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

Verified by Twilio

twilio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 247 posts

Re: Verified by Twilio

#211

Post by saimiam »

spacehunt wrote: post #142
clmckinley wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most robocalls are illegal in the US. We have a do not call list and everything. I believe is it a name change is currently working its way through to change the name to "seriously, do not call... please list". [ https://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/robocallin... ] The problem is that determining the source is difficult and even if you did it is most likely over seas where enforcing the fine is impossibl…

There is a simple economic solution. Make the caller instead of the receiver pay for all calls.

This doesn’t work either. In india, calls are exclusively paid for by the caller but the number of unsolicited calls (and texts) is high.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#212

Post by kerkeslager »

elahd wrote: post #188
Jolter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks cool but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just outlaw robocalling like the rest of the world has?

The telephone network is international. The US is limited in its ability to enforce anti-spam laws against operations running out of other countries. (They also seem unwilling or unable to enforce these laws domestically, but that's a completely separate issue.)

In this case I think it's a case of being unable to enforce the laws, because the technology for verifying callers is broken, making it easy to spoof phone numbers--even the US government doesn't know who is calling you illegally. SHAKEN/STIR is intended to close the security hole and make caller ID accurate again.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#213

Post by sangnoir »

gregmac wrote: post #10

I was just reviewing my call detail records on my "home" number yesterday, and realizing that the vast majority are spam - we pretty much don't answer that phone. This got me thinking about alternatives to even ringing for any unrecognised numbers, such as an IVR menu that said something like "Hi, we're screening spam, press 4 2 if you're a real person". I'm not sure how that'd be accepted by, for example, the dentis…

> Has anyone set something like that up?

https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/9118387?hl=en works on several Android/Android One phones

Re: Verified by Twilio

#215

Post by rsync »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #178
rsync wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"2. I have a phone number I share with companies / loyalty programs / etc." How does this one work and who provides this number ? I ask because a twilio number is not a mobile number and therefore cannot receive 2FA from "short codes". I am sure you know what I am talking about and have run into this ... so I ask, if you have a number that you give out to "companies" (as I also do) do you have a mobile number that ca…

What do you mean? You can filter by the number type in their api. They do offer mobile numbers.

No, they don't. There is a proper industry definition of what a "mobile" number is and only "mobile" numbers can accept SMS from shortcodes.

All of the 2FA from FANGs and banks and so on come from shortcodes so you can't do a lot of those 2FA workflows with a twilio number (or a number you port to twilio).

As per engineers at the Signal conference, there are no plans to make proper "mobile" numbers available at twilio.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#216

Post by HugoHobling »

awwstn wrote: post #210
HugoHobling wrote: post #19

I know it's overkill, but this is my current setup for my phone numbers. I treat phone numbers the same way I do my email address: I use different numbers for different purposes. 1. I have a "clean" phone number I only share with friends/family. Certain prefixes and phone number actually receive next to zero spam calls. This number has received 2 calls in the years I've had it. 2. I have a phone number I share with c…

Request for startup! I would happily pay $20/month for a service that makes it easy to replicate this setup.

I can see the appeal of this, and have given some thought to it.

However American Telco regulations are a huge barrier to entry. There are various state and federal rules, so it wouldn't be an easy side project.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#217

Post by HugoHobling »

mttyng wrote: post #181
HugoHobling wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any documentation that's all in one place. It all uses basic Asterisk functionality with FAGI scripts to do anything with advanced logic.

Is that via Twilio? Or something else?

Twilio essentially provides the phone number. Calls to and from are sent over the internet using the SIP protcol. Twilio can talk to Asterisk or Freeswitch or any similar project. Asterisk has incredible customizability, so that's where I do everything.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#218

Post by Nextgrid »

kerkeslager wrote: post #206
Jolter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks cool but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just outlaw robocalling like the rest of the world has?

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that robocalls already fall under laws that make them illegal. The problem is that if someone makes an illegal call from a spoofed number, you can't tell where the call is actually coming from, so you can't prosecute the caller. SHAKEN/STIR closes the loophole that allows spoofing phone numbers.

Make the user-facing telco liable for any spam call. The industry will sort out the problem overnight, by disconnecting from the bad carriers from which spam calls originate.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#219

Post by ben509 »

ozmbie wrote: post #38
HugoHobling wrote: post #19

I know it's overkill, but this is my current setup for my phone numbers. I treat phone numbers the same way I do my email address: I use different numbers for different purposes. 1. I have a "clean" phone number I only share with friends/family. Certain prefixes and phone number actually receive next to zero spam calls. This number has received 2 calls in the years I've had it. 2. I have a phone number I share with c…

Is this a uniquely American problem? My Australian mobile phone receives maybe one spam call per year. It’s my single phone and I give out the number to various businesses and people.

The downside of inventing it is the US has a massive amount of legacy in telephony that few other nations have to deal with. That opens up tremendous opportunities to break the system. But, hey, we get +1 as our international code, so there's that.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#220

Post by RHSeeger »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #67

> it also potentially prevents consumers from receiving vital communications—calls from the doctor, banks that are flagging issues, schools calling about parents’ children. That's bullshit. I have these important number in my address book. In the unlikely case the doctor wants to call me from a phone booth or from their friend's phone (why?), they'll leave a message and I'll call them back. As for the bank, they know…

Your response is the same bullshit you call on the message you're replying to.

- I don't have the 10+ numbers that dial out from my doctor's office in my phone

- I don't have the 5+ numbers that dial out from my child's school in my phone

- I don't have the 10+ numbers that dial out from my child's doctor's office in my phone

- Banks (god knows how many numbers each from multiple banks) - etc

It's literally impossible to have all the numbers I want to allow to reach me in my phone.

The fact that you happen to have a very limited set of numbers you need to be able to be called from does not invalidate the fact that many people have a vast amount of such numbers. Don't assume your anecdotal data speaks for everyone.

Post reply on HN