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

161–170 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#161

Post by mrandish »

> "The task force has already made demands to 20 of the gateway providers and entities that are allegedly responsible for the majority of the foreign robocalls. The task force believes that some of the providers are intentionally turning a blind eye to the offenders."

Since it's all 50 U.S. State's Attorney Generals, this might actually help a little because AGs can file suits & subpoenas against US-based companies which are landing the offshore VOIP calls. This won't stop phone spammers entirely but it might raise their costs somewhat by pressuring their supply chain.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#163

Post by munk-a »

kube-system wrote: post #130
munk-a wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, grandma does need her bloodwork results. And she's the one most likely to fall for a robocall scam anyway. And do you think illicit callers are going to follow the law? They're already committing wire fraud, and the software already exists.

Yea - I think illicit callers are going to follow laws whenever possible. "Criminals always be crime-ing" is an argument that can be used to counter having any laws but it has a fatal flaw - criminals generally don't want unnecessary attention. The more agencies they piss off by violating regulations the more likely it is that their activities will be suspended.

A lot of the crime you see on TV comes from highly irrational and unpredictable people, but scamming is usually a pretty rational decision if you live somewhere where repercussions are unlikely and the expected income is high.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#164

Post by coldpie »

djcannabiz wrote: post #144
munk-a wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then you can leave robocalls on.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#165

Post by godelski »

brk wrote: post #119
munk-a wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, there are lots of solutions if there is a genuine attempt to solve the problem and not just dance around it. Political calls and texts should absolutely be blockable by users if they so choose. Cost-based calling may not be practical, IMO. I look at the amount of junk mail I get from the USPS and I am not sure a "sender pays" approach would result in a meaningful reduction with a cost structure that didn't also…

Just an FYI, FTC has a signup for junk mail just like they do for phone calls. I just do the prescreen one and the only junk I get now is for previous tenants. Unfortunately I don't know how to solve that one.

https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-stop-junk-mail

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#166

Post by 1-more »

TameAntelope wrote: post #38
jhot wrote: post #9

This spring I was applying for jobs so I answered my phone for more unknown numbers than usual. This has lead to a huge increase in spam calls that I receive on a daily basis and Google Phone's spam filter isn't strict enough for my liking (not to mention no longer available since I'm running GrapheneOS). If you're an Android and Tasker user you can take matters into your own hands and set Tasker as your call screen…

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.

This doesn't work with the car warranty spam. Heck, now that I actually own a car I get letters about it too that happen to know what car we have.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#167

Post by 1-more »

InCityDreams wrote: post #154
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.

the free cruise scam has an INSANELY long script requiring very little interaction from me, the scammee. They read for over a minute uninterrupted. Then I give them a fake CC number from a generator. Then they get mad. Then I tell them to join the Naxalites. But even if I didn't interact with them they'd have a very long time on the line due to telling me all about the cruise.

Haven't gotten one in a year or so. Would love to know why. Does the well dry up a bit for them on that one particular thing?

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#168

Post by godelski »

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…

What's also funny about this is that I've tried using Google's screening service and I've literally never had an important caller answer the screening, they just go to voice mail instead. It's a weird situation because everyone knows that no one picks up calls from unknown numbers but everyone also expects you to pick up for them. It's kinda like when someone texts you "Hi" after exchanging numbers. No, text me "Hi it's so and so from xyz" because I can't differentiate you from spam without that. It's amazing to me that with such a universal problem that people don't adapt to the situation.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#169

Post by godelski »

dylan604 wrote: post #28
jhot wrote: post #9

This spring I was applying for jobs so I answered my phone for more unknown numbers than usual. This has lead to a huge increase in spam calls that I receive on a daily basis and Google Phone's spam filter isn't strict enough for my liking (not to mention no longer available since I'm running GrapheneOS). If you're an Android and Tasker user you can take matters into your own hands and set Tasker as your call screen…

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?

I've tried screening with Google's screening service and recruiters don't use it. So I'm not sure a checkbox will do any better than "Hi the person you are calling is using a Google screening service. Please state why you are calling." They always go to voice mail and then complain about me not picking up.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#170

Post by godelski »

kmacdough wrote: post #76
jhot wrote: post #9

This spring I was applying for jobs so I answered my phone for more unknown numbers than usual. This has lead to a huge increase in spam calls that I receive on a daily basis and Google Phone's spam filter isn't strict enough for my liking (not to mention no longer available since I'm running GrapheneOS). If you're an Android and Tasker user you can take matters into your own hands and set Tasker as your call screen…

I totally expect this will be fairly effective, because there aren't any major forces pushing against. - It's a simple technical problem to identify potential spammers. There are clear patterns & habits of robocallers to id them. - It's fairly simple to confirm spam/scams by pretending to be a target. - Scam spam calls, though profitable, are relatively isolated and any public support will make them easier to trace.…

I think you're overestimating the ease of detecting spam. A lot of major companies have this issue. You may argue that it's a lack of will, but they have things in place and if it was easy they'd be effective.
Post reply on HN