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

A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 248 posts

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#151

Post by rastrojero2000 »

Hizonner wrote: post #131
rastrojero2000 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505550 glad to help

Look, a lot of people make the mistake you're making. Not every unjust, stupid, or evil thing is illegal. Even when something is illegal, that doesn't mean you have standing to challenge it in court, or that a given court has jurisdiction to do anything about it. Courts (theoretically) follow rules. They can't just randomly set things aside without some basis in those rules. Lawsuits are not a magic universal remedy.…

I mean, ok? Guess the official consensus is all you can do about literally anything that is detrimental to everyone is just sit on your ass and look pretty until it's too late and every asshole who could conceivably benefit from stealing from you is already done.

The true american dream.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#152

Post by HappMacDonald »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #80
smallmancontrov wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What ever happened to SHAKEN/STIR? I thought this was supposed to happen 5 years ago. Did they just chicken out on the prospect of actually shutting down telcos sending spam volume? I still get loads of spam phone calls, so clearly something went wrong (or slow enough to be indistinguishable from wrong).

STIR/SHAKEN up to this point has only been a self-certification that a telecom company has the right to use a number. What the FCC is trying to do is set up a legal obligation for the STIR/SHAKEN header to match a KYC verified identity. If the FCC implements this, I expect a lot litigation because of the burden and legal liability this would place on telecom and VOIP companies. There are other less burdensome approac…

I am constantly amazed how few people understand that preventing spam is below the last thing the FCC is actually interested in.

First of all, the decision makers at the FCC profit from directly from spam, Christ.

Secondly, the indirect value of spam to the FCC is that it helps to justify initiatives to ruin the privacy of ordinary people via the constant push for KYC.

Just like "age verification", Flock cameras, license plate scanners, ubiquitous IoT with microphones and cameras, etc. Governments and corporations both profit from shredding every molecule of your privacy.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#153

Post by bsimpson »

br0ceph wrote: post #3

Im USA based use prepaid service because I dont want to provide information for a credit check to obtain postpay service. Theres absolutely no reason for a US based telephony provider to retain the most sensitive PII on their customers. Every large provider has a history of breaches and selling customer data. The telephone companies are already tracking, storing, selling; so many data points on their customers. They…

My primary phone number has been a Google Voice account since 2010.

It's unclear to me how I'd be impacted by these new rules, but I don't believe there's any requirement to provide PII to get a VOIP number.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#154

Post by HappMacDonald »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #23
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #6

We really just need telcos to stop allowing caller id spoofing. Doesn’t even need your name, but with a real number we could actually report these scams. You can still allow people to hide it, but then by default every non-business phone should block calls with hidden numbers.

Why do we even need to run on the 20th century system of numbers anyways? Why is there not a better call addressing system?

I suppose you'd like to replace it with Email since that doesn't have any spam, hmm?

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#155

Post by Rendello »

idiotsecant wrote: post #148
Rendello wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love a good tortured acronym: > SHAKEN system, short for Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs [...] > The name was inspired by Ian Fleming's character James Bond, who famously prefers his martinis "shaken, not stirred". STIR having existed already, the creators of SHAKEN "tortured the English language until [they] came up with an acronym." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN (Unrelate…

I like backronyms because it tells me someone with a soul was involved

LLMs are really good at making backronyms, in fact it might be one of the things they're best at. Try prompting any soulless overlord with "give me a backronym for that relates to ".

So maybe it's bad backronyms that demonstrate the soul. I don't know who's idea it was to allow a computer to generate whimsy, that should be interdicted by a fourth law of robotics.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#156

Post by wang_li »

filup wrote: post #147
wang_li wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can trivially accomplish this under the current system. There is no need for a change that imposes your preferences on everyone.

Do tell for a laymen like me.

Cancel your phone service and then no one can call you or interrupt you. Set it to Do Not Disturb. You got multiple choices.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#157

Post by kylehotchkiss »

HappMacDonald wrote: post #154
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we even need to run on the 20th century system of numbers anyways? Why is there not a better call addressing system?

I suppose you'd like to replace it with Email since that doesn't have any spam, hmm?

We were able to tack a bunch of domain and header functionality on top of the email system that helped us know if the sender was authentic which is much more than we can say for the POTS

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#158

Post by sgarman »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #143
singpolyma3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you verify it is spoofed? Have you asked your carrier to drop unverified calls from your service?

> How do you verify it is spoofed? Not my job to "verify," in the technical sense. When a call for an Indian crypto pump comes in as "SMITH, ROBERT", and a local exchange, I call that "spoofed."

Mine literally come from the verified coinbase phone number and say coinbase and everything. If I didn't know for sure they are not calling me I'd think it was real 100%.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#159

Post by greentea23 »

logicchains wrote: post #109
elevation wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the most blatant attempts at subverting due process This seems so clear to me; KYC is an end run around the constitution. But how do we stop it? If we legislate "no KYC" then what is my recourse when an imposter empties my accounts? You'd want it to be at least allowed. But if we allow industry to require KYC "we will only deposit your pay to a verified bank account" then you may end up with de facto KYC if not de…

>But how do we stop it? Use Monero as much as possible. If enough people adopted it, there's absolutely nothing they could do to stop it short of turning off the internet entirely. Even China, with the strictest internet controls in the world, hasn't managed to stop people paying for banned goods and services in crypto there.

How do you get or spend Monero without KYC? It's illegal to do so without reporting every transaction on your taxes. Maybe you can get away with it for small purchases, but with inflation the way it is, any meaningful purchase pushes you over a tax red flag line. Crypto is dead in the water legally speaking in the US.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#160

Post by philipallstar »

swed420 wrote: post #96
philipallstar wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that hurt a consumption-based economy?

It's a vector for advertising.

But that's not a consumer initiative. Advertising can come from all sorts of places that the consumer doesn't like, and in economies where advanced levels of consumer choice are limited to the state bureaucrats.
Post reply on HN