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

Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#61

Post by wildrhythms »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #32
exhilaration wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always answer the call and then joyfully "block/report spam" the number in the Android dialer. Being able to do something to fight back is satisfying enough that I don't ignore the call. I did just switch to T-Mobile and they pass "SCAM LIKELY" as the caller name so I may start declining those.

I’ve found that when I get a robot call, if I type randomly on the numpad it usually gets me on the line with a real person, who’s time I’m happy to waste. I figure this is the most expensive outcome for the caller

Doesn't this signal to the malicious caller that your number is an active line with a human willing to pick up the call? I imagine that information is valuable to malicious callers who probably sell lists of active phone numbers of curious humans willing to pick up.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#62

Post by heavyset_go »

exhilaration wrote: post #13
Jaygles wrote: post #2

I've just stopped answering my phone altogether. If something is important enough the person calling should leave a voicemail.

I always answer the call and then joyfully "block/report spam" the number in the Android dialer. Being able to do something to fight back is satisfying enough that I don't ignore the call. I did just switch to T-Mobile and they pass "SCAM LIKELY" as the caller name so I may start declining those.

This can backfire. Robocallers used my local pharmacy's number so much that I had to tell the pharmacist to add it to my file that I shouldn't be contacted via phone.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#63

Post by Mountain_Skies »

mehhh wrote: post #50
nahikoa wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see any/some/most/all carriers implementing STIR/SHAKEN for termination soon?

As someone who works with multiple carriers, I doubt anyone outside of the wireless carriers and Inteliquent will implement STIR/SHAKEN soon in the USA. Inteliquent (aka Neutral Tandem, Onvoy, Exiant, Vitelity, plus 20 other sub-brands) is the only provider implementing this protocol outside the cellular industry, and most of the CLECs they work with are not capable of maintaining SIP with a TLS certificate, let alon…

I might be mistaken but I believe Windstream, a rural legacy carrier, is planning to implement STIR/SHAKEN.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#64

Post by heavyset_go »

QUFB wrote: post #54
daemonk wrote: post #24

I wonder if it is possible to forward robocalls to another service that will attempt to keep the robocaller busy as long as possible. It would be great if everyone can just answer the robocalls and press a button to forward to a time-waster service. Hopefully, every busy robocall is one less call to another person.

I have a pretty stupid bot set up with Asterisk. I think the record is 17 minutes, and the bot even repeated the script. When I get bored I put up some calls: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYyYngFvpbNqsAhpAI6DoeA

I love this. You wouldn't happen to have a blog post that details your setup?

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#65

Post by acollins1331 »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #32
exhilaration wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always answer the call and then joyfully "block/report spam" the number in the Android dialer. Being able to do something to fight back is satisfying enough that I don't ignore the call. I did just switch to T-Mobile and they pass "SCAM LIKELY" as the caller name so I may start declining those.

I’ve found that when I get a robot call, if I type randomly on the numpad it usually gets me on the line with a real person, who’s time I’m happy to waste. I figure this is the most expensive outcome for the caller

I answered a spam call once and started leading the guy along while playing pornographic material very loudly in the background. I'd say things like "I'm busy" and "Just one second" and "let me finish this up real quick" at all the opportune times. The indian dude on the other end got very angry. Hopefully i won't be assassinated.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#66

Post by mehrdadn »

yellow_lead wrote: post #41
nahikoa wrote: post #15

The technology behind STIR/SHAKEN is relatively interesting, integrating certificate authorities into the SIP protocol: https://www.atis.org/sti-ga/resources/docs/shaken-faqs.pdf As the article mentions, there are some shortcomings. Caller ID spoofing is necessary for some services, as in the VOIP world calls are broken up into termination (dialout) and origination (dialin). If STIR/SHAKEN takes hold, the CID phone n…

I just implemented this at a telecom. To expand a bit, the three levels are A, B, and C. There is also of course empty (no attestation). Three levels of attestation are roughly: A = I know the customer, they own this number. B = I know the customer, can't confirm they own this number. C = I'm sending this call out, but I know nothing of the customer or this number. Carriers sometimes don't want to receive anything ot…

Do you know how this will actually solve the problem? Like will they actually let customers block calls without the desired level of attestation?

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#67

Post by parasight »

reaperducer wrote: post #39
Aardwolf wrote: post #25

This problem doesn't appear to exist at that scale (there exist some spammy call centers of course, and apps to block them...) in Europe. Not sure if that is legislation, technology or culture/economy related, and whether it's an active solution or it just passively works out. But what stops the US from doing whatever it Europe is doing to not have tons of robocalls? For one, making calls costs money. How can robocal…

This problem doesn't appear to exist at that scale (there exist some spammy call centers of course, and apps to block them...) in Europe. In a previous HN discussion, it was pointed out by people in Germany that it does exist, and is a big problem in Germany. I don't know about the rest of Europe.

German here. As far as I can tell, it is not a problem in Germany. I never got a robocall. Not sure why we do not have it here.

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#68

Post by iudqnolq »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #32
exhilaration wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always answer the call and then joyfully "block/report spam" the number in the Android dialer. Being able to do something to fight back is satisfying enough that I don't ignore the call. I did just switch to T-Mobile and they pass "SCAM LIKELY" as the caller name so I may start declining those.

I’ve found that when I get a robot call, if I type randomly on the numpad it usually gets me on the line with a real person, who’s time I’m happy to waste. I figure this is the most expensive outcome for the caller

I've had decent luck with saying straight out at the start of the call "I know this is a scan. I am on the federal Do Not Call list and will be reporting you. I'm hanging up now" and then hanging up. My intention is to get my number marked as having a low probability of converting; if you lead them along they might think a few more calls will give them a decent chance at profiting. I also feel sympathy for people whose best option is telephone scams.

Note: I'm lying about Do Not Call. It's just another way for people to learn your number has a real person behind it. But the synchronization between the Federal list and internal systems of callers is a shitshow so actually reputable mass dialers will just assume they missed you and add you to their internal list. (Edit: So of course I don't report people. Even if I was really on the list, that takes time and has essentially no return)

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#69

Post by hellisothers »

awinter-py wrote: post #26

having a phone number will go the way of the landline same with email addresses -- this is some combination of your identity and a license to spam you spam protection is the main feature of gmail because email wasn't designed with fraud in mind -- an email system rebuilt from the ground up for 2019 would be safe for medical information, receipts, not be the giant password reset security hole that email currently is,…

I suppose “social networks” are the replacement, you’re exchanging getting spammed by random actors you don’t know to a single actor (the social network).

Re: Washington’s new anti-robocall law won’t stop the calls

#70

Post by owenmarshall »

wildrhythms wrote: post #61
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve found that when I get a robot call, if I type randomly on the numpad it usually gets me on the line with a real person, who’s time I’m happy to waste. I figure this is the most expensive outcome for the caller

Doesn't this signal to the malicious caller that your number is an active line with a human willing to pick up the call? I imagine that information is valuable to malicious callers who probably sell lists of active phone numbers of curious humans willing to pick up.

I heard that advice 10-20 years ago, and I think it made sense then: junk calls were accomplished with autodialers feeding into phone banks with real humans to finish the scam.

With modern VOIP I’d be surprised if anyone compiles lists of possible marks: your outbound traffic can be way more than before, so why not let the computer call everyone and see who bites every time?

Post reply on HN