Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verified by Twilio

twilio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 247 posts

Re: Verified by Twilio

#221

Post by jdc »

fjp wrote: post #204
chabes wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t seem like it’s being enforced in the US, currently..

They actually do try to enforce it, but right now it's a losing battle. You can spin up a new voip company and start blasting scam calls from an overseas call center in a weekend, then spin that company down before anyone has any idea who you are. Customers complain to carriers, who then either get the offending voip provider to block the scamming customer, or just threaten FCC action. But the whole cycle is so slow…

Here's a kind of adversarial test of that hypothesis:

1. Spin up new voip company

2. Issue death threat to US President (or similarly powerful man)

3. Spin down voip company

4. Wait to see if/when someone finds out who you are

Re: Verified by Twilio

#222

Post by kerkeslager »

Nextgrid wrote: post #218
kerkeslager wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that robocalls already fall under laws that make them illegal. The problem is that if someone makes an illegal call from a spoofed number, you can't tell where the call is actually coming from, so you can't prosecute the caller. SHAKEN/STIR closes the loophole that allows spoofing phone numbers.

Make the user-facing telco liable for any spam call. The industry will sort out the problem overnight, by disconnecting from the bad carriers from which spam calls originate.

That won't work, because with current technology it's impossible to tell where the calls originate from.

I'm not defending the telcos for dragging their feet on this issue, and I'm also not opposed to regulation, but there's a technological aspect to this problem which I think you're underestimating. The technology needs to be fixed before any regulation will be in any way enforceable.

The technology fix isn't something that can be implemented "overnight" either. If I'm understanding correctly, existing signing was implemented in hardware, because at the time it was implemented, that was the only way to get the performance necessary, and in the US most of the hardware the phone system runs on is legacy hardware. The solution has to be provably secure, support existing network hardware, support existing consumer hardware, be upgradeable, federate to avoid centralization, be agreed upon by all the telcos, be approved by regulators, and finally, be deployed without downtime. That's simply not going to happen overnight, and it's worth it to take the time to do it correctly rather than cutting corners on any of these steps.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#223

Post by hypervis0r »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #119
astura wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA too has regulations and levies fines, however, the robcallers and scammers are almost always overseas criminal operations. I suspect the US is much more of a target because there's many, many more overseas criminals that speak English than German.

My bet is simply that you go where the money is[0]. [0] https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...

This is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. Original HN submission WRT that link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20799705

Re: Verified by Twilio

#224

Post by pier25 »

sp332 wrote: post #186
pier25 wrote: post #180

Android already does this, somewhat. Whenever you receive a call you know beforehand if it's spam or not. Maybe a handful of times in the last year I've received a spam call that wasn't marked as spam. You can block callers and report as spam much like in Gmail. When the call is not spam Android looks up on Google where the number is from and it shows the name of the business in the call screen. This is working great…

I've never seen a call marked as "spam" on Android. What kind of phone do you have, and which carrier? Edit: My phone is from Samsung (who like to add a bunch of their own software to base Android) and my carrier is AT&T.

I have an Android One phone. Not sure if this feature is from the OS or the stock phone app though.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#225

Post by richardwhiuk »

bksenior wrote: post #57
jimnotgym wrote: post #55

> Even more concern, 70% of consumers don’t answer a call if the caller’s number is anonymous. While that might cut down the number of unwanted robocalls, it also potentially prevents consumers from receiving vital communications—calls from the doctor, banks that are flagging issues, schools calling about parents’ children. I don't understand how this helps with anonymous callers?

Seriously? Most corporations call from a featureless pile of numbers. Now you wont miss the important calls from numbers you'd otherwise consider anon spam.

Surely if you are verified by twilio, you aren't anonymous?

Re: Verified by Twilio

#226

Post by richardwhiuk »

ryanlol wrote: post #101
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #68

FFS USA, not every problem is a problem to solve by "the free market". You can see the America-Is-Great Mindset in a lot of these comments: Even the US has a problem with robocalls, so that must mean it's an unsolved problem obviously. So we have to solve it with our superior technology!! Just no. Almost nobody else in the western world has this problem. How? Regulation. In Germany, if you get reported for unsolicite…

Get off your high horse, you clearly don’t understand what’s going on here. No country in the world has solved this problem, it simply doesn’t exist in some. Fines do nothing to discourage this behaviour by criminals, the fact that Germans speak German has everything to do with the lack of English robocalls.

If it doesn't exist, doesn't that suggest it's solved?

I get no spam calls on my UK number, which is in English.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#227

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

bildung wrote: post #177
fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The usual threshold for poverty (for good reasons) is 50 or 60% of the median income in a country. If you think half to 40% of people in the Congo are not in poverty you are delusional

60% of the median is the definition of relative poverty. This is what the NY Times article was about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty You are free to find that delusional, but if you want to partake in the scientific discourse about poverty, it would be advantageous if you don't redefine the core concept.

Yes, and my point is it's an entirely useless definition. If 40% of the population were billionaires and the remaining 60% were millionaires. The millionaires aren't in poverty.

"delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder."

It is quite delusional to create new metrics on poverty because ones based on income or consumption don't get you to the result you like.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#228

Post by xorcist »

dmix wrote: post #74
HugoHobling wrote: post #19

I know it's overkill, but this is my current setup for my phone numbers. I treat phone numbers the same way I do my email address: I use different numbers for different purposes. 1. I have a "clean" phone number I only share with friends/family. Certain prefixes and phone number actually receive next to zero spam calls. This number has received 2 calls in the years I've had it. 2. I have a phone number I share with c…

Which SIP client do you use? I'm having trouble finding a good voip client. The telecom world is full of bad software with 1990s designs. Endless confusing configuration forms with vague repetitive labels.

The one built into Android is basic but functional. It's a bit hidden in the user interface but here's how to configure it: https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/2811843

It's not useful over the open Internet but on a local WLAN or over a VPN call should work fine. Unless you use a damaged phone book storing SIP URLs for your regular contacts should work too. No messaging or fancy codecs though.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#229

Post by SomeOldThrow »

rsync wrote: post #215
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? You can filter by the number type in their api. They do offer mobile numbers.

No, they don't. There is a proper industry definition of what a "mobile" number is and only "mobile" numbers can accept SMS from shortcodes. All of the 2FA from FANGs and banks and so on come from shortcodes so you can't do a lot of those 2FA workflows with a twilio number (or a number you port to twilio). As per engineers at the Signal conference, there are no plans to make proper "mobile" numbers available at twili…

Ahh, receiving short codes is a niche I've not yet encountered, that makes sense.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#230

Post by ta0xdeadbeef »

elahd wrote: post #188
Jolter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks cool but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just outlaw robocalling like the rest of the world has?

The telephone network is international. The US is limited in its ability to enforce anti-spam laws against operations running out of other countries. (They also seem unwilling or unable to enforce these laws domestically, but that's a completely separate issue.)

What are the technical hurdles to guarantee that only phone calls originating from the United States are identifiable with a US country/area code?
Post reply on HN