281–290 of 432 posts
A lot of people point out that telecom companies should do something but aren't because it's lucrative for them or too expensive to fix. Are telecom companies not realizing how much they are hurting themselves with this in the long term? People will stop using phone numbers altogether. Using the phone has become such a pain, at least in the US, that whenever I can, I used different ways of communicating. WhatsApp, iM…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A network shouldn't allow a $20 prepaid cell phone to spoof numbers. Give it one number, if it starts spamming it can easily be blocked.
Yes, my $20 prepaid cell phone would only have one number, and would be blocked after my friends report the robocalls. But whence comes the $1000 my friends are now owed, for the calls made before their complaints were filed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because there's no good reason that these robocalls can't be treated like a DoS attack The problem here is that the origin can be spoofed. You are imagining a system where a telco like T-Mobile connects the caller directly to you. That's not how it works. The connection chain could look like this. bad caller 111-1111 -> A -> B -> C -> T-Mobile -> you 999-9999 All T-Mobile knows is that 111-1111 is calling 999-9999…
I would pay to have a "AT&T Certified" icon on incoming phone calls. Maybe the carriers can set up peering agreements and both AT&T and Verizon work. The vast majority of people I care about are on those carriers and I can forget about the rest. It's very hard to reform the whole system, but you have to start somewhere and this could be how.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because there's no good reason that these robocalls can't be treated like a DoS attack The problem here is that the origin can be spoofed. You are imagining a system where a telco like T-Mobile connects the caller directly to you. That's not how it works. The connection chain could look like this. bad caller 111-1111 -> A -> B -> C -> T-Mobile -> you 999-9999 All T-Mobile knows is that 111-1111 is calling 999-9999…
I would pay to have a "AT&T Certified" icon on incoming phone calls. Maybe the carriers can set up peering agreements and both AT&T and Verizon work. The vast majority of people I care about are on those carriers and I can forget about the rest. It's very hard to reform the whole system, but you have to start somewhere and this could be how.
Call verification is already here and rolling out progressively. System is called STIR/SHAKEN. iOS supports it as of 13.something. The UX is terrible though, all you see is a checkmark after the caller in the call log. Android might have a better situation on some phones, this system is carrier dependent. More about it here: https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
There are scenarios where it doesn't work. Calls routed through Google Voice to my T-Mobile line will never show this checkmark. Also, not showing it onscreen for unknown incoming calls defeats the purpose, really not sure what Apple was thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My science teacher once insisted rivers couldn't flow north because on a globe, north is up. Did he just not consider, say, the Nile?
Or the Rhine. Maybe there is no north bound river where the GP lived?
We pointed out the Nile on the globe. Even that wasn’t convincing apparently.
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…
Yup. It’s amusing to see people think there is some hard technical problem here. Tie the problem of robocalls to the telcos losing money, and this problem will solve itself in months.
A lot of people point out that telecom companies should do something but aren't because it's lucrative for them or too expensive to fix. Are telecom companies not realizing how much they are hurting themselves with this in the long term? People will stop using phone numbers altogether. Using the phone has become such a pain, at least in the US, that whenever I can, I used different ways of communicating. WhatsApp, iM…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because there's no good reason that these robocalls can't be treated like a DoS attack The problem here is that the origin can be spoofed. You are imagining a system where a telco like T-Mobile connects the caller directly to you. That's not how it works. The connection chain could look like this. bad caller 111-1111 -> A -> B -> C -> T-Mobile -> you 999-9999 All T-Mobile knows is that 111-1111 is calling 999-9999…
I would pay to have a "AT&T Certified" icon on incoming phone calls. Maybe the carriers can set up peering agreements and both AT&T and Verizon work. The vast majority of people I care about are on those carriers and I can forget about the rest. It's very hard to reform the whole system, but you have to start somewhere and this could be how.
We should use law to eliminate this problem.
The solution is simple, and I've proposed it before. If someone used spoofing to break the law, there's strict liability for some kind of statutory damages, say $100, applicable to everyone across the chain. I.e. I can sue Verizon for sending the call to my phone, Verizon can sue whoever connected to their network, they can sue whoever spoofed on their network, etc. This will quickly lead to networks requiring proof…
So if I buy a $20 prepaid cell phone for cash and use it to robocall ten of my friends, they'd share $1000?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that loophole also apply to political action committees?
Yes. If the content of the message is "political speech" it is exempted from CAN-SPAM (which also covers cell phone calls) as an extension of first ammendment rights, regardless of who is doing the speaking. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/08/...
No, you are absolutely wrong. CAN-SPAM law for email is under the FTC's regulation and does nothing to restrict the ability of marketers to send initial unsolicited mailings. This isn't a first amendment question of exemption, the FTC is not authorized by statute to regulate noncommercial activity like a political campaign.
TCPA regulations for cellphone marketing are under the auspices of the FCC. You cannot send unsolicited commercial SMS and calls legally (there are some exemptions for pollsters and nonprofits). TCPA law also applies to political campaigns: https://www.fcc.gov/political-campaign-robocalls-robotexts