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

A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 248 posts

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#131

Post by Hizonner »

rastrojero2000 wrote: post #114
Hizonner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes. Your point?

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505550 glad to help

Look, a lot of people make the mistake you're making.

Not every unjust, stupid, or evil thing is illegal.

Even when something is illegal, that doesn't mean you have standing to challenge it in court, or that a given court has jurisdiction to do anything about it.

Courts (theoretically) follow rules. They can't just randomly set things aside without some basis in those rules. Lawsuits are not a magic universal remedy.

You could definitely argue that courts don't always follow rules, and that the Trump administration is doing everything it can to make that worse, but the changes they're making aren't going to work in your favor, because those changes are in the nature of "we can do whatever we want, and fuck the courts if they don't like it".

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#132

Post by apt-apt-apt-apt »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #82

Honestly I'm at the point where I'm like lets just kill the POTS. It makes little sense to me that it's become a sort of user ID for many things, that we have better alternatives (WebRTC, FaceTime et al) that we should push. Like where it currently says "Telephone number" i should be able to put in a URL like "webrtc:// " (which itself could be a dropdown box for "This device" on the phone itself...) For example, why…

Careful, you are one capital letter 'U' away from having the FBI, NSA, SWAT team at your door!

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#133

Post by rescbr »

DrewADesign wrote: post #119
iamnothere wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is making spam calls with cell phones. Spammers use VOIP services and old TDM systems.

There’s SIM card banks for SMS spam… I’d be surprised if there wasn’t anything similar for calling. Not that I support this bill but it is a thing.

From what I’ve investigated as a recipient of spam calls, I’ve been called from legitimate mobile numbers from my own mobile telco. The only thing that explains that are SIM card banks.

Unfortunately there isn’t an easy way to report abuse to the telcos (and regulators).

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#135

Post by filup »

We just need a new phone system where 'phone numbers' are designed to be disposable.

Phone numbers were designed with the idea that they need to be easily memorizable in your head but I don't think that's really needed today.

At any moment I should be able to discard my contact and redistribute it on my own.

The idea that old numbers get recycled is completely ridiculous as well.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#136

Post by matheusmoreira »

filup wrote: post #135

We just need a new phone system where 'phone numbers' are designed to be disposable. Phone numbers were designed with the idea that they need to be easily memorizable in your head but I don't think that's really needed today. At any moment I should be able to discard my contact and redistribute it on my own. The idea that old numbers get recycled is completely ridiculous as well.

We need to get rid of phones straight up. No one should be able to interrupt someone else by randomly ringing them and demanding attention.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#137

Post by wang_li »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #136
filup wrote: post #135

We just need a new phone system where 'phone numbers' are designed to be disposable. Phone numbers were designed with the idea that they need to be easily memorizable in your head but I don't think that's really needed today. At any moment I should be able to discard my contact and redistribute it on my own. The idea that old numbers get recycled is completely ridiculous as well.

We need to get rid of phones straight up. No one should be able to interrupt someone else by randomly ringing them and demanding attention.

You can trivially accomplish this under the current system. There is no need for a change that imposes your preferences on everyone.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#138

Post by bityard »

derefr wrote: post #89
9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because they are bulk purchasing numbers from voip providers, cycling through probably hundreds per day.

Do they actually need to purchase numbers to do that, though? I always imagined that there are certain shady providers ("grey-market Twilio" sort of idea) that just let you run single outbound call/text requests through a giant pool of numbers shared with other customers of the service. Perhaps specifically a bank of residential numbers plugged into banks of regular cell phones, like a residential IP proxy service pr…

Somebody at some point is purchasing them, probably not the spammers/scammers themselves.

It's very unlikely anybody is placing spam/scam calls with regular cell phones when VoIP numbers are easy and cheap to get, and when VoIP systems are far easier to manage.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#139

Post by rescbr »

carlosjobim wrote: post #64
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What valid purpose does hidden numbers have? Government departments in my country hide their caller ID. I find that abusive on its own but let’s not forget about the fact that now you have victims of domestic violence being forced to answer hidden numbers in case it’s welfare, or the cops, or their abusive spouse.

Calling in an anonymous tip to the police and such.

I’d say to use a payphone if you need to do that, but then my age is showing, as this is not possible anymore.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#140

Post by jameshart »

xnyan wrote: post #83
jameshart wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: for my part I would like it to be the case that any phone line that can dial or message my phone can be traced back to a known human being who can be held accountable for abuse of that phone line in terms of generating spam, abuse or harassment. Seems that we can’t both get what we want. A potential solution is that you get your anonymous phone line but my phone provider simply refuses to let you call m…

> my phone provider simply refuses to let you call me with it. I don't think it's necessary to go this far. The provider could indicate something like "CANNOT VERIFY NUMBER". I imagine most people would block such calls.

Isn’t that the same thing? I was making the assumption that the way I would block such calls would be by telling my phone provider they don’t need to route them to me in the first place.
Post reply on HN