Is this a USA problem, or world-wide? If other countries don't have such a problem, why not?
I get spam calls in Germany, but it's maybe two dozen a year in random bursts.
Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
81–90 of 149 posts
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#82The solution is accessible law, not better anti-fraud tooling. Introduce a spam / fraud button, using it requires your pin and costs $10, but obliges your telecom provider to record the call (preferably including a few minutes before you hit the button), email you a signed recording and if found to be spam deposit $100 onto your account. Your provider may then hand the fee +10% for himself to whatever network the cal…
Infeasible. Fraud or spam is usually pretty hard to confirm from one recording without additional context. Many scammers have plausible deniability or are just checking whether the number is active. Moreover, this solution would involve secret non-consensual recording; what if it's not a scam?
> Many scammers have plausible deniability
The scammers who call me are perfectly obvious.
First, they tell me the company they are from (almost certainly a fake one -- could be easy to verify). Then they try to convince me that two years ago I have created an account on their website, they gave me some free money that was managed by an AI, and now I have a ton of money, and they need to send it to me (a completely bullshit story). Then they tell me that in order to get that money, I need to install a software, that I know happens to be a remote control software (no legitimate financial institution would ever do that).
There is no way to make this plausibly deniable. Especially the part about the need to install the remote control software... which is the entire point of the operation.
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#83I no longer can answer my phone. I get at least 20-40 spam/scam calls per day, and many are legitimate companies calling for loans and refinancing offers, which started after I got a home loan. I cannot seem to stop them from calling, and even though my phone number is listed in National Do Not Call Registry for many years, it hasn't worked at all. The only relief is that on my iPhone, I was able to block all calls n…
Live in Europe, last time I got a spam call 4-5 years ago it was my ISP asking of I wanted to add tv to my internet. Told them not to call me again and they didn't.
[deleted]
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#84Is this a USA problem, or world-wide? If other countries don't have such a problem, why not?
Because the US market is very lucrative. In other countries they aren't calls, they're WhatsApp messages just asking for money. Sometimes they somehow hack into people's WhatsApp accounts and then ask their friends for money.
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#85The solution is accessible law, not better anti-fraud tooling. Introduce a spam / fraud button, using it requires your pin and costs $10, but obliges your telecom provider to record the call (preferably including a few minutes before you hit the button), email you a signed recording and if found to be spam deposit $100 onto your account. Your provider may then hand the fee +10% for himself to whatever network the cal…
Infeasible. Fraud or spam is usually pretty hard to confirm from one recording without additional context. Many scammers have plausible deniability or are just checking whether the number is active. Moreover, this solution would involve secret non-consensual recording; what if it's not a scam?
I'd make one significant change to the proposal in the comment.
The delivery penalty applies to any unsolicited email, as determined by the recipient.
If also tagged as scam, those are further forwarded to law enforcement (state, national) for investigation.
Many US states are one-party regarding recording. Even in two-party states (CA, OR, WA, MT, IL, PA, MA, CT, NH, MD, DE, FL), disclosed recording and continuing a call will generally be construed as consent. If that's not the case, proposed state or national legislation could carve out exceptions as needed, and there'll likely need to be some legislation required anyway, so that's part of the process.
But shifting the fee element from fraud (one class of unsolicited call/text abuse) to undesired contact makes sorting when the fee applies far more evident, and eliminates a class of other objections (e.g., due process) from consideration.
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#86This is actually an easily solvable problem. In fact, most of the world has already solved it by not allowing caller-ID spoofing and by blocking bad actors similar to the way that ISPs block email coming from known bad IPs.
The US has the STIR/SHAKEN authentication protocols, but the telcos seem to have no financial are regulatory pressure to clamp down on all the sketchy intermediate carriers the scammers use to bypass them.
Rather then actually solve the problem, the US prefers to turn it into a business opportunity with the telcos selling subscriptions to blocking software and an entire ecosystem of moderately effective apps.
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#87This must be why every country is locking down the phone network. KYC or you don't get connected. You get a spam call? Good, caller ID is authenticated so it's easy for the police to find out who called you.
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#88The solution is accessible law, not better anti-fraud tooling. Introduce a spam / fraud button, using it requires your pin and costs $10, but obliges your telecom provider to record the call (preferably including a few minutes before you hit the button), email you a signed recording and if found to be spam deposit $100 onto your account. Your provider may then hand the fee +10% for himself to whatever network the cal…
That's pretty much the proposal I've made for some years.[1] California has introduced bonding to telemarketing firms specifically. I feel that should apply at the carrier level, where networks carry a guaranteed bond, pay regular premiums on it, and are dinged for unwanted calls, with the proceeds being split among the called party and any third-party network(s) traversed by the calls. Downstream networks could seek…
Do you really want the network to be so locked down you can't get access to it?
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Infeasible. Fraud or spam is usually pretty hard to confirm from one recording without additional context. Many scammers have plausible deniability or are just checking whether the number is active. Moreover, this solution would involve secret non-consensual recording; what if it's not a scam?
I'd make one significant change to the proposal in the comment. The delivery penalty applies to any unsolicited email , as determined by the recipient. If also tagged as scam , those are further forwarded to law enforcement (state, national) for investigation. Many US states are one-party regarding recording. Even in two-party states (CA, OR, WA, MT, IL, PA, MA, CT, NH, MD, DE, FL), disclosed recording and continuing…
I sign up for a newsletter from Google, then I report it as unsolicited. Boom, I just made Google pay me $10.
Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simpler yet: require every call to come with a physical source address, huge (and enforced) jail times for faking it. Let the internet and the pissed callees crowdsource the rest
This would be an enormous invasion of privacy. Other countries have a lot less issues with spam calls without these measures
Other countries have this rule, actually. At least most of Europe records your passport and address.