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

FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 281 posts

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#261

Post by account42 »

nutjob2 wrote: post #143
zeta0134 wrote: post #110

At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…

> In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact list. I go even further, unless there is a good reason for someone to have the ability disturb me, they're not whitelisted. I have no phones that ring unless it's for a specific and temporary purpose. A ringing phone is an anachronism, it's incredible to me that people let anyone…

Without ringing phones how do you set up a voice call at all?

Or do you rely on others letting their phones ring when you call them back while not providing them the same courtesy?

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#262

Post by duxup »

thephyber wrote: post #168
zeta0134 wrote: post #110

At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…

Yup. I didn’t realize how bad it got until my father stopped answering calls. It turned out he was getting (no hyperbole) 90 calls a day from spammers and vendors he had no relationship with. I used the iOS filter, the AT&T filter, and turned on the shortcut so the phone doesn’t ring unless the caller is in his contacts. The problem is that it already changed his behavior. He doesn’t answer the phone anymore, even if…

I get them in waves. Sometimes dozens a day, then a month with maybe one a week...

The IRS and FBI are apparently constantly after me.

They do love to leave empty voice mails for me quite often and that is annoying.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#263

Post by nutjob2 »

nkrisc wrote: post #207
nutjob2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are phone calls less scammy?

It seems strange to me that the solution would be “mimic SMS scams”.

Everything can be a scam, the solution isn't make everything painful for honest people, or cancel entire classes of actions due to scammers.

Again, I ask if somehow SMS is inherently worse for phone calls for scams.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#264

Post by konfusinomicon »

duxup wrote: post #262
thephyber wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I didn’t realize how bad it got until my father stopped answering calls. It turned out he was getting (no hyperbole) 90 calls a day from spammers and vendors he had no relationship with. I used the iOS filter, the AT&T filter, and turned on the shortcut so the phone doesn’t ring unless the caller is in his contacts. The problem is that it already changed his behavior. He doesn’t answer the phone anymore, even if…

I get them in waves. Sometimes dozens a day, then a month with maybe one a week... The IRS and FBI are apparently constantly after me. They do love to leave empty voice mails for me quite often and that is annoying.

voicemail is a dead technology, just like the mini tapes they used to be saved on. its just 1 more notification type to waste your time anymore. disable it and never look back and i assume you that you wont regret it. if they really need to contact you they will text afyer an unanswered call. I suppose its only redeeming factor is if someone you care about passes away you have a recording of their voice to hold on to, which is priceless to some. regardless, I haven't had it enabled in over 10 years and it hasn't held me back

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#265

Post by duxup »

konfusinomicon wrote: post #264
duxup wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get them in waves. Sometimes dozens a day, then a month with maybe one a week... The IRS and FBI are apparently constantly after me. They do love to leave empty voice mails for me quite often and that is annoying.

voicemail is a dead technology, just like the mini tapes they used to be saved on. its just 1 more notification type to waste your time anymore. disable it and never look back and i assume you that you wont regret it. if they really need to contact you they will text afyer an unanswered call. I suppose its only redeeming factor is if someone you care about passes away you have a recording of their voice to hold on to…

I have my phone set to ignore any unknown callers (not in my contacts) and when someone I do want to talk to but never put in my contacts (example I'm taking bids for a new roof) I need my voice mail to help identify who called / if I care.

In that case voice mail is required.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#266

Post by fragmede »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #30

Something changed about 1 year ago where the spam calls I get are 10x higher than in the past. It got so bad I had to change how I use my phone. Any caller not in my contact list goes immediately to voicemail. I’ve tried several robocall blockers, but they tend to cause connectivity issues. If anyone else has this problem, what are you using to prevent robocalls?

Pay a service like Optery to get your info off of spam lists. I answer my phone when I get calls because I don't get enough spam calls to not do that.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#267

Post by [deleted] »

everforward wrote: post #196
nutjob2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in this case, I'd rather get a text message. A mere call doesn't provide any context and is not informative. Maybe your loved one showed up in their ER or maybe it's a billing issue. The text message should explain the nature of the call and which number to call in reply.

I think there are HIPAA issues there. You can't just SMS a random number medical information, it ends up being something like "$HOSPITAL has a message for you, log in at $RANDOM_EHR or call us back at $NUMBER".

[deleted]

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#268

Post by xp84 »

mulmen wrote: post #213
xp84 wrote: post #38

I'll definitely believe it when I don't see those calls, but I could not be more in favor of turning the phone network into a much more "trusted" type of system -- similar to how SSL certs used to be prior to the Let's Encrypt era, where it requires some form of validation of something besides 'existence': Conceptually, someone US-based should have to cryptographically sign, with their license to continue participati…

Categorizing “whistleblower needs to talk to journalists” as a cliche really undermines your argument here. This isn’t an insurmountable problem. We have regulatory frameworks. FCC has proven they have teeth. It’s a political problem we can solve without losing any of the benefits of the PSTN.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here where whistleblowers can only use the PSTN. They already, I would wager, universally would not. They use Signal. All the reporters publish their Signal usernames and not their phone numbers.

Why? Probably because the PSTN as normal consumers can access it, is pretty non-anonymous. The best case for anonymity is a burner, but you have to buy those burners somewhere that probably has CCTV, or order them online with a paper trail, so it's pretty risky for someone who needs assurances of anonymity.

No whistleblowers are using SS7 trunks to place anonymous calls.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#269

Post by kube-system »

unsignedint wrote: post #218
kube-system wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least you get more signals to work with (headers, DKIM/SPF/DMARC, filtering, etc.) than just a string of 10–12 digits with no real context. For most people it is a distinction without a difference because they know about as much what to do with a DMARC policy as they do an SS7 frame. DKIM/SPF/DMARC as bandaids just as much as STIR/SHAKEN are, they just need to get a kick in the ass to implement them -- on both f…

Sure, but my point still stands — you have more tools to work with in email. For what it’s worth, I can usually contextualize a message from the subject line and the sender’s address without needing to dive deep into headers. (Phishing is definitely a real problem, but it’s not unique to email in this discussion.) Now compare that to the PSTN: what does 555-123-4567 really tell you? Not much. It’s just a string of di…

> Now compare that to the PSTN: what does 555-123-4567 really tell you?

It tells you exactly as much as the "from" field does in your email.

> you have more tools to work with in email.

Only if you're an engineer implementing a mail server configuration. But if you're implementing a telco you also have more tools to work with than a caller ID.

End users use DMARC/SPF the same way end users use STIR/SHAKEN... they don't. None of them are user-servicable values. And service providers use DMARC/SPF the same way end users use STIR/SHAKEN... they implement those controls for their users in the form of a managed service.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#270

Post by unsignedint »

kube-system wrote: post #269
unsignedint wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but my point still stands — you have more tools to work with in email. For what it’s worth, I can usually contextualize a message from the subject line and the sender’s address without needing to dive deep into headers. (Phishing is definitely a real problem, but it’s not unique to email in this discussion.) Now compare that to the PSTN: what does 555-123-4567 really tell you? Not much. It’s just a string of di…

> Now compare that to the PSTN: what does 555-123-4567 really tell you? It tells you exactly as much as the "from" field does in your email. > you have more tools to work with in email. Only if you're an engineer implementing a mail server configuration. But if you're implementing a telco you also have more tools to work with than a caller ID. End users use DMARC/SPF the same way end users use STIR/SHAKEN... they don…

Even if I don't run my own mail server, I can still open an email header and see context. Last time I checked, I can't walk into a telco and ask for the telephone equivalent of that. On PSTN, there's nothing beyond a bare caller ID string, and that lack of context is exactly why I see it as a problem.

Email gives end users multiple signals and filters to work with. PSTN doesn't, and that's why I disagree with your equivalence.

Post reply on HN