Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.lopp.net

191–200 of 248 posts

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

#191
post #31

It's even worse: Since cell phones broadcast your location at all times, this means telling hundreds of companies (and a number of governments) your location at basically all times. That's already an issue with most cell phones. Making this apply to prepaid phones is even worse.

Cellphones broadcast their location, not ours. We can leave our phones at home.

Assuming your movements are tracked by other methods (surveillance cameras and facial recognition, purchase records, etc) the absence of your phone when you would otherwise normally have it is a data point, too.

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

#192

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?

Said on a forum that was accessed by IP protocol.

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

#193
post #31

It's even worse: Since cell phones broadcast your location at all times, this means telling hundreds of companies (and a number of governments) your location at basically all times. That's already an issue with most cell phones. Making this apply to prepaid phones is even worse.

One thing I wonder is if this is just one step removed from 'Now we know the identity of every user so we can now have both probable cause and verified identity to arrest over statements containing speech we do not like.' " Like that is Carr's FCC in a nutshell - he wants to control speech by controlling the airwaves. That is a raw fact in his behavior. But when the news stations say the thing they want them to say,…

That's rather public. Most likely is monitoring a journalist so you can more easily discover their sources or engaging in "parallel construction" to deal with "undesirables" of any stripe.

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

#194
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it like a petition or testifying before Congress. The whole point is that you are putting your real name behind it. And if you think your name and address are private, then I have some bad news for you.

I spend a lot of time filing requests to take down my home address. Most low-hanging fruit options have been scrubbed. I am hesitant to increase the count.

Private Mail Boxes are a godsend. In California this can even be the address on your state ID. You do have to give them your residence address but they consider that private information and only share it with authorized agencies.

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

#195

Honestly I'm at the point where I'm like lets just kill the POTS. It makes little sense to me that it's become a sort of user ID for many things, that we have better alternatives (WebRTC, FaceTime et al) that we should push. Like where it currently says "Telephone number" i should be able to put in a URL like "webrtc:// " (which itself could be a dropdown box for "This device" on the phone itself...) For example, why…

> that we have better alternatives (WebRTC, FaceTime et al)

They may or may not be better. What they _aren't_ is "widely available."

Also I feel like a lot of people forget that phones still work even if the power grid is disabled. Your replacement should have the same attribute.

> why isn't it the default that when a telemarketer calls me it's not a video call?

How about when I block you I block the underlying service number and not the fake caller ID number. If a company gets blocked by too many customers it is automatically disconnected from the network.

This is _our_ network. Not the spammers. All companies use it by our leave. They wanted common carrier status and that should have a price.

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

#197

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?

Because backwards compatibility expectations make it hard. Also telecoms are evil and greedy so unless you are actually going to stop paying for a phone they won’t lift a finger to improve anything. Countries with newer phone systems at least support Alphaneumeric Senders.

https://help.twilio.com/articles/223133767-International-sup...

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. Easier (and correct) fix: Telecoms operators should not be permitted to provide transit to a call that's routed through one of these. > I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962... This doesn't make sense. Even my inexpensive Mikrotik switch…

> I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same. The example should rather have been some telecom carrier in Africa or India. Telco equipment is expensive, the technology is ridiculously complex and getting companies especially in less well-off regions to replace aging stuff and updating it to modern standards is next to impossible. Think about it, the globally co…

> Telco equipment is expensive...

Sure, agreed.

> ...the technology is ridiculously complex...

Odd. I could have sworn that Caller ID, Customer-initiated Dialback, "Tell me the number of my most recent caller", and "Keep calling this number for the next half hour, and ring me if the call is answered" were features that were available on the POTS since the early 1990s. I agree that the tech's complex, but the R&D for the stuff I'm talking about has been over and done with for at least thirty five years. There are adult HN users who have never lived in a world without this stuff.

> ...getting companies especially in less well-off regions to replace aging stuff and updating it to modern standards is next to impossible.

I don't see how that's the problem of "The West"? If it's actually a problem, instruct "Western" telecoms to send a couple-hundred-million dollars in last-gen equipment, along with the techs required to install it and let them declare its original purchase price and the full cost of the manpower as a tax credit.

> ...is nothing short of a miracle.

If we ignore the existence of long-range radio, and if this were prior to 1965 or -at latest- 1970, I might agree. But, like, we've had satellite telecommunications for nearly sixty years, terrestrial microwave transceivers for a couple of decades longer, and short- and long-wave transceivers for far, far longer than either.

Additionally... I don't know if you've noticed, but it's not uncommon to have a satellite phone in your pocket these days.

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

#199
post #31

It's even worse: Since cell phones broadcast your location at all times, this means telling hundreds of companies (and a number of governments) your location at basically all times. That's already an issue with most cell phones. Making this apply to prepaid phones is even worse.

It does make me wonder if we're just racing to the day we've got our kyc-blessed phone in a drawer at home at the official address that's already known to carrier. And strap on it the software needed to either forward messages and calls via voip to our real phone, or open a server on it to let us access it from wherever we are to poll for our messages.

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. Easier (and correct) fix: Telecoms operators should not be permitted to provide transit to a call that's routed through one of these. > I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962... This doesn't make sense. Even my inexpensive Mikrotik switch…

> I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same Mikrotik is a young spring chick compared to the dinosaurs in telecom.

The simplest phone you can attach to any POTS line in the US is the touch-tone phone. [0] It's a microphone, speaker, ringer, switch, and a DTMF tone generator. The most complicated part of this device by far is the tone generator. The line it's attached to provides the power for all of the electronics/electromechanics inside the phone... and is also responsible for activating the phone's ringer and "knowing" the status of the "on hook" switch. The most basic phone models have no memory or logic inside them of any kind.

Given these restrictions, how does one ensure that one can activate the ringer of a single phone (and connect its speaker and mic to that of the caller, and noone else) in a world where all of the human operators were replaced by electromechanical ones, which were then replaced by fully computerized ones? Once one has figured that out, how does one ensure accurate and correct determination of the calling parties, the transit networks, and the duration of the call? One needs to recover your costs, and one uses usage-based billing to do so. [1]

In order to do those things, mightn't the system that that phone is connected to have to have all of the information about the callers, the systems the call flows through, the duration of the call, etc, etc, etc?

[0] Rotary phones are even simpler than touch-tone phones because they replace the tone generator with an elecromechanical gizmo that bangs on the line when it's rotated. Because I vaguely remember hearing that some phone networks were phasing out support for rotary phones, I'm assuming that you're not guaranteed to be able to attach one and have it function.

[1] I'll only briefly mention POTS features from ~35 years ago such as "Caller ID", "Read to me out loud the phone number of my most recent caller", and "Keep calling this number for the next half hour and ring me if they pick up", which had to (and did) work with these dumb-as-bricks phones.

Post reply on HN