Live data from Hacker News

US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

thecentersquare.com

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I suppose if you have enough money, you might be able to convince AT&T or your local lawmaker to cater specifically to your desires.

I just doubt that the result of your stated preference is a solution that would be workable enough for the general public. The rest of the world just wants the spam calls to go away but still get calls from their bank/pharmacy/doctor/school/etc. Asking them to choose between the two is not a solution for them, even if it is for you. No law maker is going to propose that. And your carrier already DGAF.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#182
post #89

Semi-related project I worked on: https://github.com/evidlo/nanpa_lookup Simple bash script to lookup what companies own spam numbers. Almost all of my spam calls are from domestic VOIP companies. >>> ./lookup.sh -n 907-200-1234 "GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GENERAL COMMUNICATION" >>> ./lookup.sh -f path/to/numbers.txt "GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GENERAL COMMUNICATION" "CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS - NC" "…

That example doesn't work for me. It produces no output for that number. The problem seems to be that the entry in database.csv for that number is this:

  907|200||GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GE|PCS||6872
Given 907-200-1234 lookup.sh looks it up by grepping for '907\|200\|1'.

Compare to a number that works, 858-598-7654. That ends up grepping for '858\|598\|7' and that matches this line from database.csv:

  858|598|7|T-MOBILE USA, INC.|PCS|tmomail.net|6529
In general lookup.sh looks for the first 3 digits of the phone number in the first field of database.csv, the second 3 digits in the second field, and the next digit in the third field.

Looking up 907200 or 907-200 (but not 907-200-) will match.

I'd guess that the database allows a blank third field to mean that the entry covers all numbers that match the first 6 digits that aren't covered by a more explicit entry.

If that's the case the database is not using that mechanism optimally. For example there is this:

  360|654||ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|0|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|1|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|2|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|3|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|4|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121
  360|654|5|AT&T - LOCAL|CLEC||7421
  360|654|6|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121
  360|654|7|ONVOY, LLC - WA|CLEC||483E
  360|654|8|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|9|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
which could be reduced to:

  360|654||ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
  360|654|4|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121
  360|654|5|AT&T - LOCAL|CLEC||7421
  360|654|6|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121
  360|654|7|ONVOY, LLC - WA|CLEC||483E
There are 92492 different 6 first digit combinations where the database has explicit entries for all 10 possible 7th digits has a wildcard/default entry also. Cleaning up all these will cut the database.csv size to 52% of its current size. Appended is a script to do that.

Anyway, it seems like what lookup.sh should be doing is doing the 7 digit lookup like it does now, but if that doesn't match try a 6 digit lookup.

Here's a script to clean up database.csv. The output is sorted by name not number, but a "sort -n" can fix that.

  #!/usr/bin/perl
  use strict;

  main();

  sub main
  {
    my %db;
    my %wild;

    while () {
        chomp;
        my($f3, $s3, $t1, @rest) = split /\|/;
        my $rest = join '|', @rest;
        my $key = "$f3|$s3|$rest";
        if ($t1 eq '') { $wild{$key} = 1; }
        else { push @{$db{$key}}, $t1; }
    }

    foreach my $key (sort keys %db) {
        my($f3, $s3, @rest) = split /\|/, $key;
        my $rest = join '|', @rest;

        if ($wild{$key}) {
            print "$f3|$s3||$rest\n";
        } else {
            if (10 == scalar(@{$db{$key}})) {
                print "$f3|$s3||$rest\n";
            } else {
                foreach my $t1 (sort @{$db{$key}}) {
                    print "$f3|$s3|$t1|$rest\n";
                }
            }
        }
    }
  }

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#183

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…

> It'll take a month but then after that every legal spam call will stop.

Not the ones from politicians.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I suppose if you have enough money, you might be able to convince AT&T or your local lawmaker to cater specifically to your desires. I just doubt that the result of your stated preference is a solution that would be workable enough for the general public. The rest of the world just wants the spam calls to go away but still get calls from their bank/pharmacy/doctor/school/etc. Asking them to choose between the two is…

If this was an option available to every consumer I suspect uptake would be closer to 50% or more. It would look a lot more like Apple's privacy features than some bespoke setting that I'm the only person in the world who cares about it. And this is probably what you're actually afraid of for some reason.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It'll take a month but then after that every legal spam call will stop. Not the ones from politicians.

That's true. They have an exception for some reason.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#186
post #97

Phone companies are trying to turn this problem into a revenue generation “opportunity”. Not only do they get paid for the calls that traverse their network, but now they also want you to sign up for their “premium” blocking services, at a monthly cost, to stop them. This screams for not only a crackdown on the bad carriers who initiate the calls, but also on the big telcos who are double-dipping.

What companies sell this additional premium service?

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR covers tracking of users, but is much more broad in scope. Simply not tracking users doesn't stop the GDPR from applying. The GDPR provides a framework by which bad actors can do their thing legally without too much trouble. To a good actor, who only stores the data they actually need and doesn't track users, the GDPR still applies and is just as big a pain in the ass.

Legitimate interest is excluded from the GDPR, so what kind of "good actors" are you describing that are hobbled by the GDPR? Be specific, please.

Anyone who doesn't want to deal with the hassle of hiring someone in the Union as their Article 27 representative.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#188
post #97

Phone companies are trying to turn this problem into a revenue generation “opportunity”. Not only do they get paid for the calls that traverse their network, but now they also want you to sign up for their “premium” blocking services, at a monthly cost, to stop them. This screams for not only a crackdown on the bad carriers who initiate the calls, but also on the big telcos who are double-dipping.

What companies sell this additional premium service?

I didn't look too much, but I found T-Mobile does. https://www.t-mobile.com/customers/scam-shield

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#189
post #85
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all VoIP callers. Few businesses have enough copper phone wires for everyone in the building.

They’re not VoIP callers. I’m primarily dealing with small to medium sized businesses, which use landlines, or cell plans like Verizon for Small Business, which are basically normal lines on normal cellphones.

A ton of small and medium businesses use voip. Even residential landline phone service can be voip these days.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose if you have enough money, you might be able to convince AT&T or your local lawmaker to cater specifically to your desires. I just doubt that the result of your stated preference is a solution that would be workable enough for the general public. The rest of the world just wants the spam calls to go away but still get calls from their bank/pharmacy/doctor/school/etc. Asking them to choose between the two is…

If this was an option available to every consumer I suspect uptake would be closer to 50% or more. It would look a lot more like Apple's privacy features than some bespoke setting that I'm the only person in the world who cares about it. And this is probably what you're actually afraid of for some reason.

I don't doubt that, I'm sure 50% of people will check the option thinking it'll just block spam. The problem is that blocking robocalls entirely would block legitimate calls that they're not aware of until it'll cause pain and frustration down the line.

Most people do want fraud notifications from their bank, notifications from their utilities about maintenance, notifications that their kid's school is closed today, a call back from customer service when they ask for one, etc. But nobody would think or even have the ability to know about this when checking your "block all robocalls" option, and now you have created a new problem.

If you give people a footgun, they will use it, and they will blame whoever came up with the idea. This is why nobody will do what you are asking.

Post reply on HN