Aside from the EFF, where can I send my money? Is there somewhere / someone that's working on this specifically?
A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
211–220 of 248 posts
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#212It'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.
You understand the distinction though, right? The current state is that you cna choose one of these:
A) Be tracked
B) Use a phone not connected to your identity
C) Go without a phone sometimes
The FCC's proposed change would remove one of those options.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't seem hard to fix: just let users decide whether hidden numbers should be ignored or received.
Doesn't that make it more likely people are going to miss important calls from their Doctor's office?
Just send the call to voicemail. Doctor's offices always leave voicemails. Spammers sometimes leave voicemails, sometimes not, either way they're easy to filter out / ignore.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people put their home in a trust to avoid this, and not everyone registers to vote.
IIRC the only way to keep who owns a home truly anonymous (short of a court getting involved) is to create a shell company (not an LLC) and have your attorney sign off on the deed as a representative of the company. Problem is you have to pay a lot more tax if/when you sell (I believe it's considered income, instead of capital gains). LLC's, and I believe, trusts, are fairly easy to sort out the ownership of -- they…
You need a blind trust, biggest downside is you won’t be able to manage the property anymore. It’s expensive to set up as well.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they actually need to purchase numbers to do that, though? I always imagined that there are certain shady providers ("grey-market Twilio" sort of idea) that just let you run single outbound call/text requests through a giant pool of numbers shared with other customers of the service. Perhaps specifically a bank of residential numbers plugged into banks of regular cell phones, like a residential IP proxy service pr…
Somebody at some point is purchasing them, probably not the spammers/scammers themselves. It's very unlikely anybody is placing spam/scam calls with regular cell phones when VoIP numbers are easy and cheap to get, and when VoIP systems are far easier to manage.
You would think that someone is getting real cell phone numbers, for the same reason scammers value residential IPs rather than data center IPs.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#216Earlier 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.
There is a need. The whole point is to do that. "I'll just opt out" half measures won't get rid of the culture. We're all expected to have phones. People want to call. We suffer actual economic consequences if we refuse to participate. Your "solution" boils down to "just don't have a phone so we can ostracize you". Like the loonies who don't have Facebook accounts for the companies to spy on. The whole idea is to wip…
There's nothing loony about not having Facebook or a phone. Nobody really gives a damn, I promise you. What is silly is trying to disallow everyone else from having something because you don't want it.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> But that's not a consumer initiative.
Seems irrelevant to the original point.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#218Let me give you an analogy: Someone keeps blaring an airhorn outside your window at 4am. It's making it difficult for you to sleep. The government, in their bountiful wisdom, decides to hold an emergency meeting, and agrees to pass a law that people need to show an ID to buy an airhorn. You're appalled. This is an invasion of privacy! You protest outside of city hall. You try to get some of your neighbors onboard, bu…
The funny thing is most of the world had already pioneered the airhorn ID long ago. Very few of them saw any decrease in 4 AM airhorn activity, yet some are already well-known to arrest and harass airhorn users to international human rights observers' condemnation.
Yes and this post is the remedy. We need to point out the privacy issue, and also point out that it won't do what people want.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a need. The whole point is to do that. "I'll just opt out" half measures won't get rid of the culture. We're all expected to have phones. People want to call. We suffer actual economic consequences if we refuse to participate. Your "solution" boils down to "just don't have a phone so we can ostracize you". Like the loonies who don't have Facebook accounts for the companies to spy on. The whole idea is to wip…
There's nothing loony about not having Facebook or a phone. Nobody really gives a damn, I promise you. What is silly is trying to disallow everyone else from having something because you don't want it.
I've seen HR avoid hiring people who didn't have phones or Facebook accounts. I've seen them straight up ask for the account passwords.
Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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."
That's almost certainly not spoofed. They just own a phone number on your local exchange.
No they don't. I've called back, a couple of times, and got some guy named Bob, getting all confused. "Whaddaya mean I just called you?".
Hmm...you seem very interested in redirecting this train of conversation. Why?