Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.lopp.net

51–60 of 248 posts

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

#51
post #3

Im USA based use prepaid service because I dont want to provide information for a credit check to obtain postpay service. Theres absolutely no reason for a US based telephony provider to retain the most sensitive PII on their customers. Every large provider has a history of breaches and selling customer data. The telephone companies are already tracking, storing, selling; so many data points on their customers. They…

Counterpoint: for my part I would like it to be the case that any phone line that can dial or message my phone can be traced back to a known human being who can be held accountable for abuse of that phone line in terms of generating spam, abuse or harassment. Seems that we can’t both get what we want. A potential solution is that you get your anonymous phone line but my phone provider simply refuses to let you call m…

> Seems that we can’t both get what we want.

Why can't you? They don't want to provide info for a credit check, you want human accountability. All that requires is for them to use a debit card for whatever service (prepaid or postpaid). Law enforcement can trace that if needed. No need for credit checks or really any other information directly in the hands of the telco.

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

#52
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did in every other country that did it. What's different about this one? If you get a spam call in Europe from Europe, you call the police and the spammer gets located and punished.

> It did in every other country that did it Citation required.

SMS farm/machines don't work in the UK at least, I suspect not even in NL

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

#53
In my opinion, the real fix to scam, spam, and robocalls is to pass along the REAL(TM) Caller ID information not just the caller ID but the actual billed Caller ID information and allow the recipient easy ways to drop the calls when those two don't match. I don't know exactly the technical details of Stir/Shaken but someone somewhere is paying / getting paid for each call and this information should be transparently available to the call or message recipient. For "legitimate" reasons like doctors or call centers, they should already provide a separate work phone and not make them use their personal line. For leaky carriers, those should be blocked entirely. Nothing good comes from them. Basically what I am suggesting is if the full attestation level ("A-level") is not available, drop those calls and text messages by default unless the customer opts in (I have no idea why anyone would)

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

#54

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.

What ever happened to SHAKEN/STIR? I thought this was supposed to happen 5 years ago. Did they just chicken out on the prospect of actually shutting down telcos sending spam volume? I still get loads of spam phone calls, so clearly something went wrong (or slow enough to be indistinguishable from wrong).

> I thought this was supposed to happen 5 years ago. Did they just chicken out on the prospect of actually shutting down telcos sending spam volume?

It would certainly hurt a consumption-based economy, for starters.

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

#55
Let 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, but find that they're already protesting! Their protest is demanding that the government do something about the annoying airhorns.

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

#56
For background on KYC in the banking context @patio11's podcasts and essays are worth consuming:

  Patrick: Yes, so "Know Your Customer" (KYC) and "Anti-Money Laundering" (AML) 
  are mandatory elements of the international compliance regime that have been 
  in place in the United States since the early 1980s. Over time, this regime 
  spread globally, largely fueled by the U.S. leveraging the dollar as a tool 
  of foreign policy—a point where I find myself agreeing with critiques from 
  the crypto community. Their complaints about this are largely accurate. You 
  can see this clearly in the documents as these laws were passed and as 
  supranational bodies increasingly tightened regulations on banking secrecy 
  havens.
  
https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/true-crime-ba...

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/kyc-and-aml-beyond-th...

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

#57
post #37
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big ones already force you to give SSN for service. Then they lose it in a data breach.

The crazy thing is that a simple 9-digit number (that you must give away for many things) can ruin your life if it gets public. The US seems so backwards at times.

at times? we can't even decide if women are allowed to control their own bodies. we're now open to states stopping people with dark skin from voting, and we have giant internment camps where we keep innocent men, women, children because they have a spanish accent. vaccines are apparently not a worldwide health miracle, education is overrated, we're bringing back jobs in coal and oil, and invading/destabilizing latin american countries is back in vogue. in two years we might be so backwards that women's suffrage becomes questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding_in_the_...).

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

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain, but I think on my phone incoming calls that fail SHAKEN/STIR show the caller id in red rather than black text. I'm on T-Mobile. It also shows "Number Verified" or something like that.

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.

That's because they are bulk purchasing numbers from voip providers, cycling through probably hundreds per day.

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

#59
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we even need to run on the 20th century system of numbers anyways? Why is there not a better call addressing system?

We don't, but the entire world currently does, and the amount of equipment deployed that depends on it is substantial. I would be willing to bet money that any "better call addressing system" would be a design by committee where this just gets litigated there. And we'd end up with either a system that requires KYC per-call, or has compromises similar to what we're complaining about now.

Having worked with telco companies, 99% of it is "Yeah, but this stuff still works just fine;) And if a government compels us to change our equipment for reasons other than national security, we're going to pitch a fit and demand financial incentives beyond reason." A lot of the pressure to boot Huawei from tech stacks globally ran straight into that wall and flopped. Even with national security at its back.

Considering most of those same telcos are donors and employers of large numbers of people across many constituencies of almost every nation, usually no politician has or is willing to spend political capital to shoot themselves in the foot like that. And no nation with a national telco company runs it well enough to ever even dream of spending money for something like IP addresses, they typically barely keep the lights on.

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

#60

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 jure. But if you tell businesses they may not require it, it enables other kinds of fraud.

Legislation does not constrain people who will to do evil.

Post reply on HN