Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#91

Post by NeedMoreTea » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:05 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #52

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

For the first decade or so of caller ID it pretty much told the truth. Businesses sent their number or withheld it entirely. Most countries have legislation requiring businesses to have some level of visibility - publishing address or registration info etc.

Since the growth of robodiallers and sales scams faked CLID has become almost the default. It got so bad that I simply no longer answer calls that aren't in my contacts. They've ruined the phone system.

As for anonymity, I'm imagine most who would approve of it for individuals would not think it sensible for a business. Why would I trust or give money to a business that wants to be anonymous and lie about themselves?

So yeah, I'd like unfakeable CLID and to get back to a working phone system.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#92

Post by pteredactyl » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #82

pteredactyl wrote: post #80

I'm for this, but how is it enforceable? Companies have teams dedicated to this and are still thwarted. I don't see California Government as leader in technology. But maybe I'm wrong. I do see them as a leader in overbudget, late, and often failing projects. So while this sounds good, I don't see it being good.

My theory is it finally gives teeth to enforcement? Now botting could have actual real world penalties other than just getting banned from Twitter. Not that it matters to international bots but if the USA follows...

Exactly. It gives the government the ability to decide ( and act on ) what they think is and isn't a bot. Again. It sounds good. But do we trust our government to make these decisions? Do they have a track record of actually working for their 'people'? In my lifetime, sadly, no.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#93

Post by maxxxxx » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

provolone wrote: post #20

If people are so easily swayed then perhaps they are just idiots? There are some cold & hard facts advocates of democracy need to look at. These problems can't be legislatively swept under the rug.

Make a concrete proposal for solving this. People have always been vulnerable to propaganda but not it can be done a on scale and with a precision like never before.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#94

Post by dpwm » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

pteredactyl wrote: post #80

I'm for this, but how is it enforceable? Companies have teams dedicated to this and are still thwarted. I don't see California Government as leader in technology. But maybe I'm wrong. I do see them as a leader in overbudget, late, and often failing projects. So while this sounds good, I don't see it being good.

Attempts so far to ban bot accounts have resulted in a purge of real people who are critical of western governments.

When Facebook decided to ban the accounts as identified by Ben Nimmo's team at the Atlantic Council, it also purged people critical of western governments' foreign policies. When this is government mandated I think you see the threat to "free speech."

I'm sure this is a bonus to those pushing the react-to-bots-at-all-costs agenda, but they also seem to be the first to complain about the silencing of dissident voices they happen to agree with.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#95

Post by paulie_a » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

Ban all bots for telemarketing. And excessively fine them for violation. Abusively fine the developer that created it.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#96

Post by kleinsch » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:17 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #42

BonesJustice wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already illegal to place robocalls to cell phones (under TCPA). It’s also illegal to robodial any number on the Do Not Call list, but unlike the TCPA, there is a carve out for political campaigning. Thanks, Congress! Of course, neither does much good when the laws are nearly impossible to enforce. Thanks to caller ID spoofing, it’s usually impossible to tell who actually called you, so good luck collecting damag…

If you really wanted to find out you could just ask the phone company, they know the real number/identity of the person calling you, or at the very least a layer deeper than caller ID. It's not like caller ID spoofing makes you anonymous.

Most robocalls come from VOIP addresses outside the US, which can be created/rotated just like spam email addresses.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#97

Post by provolone » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:18 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #52

HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

My impression has been that HN's audience generally wants government mandated solutions.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#98

Post by paulie_a » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

trumped wrote: post #56

darawk wrote: post #2

I'm all for this...but can we just ban telemarketing entirely? Why is that even allowed? I've always thought that the law should be written such that telemarketing is legal, but if you engage in it, it is no longer illegal to murder you. You can do it, but you lose your murder protection.

While you're at it, ban Spam endorsed by the federal government (USPS)... junk mailers even get rebates to fill up your mailbox.

I've wanted to go full Kramer and "unsubscribe" from the USPS. I let my box fill up for weeks and then everything goes into the trash.

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#99

Post by pteredactyl » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

dpwm wrote: post #94

pteredactyl wrote: post #80

I'm for this, but how is it enforceable? Companies have teams dedicated to this and are still thwarted. I don't see California Government as leader in technology. But maybe I'm wrong. I do see them as a leader in overbudget, late, and often failing projects. So while this sounds good, I don't see it being good.

Attempts so far to ban bot accounts have resulted in a purge of real people who are critical of western governments. When Facebook decided to ban the accounts as identified by Ben Nimmo's team at the Atlantic Council, it also purged people critical of western governments' foreign policies. When this is government mandated I think you see the threat to "free speech." I'm sure this is a bonus to those pushing the react…

Exactly. But it sounds good, so it must be, right?

Re: Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election

#100

Post by TallGuyShort » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #2

I'm all for this...but can we just ban telemarketing entirely? Why is that even allowed? I've always thought that the law should be written such that telemarketing is legal, but if you engage in it, it is no longer illegal to murder you. You can do it, but you lose your murder protection.

I know you're joking, but I (jokingly) considered a law that if you're using your cell phone and are involved in an accident, that accident is your fault and you must pay in excess of actual damages. The problem is of course all the gray areas where there was some emergency, or the unintended side effects of people getting hurt who weren't just being douchebags in traffic.