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

FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 281 posts

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#51

Post by reactordev »

_fat_santa wrote: post #49

Before I got my phone number, a woman by the name of "Sade" has the number. Recently I've been getting at least one call per day from the same company regarding an extended auto warranty. I've told them politely that this is the wrong number, they keep calling. I've asked them to take my number off their list and they happily agree to, but they keep calling. I've threatened to contact the FCC is they keep calling yet…

Lack of write access to the db, your call will be forwarded to the next available operator.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#52

Post by RankingMember »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #4
coldpie wrote: post #2

Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.

Yes! Easy to forget that just because "we" don't fall for them, they're still incredibly harmful to our seniors and other vulnerable populations. Also hate the scam "work from home for $125,000 per year" texts. They really prey on the desperate.

The "r/scams" sub-reddit is an amazing glimpse into this world. The saddest ones to me are the peoples' parents who fully believe they're talking to a celebrity who needs their money for some outlandish reason (and they send it to them over and over).

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#53

Post by bongodongobob »

xp84 wrote: post #38

I'll definitely believe it when I don't see those calls, but I could not be more in favor of turning the phone network into a much more "trusted" type of system -- similar to how SSL certs used to be prior to the Let's Encrypt era, where it requires some form of validation of something besides 'existence': Conceptually, someone US-based should have to cryptographically sign, with their license to continue participati…

> Conceptually, someone US-based should have to cryptographically sign, with their license to continue participating at stake, an assertion that the source phone number is real.

But phone numbers aren't real. They aren't any more real than an IP address. It's arbitrary. This is how VOIP systems work. You just assign a number from your block.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#54

Post by jm4 »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #4
coldpie wrote: post #2

Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.

Yes! Easy to forget that just because "we" don't fall for them, they're still incredibly harmful to our seniors and other vulnerable populations. Also hate the scam "work from home for $125,000 per year" texts. They really prey on the desperate.

Exactly. My city started posting about online safety and warnings about various scams. Unfortunately, almost every one of them also mentions how a local resident was victimized. We have a fairly large senior population.

It's easy to say it's idiots who fall for this stuff when we're young enough to have grown up in this world or started using new technology at an early age. We will be the ones targeted someday and it will be a medium that didn't become available to us until later in life just like what the seniors are experiencing now.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#55

Post by xp84 »

AJ007 wrote: post #36
vorpalhex wrote: post #29

EVE Online has had a functional anti-spam system for many years: it costs you some money to contact someone who doesn't have you in their contacts. The amount is configurable and the feature can be turned off. You as the receiver keep 70% of the fee. Think of how quickly spam would go away.

Between the 0 real security and the generational jump in capability fraud now has because of AI, there is no excuse for the continued existence of traditional voice or SMS. We'll never be able to solve compromised devices or social engineering of others, but the idea that anyone/any software in the world can push a message to a device and then immediately communicate with that person is absurd.

At the risk of going too cliché on AI speculation, imagine a hostile AI (or just a non-aligned one under the control of a big nation-state adversary) with nothing but ability to send spoofed texts and calls, and a mission to harm US interests.

It could easily set up thousands of people as unknowing patsies to commit mass terrorist acts, just by giving the AI a small amount of crypto to use in "paying people for gig work" to do tasks. It could start people off with busywork like ferrying harmless packages back and forth, and the ones who proved reliable, eventually would get a much less harmless package to be delivered somewhere sensitive.

That could all be orchestrated by human terrorists of course, but it's so much more effective if they could do it in 100 cities at once without almost any (knowing) human labor, and without any detectable foreign involvement.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#56

Post by gr8niss »

coldpie wrote: post #9
jacobr1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many are based in the US and subject to US-based prosecution?

Why can someone from outside the US make my phone ring? Why can't I opt out of calls sourced internationally? Seems like an easy way to fix the problem. There is no reason for anyone overseas to call me, and if someone US-based does phone spamming, we can prosecute them.

[dead]

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#57

Post by schmidtleonard »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43
coldpie wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one outside the jurisdiction of my country's laws should be able to make my phone ring or send me text messages without my permission.

At least without it showing up as an international number.

No, labeling is not enough, options are not enough, unattested communication needs to go silently to spam by default. Anything else encourages the spam. "We let spammers ring your phone unless you tick an option 5 menus deep in your phone that gets automatically reset every 3 months at update time and moved every 2 years between names/locations that range from awful to insane" doesn't cut it.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#58

Post by homeonthemtn »

reactordev wrote: post #50
SilverElfin wrote: post #45

I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.

Shut one down, another pops up in its place.

Ok shut that one down too.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#59

Post by nativeit »

msgodel wrote: post #23

Just kill the phone. It's a terrible anachronism. If you insist on voice you can attach an ogg/mp3 file to your email.

I'm not one of the people down-voting this, I'm inclined to sort of agree with you. Where you lost me was attaching files to an email. Are you really suggesting this solution has fewer problems than telephones?

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#60

Post by delichon »

_fat_santa wrote: post #49

Before I got my phone number, a woman by the name of "Sade" has the number. Recently I've been getting at least one call per day from the same company regarding an extended auto warranty. I've told them politely that this is the wrong number, they keep calling. I've asked them to take my number off their list and they happily agree to, but they keep calling. I've threatened to contact the FCC is they keep calling yet…

Sade as in de Sade.
Post reply on HN