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

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#141

Post by Alupis »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #93
Alupis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of non-technical organizations deem it safer (and cheaper) to just block EU users than to study the law, become domain experts, and implement lawyer-approved mechanisms to become compliant. The reality is, however, unless you have a major presence in the EU, or are the size of Google or Facebook... you can freely ignore the GDPR without consequence. EU laws do not apply across the ocean.

Once again, that ignores the third option, simply not embedding javascript tracking bloat in your site, or at least serving that version to the EU (since they've clearly already spent the technical resources of identifying it and serving a different response). You don't need to be a legal expert to just not collect data you don't need.

It's not that simple for non-technical organizations, I'm afraid. Simply embedding Google Analytics (the de facto website traffic analyzer, for better or worse) is enough to violate GDPR, and embedding Google Analytics is very often a simple checkbox in the web host admin portal.

The "technical resources" involved in identifying EU traffic is nearly always just a simple IP block list, where one can often just checkmark a list of countries in their web host's portal.

I think you grossly overestimate the technical prowess required to operate a website these days, and I think many grossly overestimate the actual real-world impact of GDPR outside the EU borders.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#142

Post by bluGill »

munk-a wrote: post #105
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 call…

Since most robo calls are also illegal scams even if the call was legal all we really need is verified numbers so that we can use phone records to catch the person making the call.

Politicians want you to know who is calling - name recognition is important. "I got a call from X is a big deal".

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#143

Post by godelski »

I've always wondered, why can't I find a phone app that auto reports calls to the FCC? Isn't this something Google and Apple should build in? Or is this something someone builds an app, it becomes popular, and then Google and Apple build it in? (I have less than zero app developing skills)

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#144

Post by djcannabiz »

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 definitely appreciated getting called quickly the last time i got a covid test

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#145

Post by matsemann »

ghaff wrote: post #104
matsemann wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess it's more that no one here ever leaves a message. A medical office for instance would never call to give out that info over phone, instead I would get an email or sms telling me to log in securely to their portal to see test results etc there.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#146

Post by kube-system »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #93
Alupis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of non-technical organizations deem it safer (and cheaper) to just block EU users than to study the law, become domain experts, and implement lawyer-approved mechanisms to become compliant. The reality is, however, unless you have a major presence in the EU, or are the size of Google or Facebook... you can freely ignore the GDPR without consequence. EU laws do not apply across the ocean.

Once again, that ignores the third option, simply not embedding javascript tracking bloat in your site, or at least serving that version to the EU (since they've clearly already spent the technical resources of identifying it and serving a different response). You don't need to be a legal expert to just not collect data you don't need.

If there's not a tech expert in the room when a content publisher meets with their legal counsel, that is not a possibility anyone even realizes exists.

It is also more expensive to implement than

    if(blocklist.contains(ip)) res.sendStatus(451)

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#147

Post by bluGill »

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.…

The problem is someone from overseas can claim to be from a US number. The number you see on your phone can be anything the caller wants it to be. A fair number of robocalls are from overseas but looks to you like they come from your country.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#148

Post by jader201 »

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.

VM is becoming more of a necessity these days due to robocalls. I have any numbers that aren’t on my contacts go straight to VM, and that’s how I get in touch with non-contacts that I really want calling me.

In my experience, the signal:noise of unknown calls is about 1:20. VMs, on the other hand, are much higher — about 1:2.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#149

Post by LordDragonfang »

Alupis wrote: post #141
LordDragonfang wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, that ignores the third option, simply not embedding javascript tracking bloat in your site, or at least serving that version to the EU (since they've clearly already spent the technical resources of identifying it and serving a different response). You don't need to be a legal expert to just not collect data you don't need.

It's not that simple for non-technical organizations, I'm afraid. Simply embedding Google Analytics (the de facto website traffic analyzer, for better or worse) is enough to violate GDPR, and embedding Google Analytics is very often a simple checkbox in the web host admin portal. The "technical resources" involved in identifying EU traffic is nearly always just a simple IP block list, where one can often just checkma…

Google Analytics is exactly the kind of tracker bloat I'm pointing out that a website serving static articles doesn't need. It can strip that out and serve a static html page, with no bloat, through Cloudflare, and even get their tracking through Cloudflare as well.

The reason why such "technical prowess" is needed is because businesses have made it more complicated than it needs to be. Keep in mind, the context of this conversation is the arrogance of literally claiming claiming you are being "censored" (because that's what the 451 response code indicates), just because you refuse to remove tracking analytics from your website.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#150

Post by bashinator »

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 not at all surprising to me that corporations are happy to redirect people from utilities to products as core means of communicating.
Post reply on HN