[dead]
FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
131–140 of 281 posts
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#132Before I got my phone number, a woman by the name of "Sade" has the number. Recently I've been getting at least one call per day from the same company regarding an extended auto warranty. I've told them politely that this is the wrong number, they keep calling. I've asked them to take my number off their list and they happily agree to, but they keep calling. I've threatened to contact the FCC is they keep calling yet…
They're just trying to get in on that diamond life.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shut one down, another pops up in its place.
This is why executives need to be held personally responsible when they direct a company to wilfully, blatantly, and repeatedly disregard laws to the detriment of society. These are people who should be in prison for a time, and barred from serving as an officer of a corporation for more time after that. Eventually people get the message; you don't get to break laws just because you hide behind the name of a company.
Those people are who the entire system is built to benefit. They won't be held accountable in most countries.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#134At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
Imagine if the concept of a phone call did not exist. We still have these computers in our pockets, but without the history of the telephone system. Then, one day, an app developer thought: Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that would interrupt what the user was doing, play a sound, vibrate the device, and put up a full-screen dialog, that this all could be activated remotely by any other device by simply typin…
> Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that would interrupt what the user was doing
It seems like this sort of idea is extremely common, considering how many websites love preventing me from viewing their content by slapping multiple modals asking me to sign up for a newsletter and/or to get my permission to be tracked using cookies.
It also shows up in native apps, in the form of some prompt asking the user if they are enjoying the app. NO! I do not enjoy being funneled into an App Store review or any similar bullshit. If I like using the app, I'll use it. If I don't, I won't. Stop asking me!
I build websites for a living and I'm constantly battling requests to infect our sites with these god-awful modals. It's like sitting down at a restaurant, being handed a menu, only to have the menu taken away seconds later and being asked if you'll return in the future. Not only is it rude, it's the wrong time to ask the question. Let me read the damn article or whatever, and when I'm done, if there's a newsletter form, MAYBE I'll sign up. Let me eat my meal, and if I enjoy it I'll think about returning.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#135At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
I suggest the caller stakes a little bit of money as a deposit that is, by default, returned to them within a day... But an angered recipient can retaliate by choosing to seize the deposit.
I think this works for many situations:
1. Between amicable friends and businesses/clients, nothing changes.
2. If there was a normal relationship, but one side starts unfairly seizing call-deposits... Well, maybe it's time to no longer have them as a vendor/customer/friend.
3. Spammers either eat the additional cost, or they have to work harder to make sure they only call people who are unlikely to retaliate.
_____
There's still a problem where someone asks to be called (the number needn't actually be theirs) as a way to trick the caller into losing money... But even then, I think it represents an improvement over what we've got now.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#136Maybe I'm just old, but I remember the tv advertisements for the dubious 900 numbers (remember Miss Cleo?) that you could call, but you had to pay for the time.
Is there any law that says that I can't just get one of those for use as my personal number and then give that # out as my contact info?
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#137At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
It also means I'm unreachable for anything actually important that isn't in my contact list. That's an annoying price.
Calling me is now the equivalent to wanting to send me a telegram. The phone system is broken, we all know it's broken, and yet you want my phone number? Send me an email, it's just as fast and has better tools for managing scumbags. Unknown callers are silenced and go to voicemail. Wife is in an auto accident? State troopers know how voicemail works. Kid is in trouble? It can wait 30 seconds while I wait for the VM to come through (and, haha, trick question: we don't have kids).
OTOH, I grew up in the era of landlines and payphones, and well before answering machines (old school VM). People still got in accidents, kids still got sick at school and needed to come home, doctors still called, and we all got along just fine. Because EMTs still took people to the hospital, the school nurse still took care of your kid, and the doctor either called back or sent a letter, and the world move on despite not being able to instantly reach people 24x7. I realize I sound like one of those "we didn't have $SAFETY_FEATURE, and we lived", when in reality not all of us did. But we aren't talking about lawn darts, for the most part I think we did get along just fine. (Auto accidents and breakdowns are something made better by cell phones, but in the day lots of folks had CB radios. ::shrug::)
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#138At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
As others have alluded, there are unknown third parties who must call you (and you would want their call). For example, the hospital: something has happened with a loved one. We can probably solve this problem with certification. Show me your medical license (or hospital scale equivalent) and you get to make unsolicited calls. Then we allow people to select certified unsolicited calls by category: medical, financial, civic, etc.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#139I've been getting 2-3 calls a DAY from people pretending to be Google trying to get in my account. Hopefully this action reduces this
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#140At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
It also means I'm unreachable for anything actually important that isn't in my contact list. That's an annoying price. Calling me is now the equivalent to wanting to send me a telegram. The phone system is broken, we all know it's broken, and yet you want my phone number? Send me an email, it's just as fast and has better tools for managing scumbags. Unknown callers are silenced and go to voicemail. Wife is in an aut…
Frankly, I'd like lawn darts back.