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

The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 432 posts

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#61

Post by saalweachter »

vharuck wrote: post #31
jacquesm wrote: post #8

Never knew you could contract it has into it's as well.

I remember asking my high school English teacher if I could use the contraction "shouldn't've" for "should not have." She said no. I still disagree.

Prescriptionists gonna prescribe.

In vernacular speech, "have" is just contracted left and right; I can actually remember when I realized "'ve" was different from "of", and it wasn't "should of, could of, would of" but "should've, could've, would've".

"That better've not been my cupcake you ate."

"Do you think you should maybe've put your name on it?"

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#62

Post by NeedMoreTea »

beerandt wrote: post #11

There needs to be postage imposed on connecting calls between systems, payable to the person called, and potentially refundable upon lack of complaint for being unsolicited. This could work for email spam, as well. Bonus if people get to set their own postage rates.

Well there was a guy in the UK who set up a premium number after getting sick of cold sales calls. All companies get his 10p/minute number as contact (he gets 7p of that). Only friends and family get the real underlying number.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23869462

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#63

Post by beerandt »

ravenstine wrote: post #42

I see people here saying that spoofed numbers is the problem. Maybe it's a big part of it, but at the end of the day, the phone companies are complicit with the criminals because there's no good reason that these robocalls can't be treated like a DoS attack. These crooks make millions , of calls every year. My first employer was apparently making robocalls, though none of us were aware of it(there was a call center w…

I'd be happy with at least providing the actual source name and number, in addition to the CNAM. CNAM must still be associated with the same source account (and ideally enforced, somehow).

Best of both worlds.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#64

Post by yellow_lead »

yellow_lead wrote: post #53

This should get better once carriers have implemented STIR/SHAKEN. Many are currently doing testing right now.

For more information including carriers' responses to FCC, including some of their plans, you can view here https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#65

Post by notyourday »

The problem is enforcement. Sorry, technological solutions are not workable - there's always going to be a way to get through because there's nearly no risk of enforcement, which is where the work should concentrate. The thing is that the only reason why robocalls work is because there's a nexus before the phantom callers and real businesses buying those services and those businesses have records because they are paying money. So start chasing those records using existing playbook:

Hire law firms that specialize in collecting fines. They will go through reams of paperwork and paper trails and eventually have a sheriff show up at a Thanksgiving dinner of a whoever owns the companies, after their corporate shields will be pierced, taking away chairs, pans, fridge and a turkey fryer.

When that starts happening robocalls will very quickly.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#66

Post by kovek »

kyrra wrote: post #49
ravenstine wrote: post #42

I see people here saying that spoofed numbers is the problem. Maybe it's a big part of it, but at the end of the day, the phone companies are complicit with the criminals because there's no good reason that these robocalls can't be treated like a DoS attack. These crooks make millions , of calls every year. My first employer was apparently making robocalls, though none of us were aware of it(there was a call center w…

Telecoms can't block calls. They are not legally allowed to do it.

If I need a phone number (and a phone), I go to T-Mobile, sign up with my credit card and get a phone number. Whoever is giving me this phone number, I think, should be held responsible if I'm doing stupid calls.

The companies issuing the ability to robo-callers to do their work are enabling robo-callers to do their work (scams).

Last time I tried to trace down a call, I stopped at a company called OnVoy and got distracted with other issues...

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#69

Post by zamalek »

kyrra wrote: post #49
ravenstine wrote: post #42

I see people here saying that spoofed numbers is the problem. Maybe it's a big part of it, but at the end of the day, the phone companies are complicit with the criminals because there's no good reason that these robocalls can't be treated like a DoS attack. These crooks make millions , of calls every year. My first employer was apparently making robocalls, though none of us were aware of it(there was a call center w…

Telecoms can't block calls. They are not legally allowed to do it.

My phone can, but spoofing obviously circumvents that.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#70

Post by beerandt »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #62
beerandt wrote: post #11

There needs to be postage imposed on connecting calls between systems, payable to the person called, and potentially refundable upon lack of complaint for being unsolicited. This could work for email spam, as well. Bonus if people get to set their own postage rates.

Well there was a guy in the UK who set up a premium number after getting sick of cold sales calls. All companies get his 10p/minute number as contact (he gets 7p of that). Only friends and family get the real underlying number. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23869462

I like the idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of when your real number makes it onto call lists.

But I do like the idea of giving out a 1-900 number to people. It would certainly get some interesting reactions, depending on context.

Post reply on HN