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

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

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–248 of 248 posts

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

#241

Post by briffle »

inigyou wrote: post #236
coldpie wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'd miss a lot of important calls Like what? Who is both a legitimate caller and also trying to call me through one of these unverified legacy services? If their calls stopped going through to a huge chunk of their customers (this is one of the reasons receiving unvalidated calls should be opt in, not opt out), why wouldn't they switch to a verified service?

Your bank is calling you from a verified network, unverified number, because it's one of their employee's phones but they want the caller ID to be from the main switchboard, and they didn't bother to do the extra work with their telecom to make this verify as a correct number.

and when they can't get lots of "we don't accept unverified calls" messages, they will fix the problem.

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

#242

Post by jameshart »

dataflow wrote: post #233
jameshart wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an argument in favor of KYC requirements for telcos, just that it assumes they can outsource it to banks.

This is neither KYC nor would that be relevant even if it were. The whole point is you could get traceability without a credit check just fine.

You're saying telcos should insist on a traceable source of payment, which means a source of funds which has some level of KYC. That is just KYC with extra steps.

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

#243

Post by philipallstar »

swed420 wrote: post #217
philipallstar wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"consumption-based" requires consumers.

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

#244

Post by dredmorbius »

DrewADesign wrote: post #115
smallmancontrov wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that you mention it, I believe I have seen a couple of red flagged calls, but I still get ~3 calls a day from a very aggressive business loan spammer, it's always a new number and never flagged.

Anybody desperate enough to consider telemarketed merchant cash advances (MCAs) should look into them very carefully first. The contracts often have stipulations that allow them to draw money from your bank account at will, penalty interest rates that jump up 400% APR, have been known to use mafia enforcers to violently extract payments, and the list goes on. There was a more perfect union video (titled something abo…

Source(s) or reference(s) on this would be useful and appreciated.

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

#245

Post by dredmorbius »

themafia wrote: post #195
maerF0x0 wrote: post #82

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 servi…

phones still work even if the power grid is disabled

With the sunset of POTS and twisted-pair copper wire, this is absolutely not the case.

At the very least, service continuation now requires 1) cellular masts with reserve power and 2) a charged cellphone (most of which have at best ~24h battery life), or 3) a directly-wired or fibre-based Internet access and 4) battery-backed VOIP or SIP system.

A POTS service had its own power supply, independent of mains, with battery back-up, and frequently ran for days even during widespread grid outages.

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

#246

Post by dredmorbius »

filup wrote: post #185
drnick1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. And this is why I don't give any business my real name, phone number, or other personal information. Starbucks does not need to know my name or email to make my coffee. If a company insists on an app or some kind of registration, they lose my business, plain and simple.

I walked into a gas station the other day because the pump did not print the recipt. I asked the cashier for the receipt and she said I needed to download the app in order to get a receipt. Pure insanity.

Name and shame, if you please.

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

#247

Post by dredmorbius »

elevation wrote: post #60
theturtletalks wrote: post #28

KYC and AML are the most blatant attempts at subverting due process I’ve ever seen. Instead of the government actually trying to catch money laundering, they just make 3rd parties like banks and payment processors judge, jury, executioner. Effectively giving them the power to decide who can do business. And if they decide you can’t, you have no recourse. If the government didn’t give this power to private companies,…

> the most blatant attempts at subverting due process This seems so clear to me; KYC is an end run around the constitution. But how do we stop it? If we legislate "no KYC" then what is my recourse when an imposter empties my accounts? You'd want it to be at least allowed. But if we allow industry to require KYC "we will only deposit your pay to a verified bank account" then you may end up with de facto KYC if not de…

KYC is an end run around the constitution

What's your argument here, if you don't mind?

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

#248

Post by pigeons »

DrewADesign wrote: post #119
iamnothere wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is making spam calls with cell phones. Spammers use VOIP services and old TDM systems.

There’s SIM card banks for SMS spam… I’d be surprised if there wasn’t anything similar for calling. Not that I support this bill but it is a thing.

Seems like SMS spammers just get an SS7 link handoff more often and more effective than SIM card banks.
Post reply on HN