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

151–160 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#151

Post by TameAntelope »

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.

My point is I am not getting "even more" calls, at all.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#152

Post by Alupis »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #149
Alupis wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I think this is a forest and trees situation. Using things like Cloudflare, alternative niche "privacy conscience" trackers, adding GDPR popups, etc. are all way above an beyond your average website operator's abilities or understanding.

The dude trying to sell custom T-Shirts has a website because it's a necessity to sell T-Shirts, not because he enjoys operating, optimizing and customizing websites. He just wants to sell more T-Shirts, and some European Union law isn't going to give him pause even for a second if he is physically not in a EU country.

While good intentioned, the GDPR was specifically designed to be a "viral" law and force the entire internet to comply... unfortunately the EU's long arm of the law is fairly short. Further, the EU's ability to enforce the GDPR is limited to businesses physically under it's jurisdiction - ie. the US is not going to extradite some website operator for an alleged GDPR violation, no matter how severe the case may be, and the EU can only fine a business into compliance if the business cares about EU laws (which would imply a physical presence in the EU).

Ignoring the GDPR is the right move for most websites.

If people desire comprehensive, impactful privacy guarantees, then a similar law needs to be passed within the US.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#153

Post by bluGill »

z3c0 wrote: post #33
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #8

Do we know if reporting a call as spam in Android gets reported to the FTC? Or do we need to file it as spam and report it ourselves to the FTC?

I'm not sure I'd want it to. On multiple occasions, I've received "returned" calls from people who have received scam calls from my number. I'm sure a lot of money would be wasted on red herrings if those reported numbers end up at the FTC.

Those should be reported too. I want the FTC to take action on falsified caller id! The more of these reports the FTC gets, the more likely to they are to take action. (action probably means talking to congress)

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#154

Post by InCityDreams »

rrauenza wrote: post #48

A couple of weekends ago we got like 20 calls within 2 hours from the same scammer call center. I begged them to stop calling, telling the "agent" it was a waste of their time as they would not be able to scam me and it would be in their best interest to flag my number. I may have finally convinced one of them after talking to him more than once. BUT... at the same time my wife called AT&T and kind of read them the r…

I just answer the call, put the phone down, still live, and let them talk away whilst listening to my background noise.

No call center supervisor is going to allow an employee to keep asking 'Hello....hello....can you hear me....?" for very long.

As for robocalls...they just play all the way through. I don't care, as I'm not listening.

I get very few spam calls compared to my friends and colleagues.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#155

Post by sonofhans »

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.

The need was synchronous -- I either got authorized right away, or we moved on to plan B. And yeah, as others have said, even listening to VMs this days is outlier behavior :/

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#156

Post by srj »

One of the core issues here is that the "caller id" information is unauthenticated. If we could have the phones themselves receive all of the call routing information that the carrier has, we could build anti-spam technology against it.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#157

Post by dylan604 »

ryandrake wrote: post #109
dylan604 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is that any different than a notification from any messaging, social media, or any app really with notifications turned on? They all know that the human brain is very susceptible to these notifications.

At least with the old school phone, you could leave the receiver off hook to send the callers a busy signal or just unplugged.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#158

Post by dylan604 »

ghaff wrote: post #107
dylan604 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, but...

it's not an unusual situation unique to that applicant. it's so rampant, that even the HR/hiring people will be subject to it and totally understand the request. if you want to stand out to me as a potential employer, being proactive and stating we don't have answer unknown calls as alternate arrangements via _____ method to set up a call.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#159

Post by mastercheif »

An idea: Would it be possible to use phone number “extension” conventions to create a shared secret key that verifies that the caller is a trusted contact?

Let’s say I’m at the DR’s office and I’d like them to call me with my test results.

Before giving them my phone number, I pull out my phone, open the phone app, and tap the “new trusted contact extension” button. It then displays the text “ext 47901” and prompts me to input a contact name.

Then, when I give the front desk my phone number, I give “5558081111*47901”.

One could then have a setting on the phone for “send non-trusted contacts to voicemail”.

Is this feasible from a technical standpoint?

I think the motivation would be there (in the us at least) socially. I’d generate these ext numbers for close friends and family and whenever a business asks for my number.

My inspiration was the Gmail “+” email address thing that allows one to create infinite sub-email addresses for specific purposes ie myemail+newsletters@gmail.com for easy filtering.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#160

Post by dwheeler »

The thieves have stolen our phones from us.

I remember a time when I could answer my phone. Today phone calls are almost unknown, not because it's "out of fashion" but because thieves have stolen the ability to practically use phones. I would like my phone back, please.

Post reply on HN