61–70 of 127 posts
I want a phone service that automatically charges the caller a small amount ($1-$2). I can waive the charger for known numbers. Each time an unknown caller calls, I get an SMS right after the call to waive the charge for this and all subsequent calls or to proceed with the charge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who thinks this is bullshit? How is PATLive not also complicit in the crimes they're looking for "Will" to prosecute in? I get so tired of these B2B service providers who get caught up doing borderline illegal shit and then just shrug their shoulders and say "not our responsibility." Everybody has these clauses doing the ass covering so they can sell services to anyone who knocks and they're never h…
That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime. It's an answering service for a phone line. Are they supposed to magically know that the people are calling from some robocall and not because it's a semi-large real estate office somewhere? Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to i…
Can someone explain why it’s so easy to spoof caller ID? And can someone else explain why spoofing caller ID isn’t a felony worthy of life imprisonment?
As for felony life sentence, while I'm sure that's facetious for effect (and I chuckled), if you accept any of the above reasons, it seems you also need to allow for inadvertent misconfiguration. Once we broke up the telephony stranglehold (overall a good thing, I think), we allowed a bunch of federated phone systems to start working together, most of whom are good actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was able to see the article without any issue. There was a banner telling me I should subscribe, but that was it.
Changing to Firefox worked. It seems Philly is able to work around privacy mode in Safari.
That said, I viewed this page in incognito on chrome without issue.
Can someone explain why it’s so easy to spoof caller ID? And can someone else explain why spoofing caller ID isn’t a felony worthy of life imprisonment?
Not that this explains it, but IIRC, caller ID information is sent (or was, at one time with land lines) "out of band", in a particular data format, that occurs between the first and second rings. IIRC, it's done using frequencies that either can't be heard (ie, outside the freq response of the phone), or the sound is "switched off" between rings (quite possibly this, since the "ring" voltage is completely different…
The caller ID information comes as a frequency-shift-keyed (FSK) message (I think). As you said, it's between the first and second rings. But you can't hear it, not just because it's not a normal audio tone, but also because the phone is still on hook and isn't playing any audio that comes over the line.
That's regular caller ID, which is type 1. Call waiting caller ID is type 2. It's also an FSK message. (That is, I'm sure that it's an FSK message. I think type 1 is also FSK, but I'm less certain of that.) This comes immediately after the call waiting "beep". It's short enough that I don't think your ear can pick it out of the transition from the beep tone to the regular conversation that the beep interrupted.
I'm not sure whether you could get fake caller ID that you send through a CO. The phone line isn't "off hook" yet, so the CO isn't passing audio. (If you say "hello" into the phone while it's ringing, I don't think that audio goes down the destination phone line either.) But that's only how I think it works; I don't know.
There's an idea for a dystopian comedy skit somewhere in this: > Will’s so busy leaving messages all over town that he never answers the phone when you call him back...Sometimes calls were forwarded to a host of people who went by “Pat.” They said they worked for PATLive, an answering service firm that takes calls for businesses when they’re busy or closed. Pats were taking messages for “Steven’s Office” in Alexandri…
Phone operators follow relatively simple scripts for most clients, taking down information so someone else can call back, but occasionally perform more complex tasks like scheduling appointments. My impression is that most of the clients were small businesses at the time; a few were government agencies.
It's easy for a scammer or robocaller to pass as a legitimate business with a service like that: just don't include any red flags in the script.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who thinks this is bullshit? How is PATLive not also complicit in the crimes they're looking for "Will" to prosecute in? I get so tired of these B2B service providers who get caught up doing borderline illegal shit and then just shrug their shoulders and say "not our responsibility." Everybody has these clauses doing the ass covering so they can sell services to anyone who knocks and they're never h…
That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime. It's an answering service for a phone line. Are they supposed to magically know that the people are calling from some robocall and not because it's a semi-large real estate office somewhere? Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to i…
Except if a PO Box was being used for fraud, the person using it would be prosecuted, or at the very least the Post Office would cease providing that service.
> or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime.
Entirely different, that's a misuse of provided products by the purchaser. If you buy gas and use it to commit arson, it's not BP's fault.
> Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to inform them.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that people aren't informing them, probably at high volumes (audio volumes and quantity volumes) that they don't wish to be called anymore. If I was getting called 3 times a day by some jackwagon wanting to buy my home, the number they'd be giving would definitely be aware of that situation.
And, even giving an incredible amount of credit that maybe they didn't know, they now definitely know. What's the over under on them still providing services to "Will"? I'm guessing it's pretty definite they are, because they have no reason to not as long as his checks clear. And that's my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime. It's an answering service for a phone line. Are they supposed to magically know that the people are calling from some robocall and not because it's a semi-large real estate office somewhere? Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to i…
Certainly they get a lot of "quit calling me you aholes" type calls. They know what's up.
How many of the people that call in do you think calmly explain that this is a telemarkerer, and they are breaking the law, instead of being aggressive or saying "take me off your list" or "I'm on the do-not-call list" and then try to end the conversation? The assumption that both ends of the service are connected actually allows the criminal portion to continue operating for longer, as anger is likely directed at the wrong party, and possibly in an non-constructive manner.
And this all assumes people actually take time out to call the number back. How often do you go out of your way to interact with a telemarketer that doesn't have an actual person on the line for the call? My bet is the vast majority of calls are either interested parties or so enraged that understanding what they are actually upset about (and getting them to calm down enough to explain it) is actually rather rare.
Forgive me for being out of the loop here, but why is it so hard to make this business unprofitable and easily trackable? For any kind of contracted relations as mentioned in the article (automatic call centers etc), the law enforcement can get a trace. For off-the-shelf temporary SIM cards, make them rate limited and block them when a complaint is filed. Is there something I'm missing here? Given the numbers, this s…
Foreign telecoms make good money looking the other way on spam. They mix in enough legitimate users that the rest of the world can't just block them without, e.g., also blocking the entire Indian subcontinent. We may get there. It'll probably take the form of deploying STIR/SHAKEN on the US side and making engagement with anyone who doesn't implement it purely opt-in.
I'm not a facebook fan, but I wouldn't be entirely against "Facebook Phone" (as in, a drop-in replacement for dialing numbers now that works as an appliance, not a shitty "add-on" for fb messenger) if they moved in to disrupt the industry. Of course privacy-be-damned at that point, but it's the lesser of two evils IMO.
I want a phone service that automatically charges the caller a small amount ($1-$2). I can waive the charger for known numbers. Each time an unknown caller calls, I get an SMS right after the call to waive the charge for this and all subsequent calls or to proceed with the charge.
Any given person only needs $2-3 in reserves in their wallet, to make at most 4-5 outgoing calls, before their fees are refunded. Then a nominal fee for the miners.