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

131–140 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#131

Post by LadyCailin »

alberth wrote: post #125
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…

> The carriers are clearly customer-hostile It’s actually not the carriers. The carriers actual try to actively block spam. It’s actual the Twilio’s of the world that originate the bulk of the spam.

The carriers could absolutely implement authenticated caller id as a very first start. Then, you can at least trust the caller ID and screen/block effectively.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#132

Post by Scoundreller »

happyopossum wrote: post #116
katbyte wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada and while I do get some it’s fairly rare. Maybe 1 a month.

Anecdotes do not constitute data. My family in Canada gets tons of robocalls and spam calls, to the point that nobody answers unrecognized numbers unless they're expecting a call...

Things seem to be improving: I’m getting fewer and fewer “neighbourhood” calls.

I suspect the vector is moving away from VoIP systems and more toward buying masses of prepaid plans and stuffing them into various contraptions that hold hundreds of sims to blast out messages/calls.

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/1005004095035108.html

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#133

Post by Night_Thastus »

ruined wrote: post #88
Night_Thastus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From other areas where spam is prevalent, I think it's an arms race issue. Sure, right now, that spam that's identical every time would be easy to detect and block. But if it's blocked, they start adding variation. Block that too and they get more and more creative. Every time a way to block the spam is found, the spammers just get more creative with getting around it. It's an arms race, and is essentially un-beatabl…

you're right. we should just give up, and allow ourselves to be overwhelmed now, instead of wasting all that time pointlessly resisting the inevitable. none of this will ever get better

That's not what I meant. I meant there's no silver bullet that stops all spam forever. There's no easy solutions to the problem. It's an uphill battle and the best you can hope for is to block the majority of it with a lot of continuous effort.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#134

Post by toast0 »

cr1895 wrote: post #39
lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls. I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all, and hence their inability to effectively fight spam. Otherwise, what would stop the situation from becoming like email, where email is mo…

What does “accessible to all” mean in this context? Why do I in Europe get almost zero spam calls or text while in the US it seems like a plague?

US has a larger market with a single language, and our regulators demanded calls to mobile phones to be on an equal footing for callers. You never needed to pay more to call a cell phone than a land line from the same rate center; the cell phone user has to pay any additional cost to carry the call over the air. Additionally, inter-carrier rates are regulated and set to approximate costs, which is now pretty much zero. This makes bulk calling and texting inexepensive (less than a penny per message or minute). In (most of?) Europe, callers have to pay for the privilege or calling a cell phone, and the numbers are in different ranges, and it's not cheap, 10 cents or more per minute or message at bulk rates; even though the underlying cost is probably similar to the US, near zero.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#135

Post by lamontcg »

munk-a wrote: post #111
karagenit wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's cool - we can wait two extra days for a call from our doctor if it's warranted. I don't need instantaneous feedback on my bloodwork.

I get an e-mail and they show up on a web UI and it is instantaneous more or less.

And I don't know why I have to get robocalls because gramma can't operate the internet.

And both my 80+ year old parents can navigate the internet well enough to get lab test results off of websites.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#136

Post by kxrm »

0xC0ncord wrote: post #55
TameAntelope wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno how successful this is, but when I get spam called, I do what I can to reach a person and then say, "Put me on the do not call list, please!" and (possibly) as a result, I really don't get as many of these spam calls as it sounds like folks here are getting.

I found that when I started doing this I would just get even more calls, just not the same ones. I presume this is because these spammers just keep selling other spammers valid phone numbers to add to their own lists.

Agreed, what I have done is just not answer my phone unless they are in my contact list. I also do not share my cellphone number with anyone. Seems like everyone wants it these days and the pandemic made it worse, so I have a Google Voice number for people who insist on having a number.

The only phone number that gets spam calls anymore is that Google Voice number.

For all other numbers, the calls have virtually stopped.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#137

Post by johnklos »

This is so easily fixable with the lessons we've learned with egress filtering on the Internet.

Legally require large providers to never allow their customers to falsify caller ID. Then have the large providers disconnect small providers who pass along fraudulent caller ID until all small providers are either out of business or aren't facilitating spammers.

It's literally that easy, but Congress has ducked this up time and time again, and the FCC has been neutered. We really need proper, technically sound legislation to fix this.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#138

Post by snarf21 »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #45
snarf21 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the sadder but true point that we have too many people and many are stuck doing nonsense and scam work to try to feed their family.

I find your misanthropy surprising since the parent provided a clear explanation of the problem. Nonetheless, it is a shame that they engage in such behavior and that they live under abusive government structures that funnel them into such things.

I understand the parent point that this is driven by corruption. The point I was trying to convey is that corruption isn't a sufficient reason for there to be literally zero other work that could feed a family. I don't blame the people, they are just trying to get by. But I think the majority of people worldwide find that a major portion of their work life is spent on nonsense work. I think this will only get worse as software and automation continues to eat the world. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#139

Post by dymk »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #32
onepointsixC wrote: post #17

It's absolutely insane that they are so ineffective. Major phone networks should be held responsible. I've been getting texts like crazy from spammer tries to get me to click their links. The messages are 100% identical and would be trivial to block.

What if they accidentally block an important text and get sued? It's not easy to do at scale.

Enforcing the use of STIR/SHAKEN across networks and providing an easy way (aka in the messaging and dialer app) to report spam messages and calls would likely fix 99% of the problem.

I'm sure Google and Apple are nipping at the bit to add "Report as spam" in their apps, carriers just need to provide a way to ingest that information and have it be actionable by disallowing spoofing.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#140

Post by toast0 »

300bps wrote: post #100
lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls. I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all, and hence their inability to effectively fight spam. Otherwise, what would stop the situation from becoming like email, where email is mo…

I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all Is it a legal requirement to allow spoofed caller ID from bad actors? Spoofed IP addresses used to be a much bigger problem on the Internet than they are today (many examples but see Smurf Attack). We collectively implemented security to reduce the threat. Phone companies could do the same for spoofed caller ID f…

> Spoofed IP addresses used to be a much bigger problem on the Internet than they are today (many examples but see Smurf Attack).

Most of the large DDoS attacks are UDP reflection, the attacker spoofs the victims address and sends to chargen[1] servers or whatever. So spoofing is still alive and well.

[1] yes really, the worst ones are people who install Microsoft's Services for Unix and enable the chargen server to the public... It sends a 64k fragmented response. Thanks Microsoft.

Post reply on HN