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

201–210 of 248 posts

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

#201

Post by matheusmoreira »

wang_li wrote: post #137
matheusmoreira wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a need. The whole point is to do that. "I'll just opt out" half measures won't get rid of the culture. We're all expected to have phones. People want to call. We suffer actual economic consequences if we refuse to participate. Your "solution" boils down to "just don't have a phone so we can ostracize you". Like the loonies who don't have Facebook accounts for the companies to spy on. The whole idea is to wipe Facebook off the face of this Earth so we need not face such choices to begin with.

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

#202

Post by lacoolj »

I didn't even know you could get access to phone service without basic ID info.

Maybe I haven't tried playing with enough "burner" phones :\

Also blanking on a time when you legitimately need to have a phone and not provide your name... anyone have examples?

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

#203

Post by inigyou »

coldpie wrote: post #183
inigyou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is opt/in. There's three categories (according to that defcon talk): call originates from the number it says it does, call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified (only allowed by regulation on legacy links). Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going t…

> call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified I'm saying these two categories should be denied by default by my telecom provider, and the user must opt-in to receiving them. > Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you t…

If your telecom provider stopped carrying unverified calls you'd cancel your service because you'd miss a lot of important calls. If the government required it for all calls though...

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

#204

Post by ofalkaed »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #191
ofalkaed wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cellphones broadcast their location, not ours. We can leave our phones at home.

Assuming your movements are tracked by other methods (surveillance cameras and facial recognition, purchase records, etc) the absence of your phone when you would otherwise normally have it is a data point, too.

There is no time that I would normally have my phone other than when I am at home; the data point that I provide would be the rare times I take my phone out of the house and most of that time it is off, I only turn it on if I actually need it. My phone is turned off a fair amount which also means I do not have internet since I get my internet through my phone's hotspot, it is nice to be able to disconnect from the world so simply, just turn off my phone. If this was the norm, location data would have far less value and possibly not be worth the expense. Phone addiction seems the real issue here.

My purchasing data is not much better, two purchases so far this year other than my three monthly bills and groceries once or twice a week where I also get cash for my other expenses. I don't do this out of concern about being tracked, just how I live my life. Sometimes I leave my phone off for a week, nothing bad happens, at least nothing that having my phone on would have prevented.

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

#205

Post by coldpie »

inigyou wrote: post #203
coldpie wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified I'm saying these two categories should be denied by default by my telecom provider, and the user must opt-in to receiving them. > Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you t…

If your telecom provider stopped carrying unverified calls you'd cancel your service because you'd miss a lot of important calls. If the government required it for all calls though...

> you'd miss a lot of important calls

Like what? Who is both a legitimate caller and also trying to call me through one of these unverified legacy services? If their calls stopped going through to a huge chunk of their customers (this is one of the reasons receiving unvalidated calls should be opt in, not opt out), why wouldn't they switch to a verified service?

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

#206

Post by throwaway1492 »

It’s trivial to use a cellular connection to control a fpv drone, near real time. I’m really surprised there hasn’t been occurrences of extortion (ie protection rackets) and targeted assassinations via air droppable explosives like we see in Ukraine war. Burner phones enable this.

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

#207

Post by singpolyma3 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #143
singpolyma3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you verify it is spoofed? Have you asked your carrier to drop unverified calls from your service?

> How do you verify it is spoofed? Not my job to "verify," in the technical sense. When a call for an Indian crypto pump comes in as "SMITH, ROBERT", and a local exchange, I call that "spoofed."

That's almost certainly not spoofed. They just own a phone number on your local exchange.

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

#208

Post by singpolyma3 »

sgarman wrote: post #158
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you verify it is spoofed? Not my job to "verify," in the technical sense. When a call for an Indian crypto pump comes in as "SMITH, ROBERT", and a local exchange, I call that "spoofed."

Mine literally come from the verified coinbase phone number and say coinbase and everything. If I didn't know for sure they are not calling me I'd think it was real 100%.

Yeah that does sound spoofed. I'd call your carrier and ask them to make sure attestation below B is blocked.

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

#209

Post by singpolyma3 »

rescbr wrote: post #133
DrewADesign wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think most major US carriers have a short code for reporting abuse now.

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

#210

Post by saintfire »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #72
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #6

We really just need telcos to stop allowing caller id spoofing. Doesn’t even need your name, but with a real number we could actually report these scams. You can still allow people to hide it, but then by default every non-business phone should block calls with hidden numbers.

This is already not allowed. If your carrier accepts a spoofed call they're already violating FCC recommendations.

And yet, I incessantly get spoofed numbers calling me from the same "central office code". Also resulting in people with the same code "returning my calls" and then getting angry that I say I didn't call them.

Preventing number spoofing would help significantly with spam calling. At least the ones from local numbers.

Post reply on HN