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

Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#81

Post by ardy42 »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #19
exhilaration wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always answer the call and then joyfully "block/report spam" the number in the Android dialer. Being able to do something to fight back is satisfying enough that I don't ignore the call. I did just switch to T-Mobile and they pass "SCAM LIKELY" as the caller name so I may start declining those.

the block button doesn’t do anything since most of the phone numbers are spoofed (someone pretending to be someone else). Filtering out any number that shares my area code and first three digits and not in my phone book would go a long way to getting rid of spam.

> Filtering out any number that shares my area code and first three digits and not in my phone book would go a long way to getting rid of spam.

Filtering by number is a lot easier when you have a number with a small state's area code when you have not lived there for some time. All unknown callers from that state are then easily identified as spam with 99% probability.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#82

Post by D-Coder »

mkaic wrote: post #16

I’m one of those people who thoroughly enjoys scam baiting. I answer every robocall I can, and connect to a live scanner whenever possible. Every minute of theirs I waste is a minute they’re not successfully scamming someone else.

"My credit card verification number? Hold on a sec, my card is in the other room, I'll go get it." Place phone on desk.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#83

Post by yellow_lead »

mehrdadn wrote: post #66
yellow_lead wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just implemented this at a telecom. To expand a bit, the three levels are A, B, and C. There is also of course empty (no attestation). Three levels of attestation are roughly: A = I know the customer, they own this number. B = I know the customer, can't confirm they own this number. C = I'm sending this call out, but I know nothing of the customer or this number. Carriers sometimes don't want to receive anything ot…

Do you know how this will actually solve the problem? Like will they actually let customers block calls without the desired level of attestation?

On cellphones, no/C attestation can show up with "suspected spam". I believe T-Mobile does this today somehow, possibly a line under the caller ID.

Whether or not it's a premium service will probably depend on the carrier.

As for your original question (blocking), I'm not sure. It's certainly in the realm of possibilities and carriers' fraud departments will have to decide what to do with it.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#84

Post by QUFB »

jffry wrote: post #74
heavyset_go wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this. You wouldn't happen to have a blog post that details your setup?

I wonder if it's based on the same thing as https://old.reddit.com/r/itslenny/top?t=all

Yeah. Lenny wasn't so effective for the vacation, Google Listing, or insurance scams so I re-recorded it.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#85

Post by QUFB »

heavyset_go wrote: post #64
QUFB wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pretty stupid bot set up with Asterisk. I think the record is 17 minutes, and the bot even repeated the script. When I get bored I put up some calls: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYyYngFvpbNqsAhpAI6DoeA

I love this. You wouldn't happen to have a blog post that details your setup?

It's pretty simple, I'll put something together.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#86

Post by NicoJuicy »

mkaic wrote: post #16

I’m one of those people who thoroughly enjoys scam baiting. I answer every robocall I can, and connect to a live scanner whenever possible. Every minute of theirs I waste is a minute they’re not successfully scamming someone else.

Everyone who is knowledgeable should do this.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#87

Post by flavmartins »

Jaygles wrote: post #2

I've just stopped answering my phone altogether. If something is important enough the person calling should leave a voicemail.

I don't answer either. And I get voicemails with robocalls about Cigna health plans A LOT. Not sure why.

I also get warranty spam calls that leave voice mails too.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#89

Post by heavyset_go »

jffry wrote: post #74
heavyset_go wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this. You wouldn't happen to have a blog post that details your setup?

I wonder if it's based on the same thing as https://old.reddit.com/r/itslenny/top?t=all

Oh, I didn't know this was a thing. Thanks for the link.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#90

Post by timbit42 »

lilyball wrote: post #77
righteous wrote: post #56

This is an economic problem not a technical one. We simply need to make it unprofitable to wholesale spam call citizens of the wealthy first-world. Every outbound call should cost $1 to the terminating carrier. ATT, Centurylink, Etc. Recipients can mark spam calls (*69, an app, whatever) and the dollar is split between the carrier and consumer. After 60 days the money is returned for calls not marked as spam. No call…

You’re now incentivizing the carrier to deliver spam calls, and the customer to report as spam every call they receive from a party they have no expectation of talking to again regardless of whether it’s spam.

That's fine as long as the spammers are disincentivised enough.
Post reply on HN