FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#81

Post by TallGuyShort » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #76

hedvig wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.

Honestly, it's not clear to me that most "pro-market" advocates even understand markets. They work best when purchasers have many options, clear information, easy switching, and equal power to sellers. But at least in the US, most of the "pro-market" voices in practice seem to be in favor of oligopoly and the absolute right of businesses to exploit information, wealth, and power asymmetries. It makes me a bit bonkers…

In the US, I think one problem is have too much mixing of public and private. We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private sector who manages to buy enough influence. Healthcare was far from a free market already before ObamaCare. But if we're going to regulate it as heavily as we do, I think we need to just step up and socialize it entirely.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#82

Post by bcheung » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

frosted-flakes wrote: post #54

bcheung wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that would probably be a good thing. They seriously need to fix the problem of being able to listen to other people's voicemail by merely setting the caller id to the target's cell number and calling them.

Is that why I need to enter a passcode? I always thought that was stupid.

If you call from another number you get prompted for the passcode. If you call from your "own" number no passcode is needed.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#83

Post by mydpy » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

Does anyone have statistics on the impact of robocallers? They're ubiquitous and universally obnoxious. I haven't seen any reporting on their effectiveness for the services they're advertising for. I wonder why do they even bother.

I understand these calls mostly take advantage of unsuspecting people, but I still can't imagine the impact these calls are making financially.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#84

Post by bduerst » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

koboll wrote: post #75

How about this: No one is allowed to call me unless they are on my contacts list, or perhaps another whitelist of not-quite-contacts-but-allowed-to-call-me. Any calls off those lists silently fail. Phone providers must upgrade their infrastructure to include origin-number verification. No business is allowed to expect I be available to answer phone calls, or to require me to conduct business over the phone, for any r…

They need this whitelist with Android's screen call function, which is currently manually triggered. Basically an assistant-based voice captcha that screens and forwards your calls.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#85

Post by politician » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #56

inetknght wrote: post #13

tl;dr: Upload your contact lists to your service provider so that your service provider can block calls from people not in your contact list. If the blocking doesn't work completely from within my own device then it's going to be a no from me.

1. Network contacts device with a request for synchronous voice communication, including identifying information from the originating party. 2. Device consults its own program, controlled by the subscriber-recipient, and responds with a signal to the network regarding the disposition of the call. 3. The network will then relay that signal to the originator, who may be required to respond one or more times before any…

This is a much better solution that has no chance of seeing the light of day because it keeps your contact information and routing preferences private.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#86

Post by jdenning » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

It seems pointless to implement any new rules when the bad actors already know that they can just spoof caller ID to use a fake number and avoid any consequences. I'm already on every opt-out list in existence - it does nothing. I've filed complaints with the FCC about people breaking the rules - nothing.

What needs to change:

1) Fix Caller-ID so that it can't be spoofed for fraudlulent purposes

2) Make it easy to report violations of the rules to the FCC

3) Actually enforce the rules

Then the Do Not Call Registry and bans on robocallers might actually work.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#87

Post by kodablah » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

hedvig wrote: post #52

duxup wrote: post #37

According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-roboca... "It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to use it..." And as a revenue stream I worry this could…

The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.

> I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer

The more I age, the more I recognize these things aren't absolute and recognize that the levels of benefit/harm are often nuanced to specific situations and wouldn't use such a broad brush strokes of "only" and "always" (as opposed to recognizing a pattern).

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#88

Post by bluGill » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #68

mabbo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, that's so smart I can't believe it's not widely used by everyone. On the other hand, if it was that common, there would be a market for systems that defeat it for the spammers.

If bypasses were common (mostly just sending "1"), then a configurable number you could cycle would work fine. Everyone would have a different number and you only get 3 tries. Anything more complicated like actually following the voice prompt isn't going to happen soon.

voice recognition is already to the point where it can recognize numbers. That we are limited to one of 12 numbers (including * and #) before it gets too hard for humans limits the problem scope to the point where it is a relatively easy problem.

Of course this assumes enough people follow the pattern of press some number to continue. Every time the pattern changes the cost of understanding it and fitting it into their system goes up. In the end though it isn't a scheme we can win: AI can successfully follow more complex processes than humans can in this limited space - including random failure to follow the instructed process if it is too complex.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#89

Post by maxhedrome » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #81

wpietri wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it's not clear to me that most "pro-market" advocates even understand markets. They work best when purchasers have many options, clear information, easy switching, and equal power to sellers. But at least in the US, most of the "pro-market" voices in practice seem to be in favor of oligopoly and the absolute right of businesses to exploit information, wealth, and power asymmetries. It makes me a bit bonkers…

In the US, I think one problem is have too much mixing of public and private. We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private sector who manages to buy enough influence. Healthcare was far from a free market already before ObamaCare. But if we're going to regulate it as heavily as we do, I think we need to just…

Nah, we just need to regulate prices, and disband insurance entirely.

Trump forced all hospitals to be transparent about their prices, there’s no reason on this planet that the shit they’re peddling should cost the amount it does, and if the overhead is on the hospital then we need to regulate further up the ladder. The pharmaceutical companies and suppliers who are basically extorting everyone.

Over regulation is a bad thing, but some regulation, especially with an industry as corrupt as American healthcare is good.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#90

Post by howard941 » Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #64

howard941 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too dislike carrier-hosted block. Pass the SHAKEN/STIR validity flag to me along with the CID data and let me decide whether to trash the call. Or give me ANI in place of CID.

How do I explain that to my 80 year old grandmother using a landline from the late 2000s?

I think you're bringing a different but real issue into play here: Are 80 year olds more susceptible to scammers in general? You can assume future scam callers will pass the carrier block because it'll be ubiquitous if free as Pajit proposes so the carrier-based block will lose its value to the frail elderly. More directly responsive perhaps: An add-on device resembling a stand alone caller ID display that can terminate forged calls or pass them through while inducing a warning message on the late 2000 telset display, your choice.

My fear is as with the anti-robo call laws, carrier-level blocking will arrive with exemptions for political and charity solicitations and the like that some non-negligible number of end users would prefer to avoid.