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

US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

thecentersquare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#101

Post by doliveira »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #81
sonofhans wrote: post #42

Some weeks ago I broke my iPhone and had it replaced. During the process I had to get re-authorized with Verizon. They tried to call my partner to get her permission, since she's the account owner. Of course she never picked up the phone, because it was from an unknown caller. The irony is incredible: the literal phone company cannot use their own product to contact their own customers, because they have let that pro…

Could she not leave a message? I have the same setup as someone here mentioning Tasker. I route all calls to voice mail, where I can decide if I need to call back. If they are not willing to leave a voice mail with a return number and reason, the call was not that important.

Wow, no one from any age group ever listens to voice messages anymore either, at least down here in my country

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#102

Post by throwaway98797 »

matsemann wrote: post #86
WaitWaitWha wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could she not leave a message? I have the same setup as someone here mentioning Tasker. I route all calls to voice mail, where I can decide if I need to call back. If they are not willing to leave a voice mail with a return number and reason, the call was not that important.

I have never in my life received or listened to a voice message. To me that's something from 90s movies. Weird how different things can be.

ignore all unknown numbers

iOS transcribe feature makes it easy to read the voicemail and then in the 1/20 case where it’s legit, i act accordingly

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#103

Post by karagenit »

lamontcg wrote: post #90
onetimeusename wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the last few years the FCC rules on carriers were relaxed so that they can discriminate against calls originating from domestic networks. Previously they could not block calls even if it was obvious it was a scam call. However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. The bigger issue though is not about domestic origin calls, it's about foreign originated calls that the FCC has…

> However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. I can make this real simple. I don't want any robocalls.

I feel you. Still, there are legitimate uses for robocalls. My doctor’s office uses robocalls for lab test results, so that patients can get their lab results as soon as the lab tech puts it in the computer instead of having to wait for a person to make the call. Sure, you can email/text these results for most people, but there are still some older folks who don’t know how to email/text.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#104

Post by ghaff »

matsemann wrote: post #86
WaitWaitWha wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could she not leave a message? I have the same setup as someone here mentioning Tasker. I route all calls to voice mail, where I can decide if I need to call back. If they are not willing to leave a voice mail with a return number and reason, the call was not that important.

I have never in my life received or listened to a voice message. To me that's something from 90s movies. Weird how different things can be.

For a lot of people, not being reachable by voice is not really an option in the case of emergencies, medical offices, business, etc. I do more texting than leaving voice messages but, for example, my dad essentially will not text or email.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#105

Post by munk-a »

brk wrote: post #18

It is unfortunate that the cellular companies have allowed their core product (voice calls) to be so devalued that they need to be forced to solve this problem instead of just doing it naturally. The carriers are clearly customer-hostile, as this is really a very solvable problem. Instead, we now are moving to alternate mechanisms to manage audio calls (eg: Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook, etc.). My wide-open Verizon cell…

It's also unfortunate that robocalling isn't bannable across the board because politicians want to continue to have the ability to spam call constituents. It's really unfortunate that all sorts of automatic calls need to continue being permitted just so we can have the delightful luxury of getting spam fundraising calls from politicians.

This has real world consequences, last year a lost hiker ended up declining calls from search and rescue[1] since they assumed they were spam.

There is a really easy and extremely effective solution to this problem - charge calls on both ends. Make the caller pay a few cents for every call placed instead of placing the full charge on the receiver.

1. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049252333/lost-hiker-mount-e...

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#106

Post by [deleted] »

boredumb wrote: post #36
rmatt2000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that failed communist regimes often seem to be succeeded by kleptocracies. I wonder if any political scientists have studied this and can explain why.

Communism and socialism concentrate power to a single government/state entity and when it fails there is no industrial competition so the most well connected/wealthy people that are able to take control of the industry are able to pretty much run unabated without any natural market forces you'd find in a system/industry that began in a more free enviroment.

[deleted]

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#107

Post by ghaff »

dylan604 wrote: post #28
jhot wrote: post #9

This spring I was applying for jobs so I answered my phone for more unknown numbers than usual. This has lead to a huge increase in spam calls that I receive on a daily basis and Google Phone's spam filter isn't strict enough for my liking (not to mention no longer available since I'm running GrapheneOS). If you're an Android and Tasker user you can take matters into your own hands and set Tasker as your call screen…

Are we at a place where as potential new hire candidates, we request a formal meeting to be scheduled or a quick text to let us know that the next call is legit? Or is it acceptable to tell hiring managers via checkbox on applications to say that all calls will be screened via voice mail, but will be checked with anticipation of it being a call to be returned promptly?

Being high maintenance sounds like a poor job search tactic.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#108

Post by throwaway98797 »

baby wrote: post #72

I'm actually wondering if I should shut down text messages and phone calls coming from unknown numbers. What would I lose? Basically restaurants calling me for a reservation or something but what else? Everybody I know uses WhatsApp now.

silence unknown callers in iOS is a life saver

i get 2-20 spam call a day

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#109

Post by ryandrake »

dylan604 wrote: post #25
brk wrote: post #18

It is unfortunate that the cellular companies have allowed their core product (voice calls) to be so devalued that they need to be forced to solve this problem instead of just doing it naturally. The carriers are clearly customer-hostile, as this is really a very solvable problem. Instead, we now are moving to alternate mechanisms to manage audio calls (eg: Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook, etc.). My wide-open Verizon cell…

to the point, I used to refer to the device as a mobile phone or cell phone. now, because I so rarely use the "phone" app, it is just now my "device". 99% of the time my phone app gives me notifications is SPAM LIKELY reaching out to me, but won't take the hint that we broke up years ago and I have zero interest in touching base and catching up. however, if anyone of my known contacts actually uses the phone app to r…

Imagine if nobody knew what a phone was, and then the device manufacturers suddenly introduced the phone app: it would outrage and annoy people!

Here is an app that allows any rando person in the world to cause your device to wake up, interrupt whatever you are doing, display a notification, play a sound, vibrate, and if you push the green button, that rando person (identifiable by a spoofable string of numbers) can hear and talk to you! It would not be well received in 2022 where privacy and digital well-being is increasingly important to people. Yet for historical reasons, it’s pre-installed on every phone.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#110

Post by cuteboy19 »

kabdib wrote: post #83
onetimeusename wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the last few years the FCC rules on carriers were relaxed so that they can discriminate against calls originating from domestic networks. Previously they could not block calls even if it was obvious it was a scam call. However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. The bigger issue though is not about domestic origin calls, it's about foreign originated calls that the FCC has…

I never, ever get legitimate calls from overseas. Just turn those calls off for my phone. Well, perhaps callbacks from helpdesks located in other countries, in which case give me time-boxed control over foreign calls, and perhaps a passcode that I can communicate along with my callback number. There are billions of dollars at stake, of course. This is a solvable problem, and the FCC doesn't even need to get involved.…

Can't all of this be done locally on the phone? Why does the phone app not have an option to simply ignore all garbage calls
Post reply on HN