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

171–180 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#171

Post by godelski »

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 WILL NOT work. The best thing you can do is sign up for the FCC DNC list. It'll take a month but then after that every legal spam call will stop.

The problem with your method is that spammers call phones just to see if they pick up. This then confirms an active number that they maintain in their lists. This can be done legally because technically calling and hanging up and never calling again (from the same number) isn't spam. So just don't answer.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#172

Post by lostapathy »

karagenit wrote: post #103
lamontcg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. I can make this real simple. I don't want any robocalls.

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.

My doctor (well, their hospital system) uses Epic/MyChart as their EMR. I also have the MyChart app on my phone. I get a push notification via the MyChart app when anything new posts to my chart - no phone call, text, or email required. And I don't want the push notifications, I could opt out of that too.

Surely most doctors offices use a vanishingly small amount of EMR providers, and they could support similar very easily.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#173

Post by alberth »

LadyCailin wrote: post #131
alberth wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The carriers are clearly customer-hostile It’s actually not the carriers. The carriers actual try to actively block spam. It’s actual the Twilio’s of the world that originate the bulk of the spam.

The carriers could absolutely implement authenticated caller id as a very first start. Then, you can at least trust the caller ID and screen/block effectively.

Do you mean like Shaken/Stir?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#174

Post by kube-system »

munk-a wrote: post #163
kube-system wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 irra…

I'm not arguing that we should roll back any legislation against wire fraud or spam calls. I am saying that the evidence demonstrates that those laws were not effective in deterring the overseas criminals who continue to constitute the bulk of these calls. They are simply not in the jurisdiction in which we are passing these laws. If US wire fraud charges aren't enough attention, I'm not sure what marginal increase in attention one could possibly expect from an additional law.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#175

Post by NotTameAntelope »

godelski wrote: post #171
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.

This WILL NOT work. The best thing you can do is sign up for the FCC DNC list. It'll take a month but then after that every legal spam call will stop. The problem with your method is that spammers call phones just to see if they pick up. This then confirms an active number that they maintain in their lists. This can be done legally because technically calling and hanging up and never calling again (from the same numb…

My point was I have not experienced an uptick in spam calls, and I thought y’all might find that interesting.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#176

Post by kube-system »

coldpie wrote: post #164
djcannabiz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then you can leave robocalls on.

Imposing that option on people negates its usefulness. Which option would you recommend to your elderly relatives? Accept robocalls from international scammers or receive updates from their doctors office?

You might as well ban robocalls for legitimate uses too, since legitimate users won't be able to rely on it anymore.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#177

Post by kube-system »

lamontcg wrote: post #135
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 get an e-mail and they show up on a web UI and it is instantaneous more or less. And I don't know why I have to get robocalls because gramma can't operate the internet. And both my 80+ year old parents can navigate the internet well enough to get lab test results off of websites.

We should still take into account the usability of public utilities for those who struggle with internet illiteracy or disabilities, regardless of how well your parents can cope. A full 25% of people 65+ don't use the internet in any capacity at all.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#178

Post by galdosdi »

mastercheif wrote: post #159

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 m…

A similar idea that a friend of mine implemented is, when he gets called, the caller hears this message "Thanks for calling (name); press one to be connected immediately"

This filters out pretty much all spam!

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#179

Post by lamontcg »

kube-system wrote: post #177
lamontcg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get an e-mail and they show up on a web UI and it is instantaneous more or less. And I don't know why I have to get robocalls because gramma can't operate the internet. And both my 80+ year old parents can navigate the internet well enough to get lab test results off of websites.

We should still take into account the usability of public utilities for those who struggle with internet illiteracy or disabilities, regardless of how well your parents can cope. A full 25% of people 65+ don't use the internet in any capacity at all.

Again, why does this mean that I have to suffer from robocalls, other than cynical justification to defend robocalls in the abstract and continue to inflict them on everyone?

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#180

Post by kube-system »

lostapathy wrote: post #172
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.

My doctor (well, their hospital system) uses Epic/MyChart as their EMR. I also have the MyChart app on my phone. I get a push notification via the MyChart app when anything new posts to my chart - no phone call, text, or email required. And I don't want the push notifications, I could opt out of that too. Surely most doctors offices use a vanishingly small amount of EMR providers, and they could support similar very…

The people who use the hospital system the most are the ones who are the least likely to be able to use those functions effectively.
Post reply on HN