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

Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

broadbandbreakfast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#131

Post by dredmorbius »

bickfordb wrote: post #58

Maybe this is a pipe dream, but wouldn't it be better to retire the legacy phone voice and messaging system altogether. If 99.9% of us have internet phones, why aren't we using PKI, decentralized protocols, crowd sourced reputation to communicate instead of POTS phone numbers, SMS/iChat and relying on the carriers to police spam.

The traditional (POTS-based, circuit-switched, fully-analogue system) has largely been retired. Even where existing POTS twisted-pair service exists, it's generally VOIP until the last few hundred metres, if that.

In much of the US, the push is on to retire the last twisted pair within a very few years, if not months. Utilisation rates are well into the single-digits and falling, which makes continued support quite expensive.

The problem for many holdouts is that alternatives fail to deliver reliability, or the equivalent of a site-centred service (as opposed to personal mobile devices). Residential VOIP is confusing from the subscriber's perspective, and the telcos aren't making choosing options much easier.

SMS itself is highly problematic, as it's grossly insecure, unreliable, and very subject to surveillance and other abuse. Secure chat alternatives tend to be proprietary (e.g., RCS, effectively specific to Apple and Google, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>), or aren't supported on all devices (Signal would be excellent, but isn't supported on most Feature Phone / Dumbphone OSes, such as KaiOS/AOSP). And Signal too is ultimately a single provider.

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#132

Post by LorenPechtel »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #101
orbital-decay wrote: post #50

Earlier 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?

> Moreover, this solution would involve secret non-consensual recording In Canada at least, only one party has to consent to the recording If you record your own phone calls that's not remotely illegal. Nor is it in my opinion unethical

That's where I stand, also. You're a party to the conversation, it's not something that would implicitly be expected to be private (thus no bedroom recordings etc), it should be legal to record. I can see no justification for prohibiting it.

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#133

Post by dredmorbius »

inigyou wrote: post #127
dredmorbius wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telcos will stop originating high-risk calls. Where there's legitimate business, and the risks are low (including the overwhelming majority of personal / residential lines, as well as most business / institutional lines), there's absolutely no problem. The key is getting incentives right . Indexing bonding and payouts to the spam level, and having a target, is one way to approach this. The problem with cheap comms, o…

Banks have this rule and it's terrible. My proposed alternative: if someone spams you, get them arrested.

Please walk through just how you'd accomplish this, at scale, in a system with many chain-of-authentication holes, spanning international jurisdictions.

Please walk through as well, what the privacy, surveillance, data-disclosure, third-party bad-actor, and authoritarian-government risks of such a system would be.

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#134

Post by inigyou »

dredmorbius wrote: post #133
inigyou wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks have this rule and it's terrible. My proposed alternative: if someone spams you, get them arrested.

Please walk through just how you'd accomplish this, at scale, in a system with many chain-of-authentication holes, spanning international jurisdictions. Please walk through as well, what the privacy, surveillance, data-disclosure, third-party bad-actor, and authoritarian-government risks of such a system would be.

Exactly the same as it already works in most countries

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#135

Post by LorenPechtel »

edoceo wrote: post #53
DeepSeaTortoise wrote: post #11

The 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…

How are they listening to a few minutes before the button? A "temporary" recording of the first 2 minutes of every call? I feel like there would be some privacy concerns.

Recording into the recent past is quite common. You implement it by storing the data *to memory only* until the trigger event happens, then you write out what's currently in memory.

It's a common feature in better dashcams--you get say the 30 seconds before the thump that triggered it. Likewise, many high speed cameras that record some short action. They're actually always running, but dumping the end of the data, they only "record" when the trigger happens.

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#136

Post by LorenPechtel »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #41
ozim wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the comfort that "normal person" would send an SMS "it was me Greg, call me back" if you don't pick up and most of my family is on whatsapp anyway. Scammers or spammers will never send an SMS with clarification that they wanted to call you.

But a normal person could be calling from a doctor's office, a hospital, or your child's school - and not an actual cellphone, and they may not want to text you (or not be allowed to text you) from their personal cellphone, either. As a parent, the "block all numbers!" approach has always seemed incredibly naive to me.

Yeah. A few months ago my wife and I had a miscommunication that ended up with her one place without her phone and me waiting for her in a different place. Completely unknown number, but since it didn't come up as suspected spam I answered it.

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#137

Post by radicality »

gbourne1 wrote: post #46
otterpro wrote: post #3

I 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…

I too set it up so all unknown calls go to VM. I figure if legit they will leave a message. If two calls and no message I block the unknown number.

Ha, for a brief moment I thought VM=virtual machine and not voice mail and was scratching my head how you set that up and what the VM is doing with the call

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#138

Post by LorenPechtel »

orev wrote: post #10

One of the biggest concerns I have with phone scams is that the people most vulnerable are the elderly, and they don’t have the knowledge on how to block these calls (if a technical solution is the only option). And further to that, the elderly are also the ones who cannot block unknown numbers, because doctors’ offices seem to have random numbers they call you from (they may have a pool of numbers but it’s not reaso…

Yup. My doc's appointment reminders come from some service in another state. It's a pool of numbers, sometimes they come up as suspected spam. I suspect the dodgy guys deliberately offer very good rates for things like this so people won't block them.

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#139

Post by dredmorbius »

inigyou wrote: post #126
dredmorbius wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be a sufficient appeals process or remedy action that might address your concern? What activities are you engaged in which make you think you'd likely be considered a spammer? What specific harms do you see occurring? Might these be related to your present line of business / profession / employment?

Sure, if someone gave me a false phone number to call them on, I could be declared a spammer. If I had to call more than 3 people a day ordinarily, I could be declared a spammer. I'm basing these on what already happens in the banking sector as a direct result of the regulation you want.

What would be a sufficient appeals process or remedy action that might address your concern?

What activities are you engaged in which make you think you'd likely be considered a spammer? What specific harms do you see occurring? Might these be related to your present line of business / profession / employment?

Re: Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers

#140

Post by dredmorbius »

inigyou wrote: post #134
dredmorbius wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please walk through just how you'd accomplish this, at scale, in a system with many chain-of-authentication holes, spanning international jurisdictions. Please walk through as well, what the privacy, surveillance, data-disclosure, third-party bad-actor, and authoritarian-government risks of such a system would be.

Exactly the same as it already works in most countries

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49135259>
Post reply on HN