companies care more about their customers or their shareholders.
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#14Was there a reason the author redacted parts of the robocall phone numbers? They're robocalls, the numbers should be garbage by definition.
The point of the article is that the phone numbers that robocalls come from are trivially spoofed. So, it's plausible that these are real people's phones being spoofed, and it would be quite rude to them to publish their phone numbers in a way that could be read as indicating the number is a robot.
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#15Was there a reason the author redacted parts of the robocall phone numbers? They're robocalls, the numbers should be garbage by definition.
Because spammers populate the caller ID with other people's phone numbers. For example, a spammer might make the caller ID show your (or my) phone number. The caller ID that shows up when a spammer calls you is usually useless.
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#16I wrote a tool which uses Twilio to screen out robocalls: https://github.com/noah-huppert/human-call-filter
Very neat! Given that an average user doesn't receive many calls a day, it would be cheaper to operate if this could be implemented completely serverless using Cloud Firestore & Cloud Functions.
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#17I wrote a tool which uses Twilio to screen out robocalls: https://github.com/noah-huppert/human-call-filter
Are you aware of any robocallers that have answered your "simple arithmetic question" correctly?
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#18Was there a reason the author redacted parts of the robocall phone numbers? They're robocalls, the numbers should be garbage by definition.
[deleted]
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#19Was there a reason the author redacted parts of the robocall phone numbers? They're robocalls, the numbers should be garbage by definition.
The point of the article is that the phone numbers that robocalls come from are trivially spoofed. So, it's plausible that these are real people's phones being spoofed, and it would be quite rude to them to publish their phone numbers in a way that could be read as indicating the number is a robot.
So it's preventing the equivalent of dialing random numbers and hoping it's a real person?
Re: Eliminating Robocalls
#20I'm waaay past trusting that network. I tell companies to text or email me. And texting is also starting to get spammed out.
Right now, I can't even use apps like Hiya that implement prefix blocking. My method right now is to forward ALL calls to a google voice number, and those are transcribed or what-have-you. If you don't leave a message, I don't care about you.
We need a signal, at the highest of levels to basically make the decision on what's going to happen to the phone network, because honestly, a brand new system is what I expect at this point, not a patch.