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

371–380 of 432 posts

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

#371

Post by jrockway »

vpEfljFL wrote: post #358
lukebuehler wrote: post #274

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…

That is exactley why centralized solutions are winning the market over decentralized ones. No one wants to deal with evil actors within decentralized system. Users are even ready to give up open protocol for proprietary one (imessage, etc).

Spam filters work OK. They just take a lot of work to develop and aren't perfect.

Closed platforms can also be spammed. Twitch, HN comments, etc.

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

#372

Post by downrightmike »

lukebuehler wrote: post #274

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…

Just got rid of my landline this month. Just too many robocalls at all hours. Never anything that I need to hear about.

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

#373

Post by salawat »

falcor84 wrote: post #363
rlayton2 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "use it or lose it" clause would be great for patent law. While I appreciate how hard it would be to implement properly, I don't think that should be an impediment to getting the process started.

>While I appreciate how hard it would be to implement properly Isn't that part of what it means to acquire a patent? Trying to get a patent on something that I don't yet know how to actually implement should be denied, right?

Nope. It's actually best practice to get one even without an implementation because usually the threat of a lawsuit is enough of a chilling effect to keep the competition guessing.

Of course the risk is that if someone else challenges you on it, and you can't provide the implementation, you can have your patent invalidated.

At least that's my understanding of the tactics of patent warfare.

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

#374

Post by downrightmike »

ikeboy wrote: post #226
michaelt wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I buy a $20 prepaid cell phone for cash and use it to robocall ten of my friends, they'd share $1000?

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.

Yeah, a fail2ban would be great. Bell labs ushered in a lot of our infrastructure, it isn't like baby bells haven't been involved in the ecosystem that creates these tools, it looks like they aren't willing to lose any traffic.

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

#375

Post by usrusr »

droithomme wrote: post #339
syshum wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology is also more reliable than modern wireless I remember many times where everything else was out of service except the good old POTS line...

That's great for you in whatever treeless desert area you live in. It's not the case for many others of us and it's kinda pretentious that you know oh so much better.

It's funny how some regions insist on not burying their communication lines. Or maybe funny how others insist on burying. Because like so many things it's a tradeoff, what you win in reliability nines you loose in bandwidth trailing zeros. Upgrading underground infrastructure is so damn expensive.

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

#376

Post by luckydata »

lukebuehler wrote: post #274

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…

long term thinking is in short supply because nothing in our economy incentivizes it.

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

#377

Post by salawat »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #354
adrr wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International carriers still interconnect with a us carrier to deliver the calls. Spam is really easy to detect. Short call durations and lots of different call to numbers.

Even just giving origin information would help, if the local end of the interconnect ensured calls show the international dial-code as a minimum then that would help; instead we get (in UK) international calls (India, primarily) with caller ID showing a local number (sometimes your own number, I think) ... the interconnect certainly shouldn't be facilitating that.

That's easier said than done.

SS7 its the primarily utilized protocol stack nowadays. The PTSN (Public Telephone Switching Network) and the Internet have been combined for a while now.

The problematic part of SS7 is it allows for setting arbitrary unauthenticated origination info in the rough equivalent of a "From" field in the initiation process.

There are attempts ongoing to attempt to implement a "Web of Trust" layer a la TLS on in front of the preexisting telephony infrastructure in the form of STIR/SHAKEN, but it'll have some of the same warts that current "Web of Trust" implementations now currently suffer.

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

#378

Post by salawat »

rtpg wrote: post #319
iamthirsty wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telecoms aren't responsible for who uses their service, or what they do on it—thats why they are classified as a utility.

Sure, but there could be DMCA-style “you’re not liable, unless we point it out to you and you don’t act on the information” mechanisms. It feels super reasonable to ask for telecoms to blacklist stuff after complaints

They are currently empowered to do that already. You just have to give explicit consent.

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

#379

Post by SapporoChris »

coldpie wrote: post #359
SapporoChris wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many services and businesses will not do business with you if you do not have a phone number. The most common example would be delivery services, but there are many others. Have people been able to get around these limitations? and how is it done? I hate having a phone as much as anyone else.

> Have people been able to get around these limitations? and how is it done? Just put in random crap. 555-555-5555 works almost everywhere. They don't want to call you anyway, that costs way more than an email.

Thank you, it had not occurred to me to just make one up. Some services will verify with text message, but many do not.

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

#380

Post by salawat »

michaelt wrote: post #183
ikeboy wrote: post #114

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?

You could, but you also need to take into account the number travels with the SIM, not the handset.

The SIM is you. People already buy burner SIM's, and many countries have started to implement tighter controls on SIM purchasing in order to aid law enforcement's ability to track down telephony enabled crime.

Post reply on HN