[HN Gopher] US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force
___________________________________________________________________
US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force
Author : Vaslo
Score : 192 points
Date : 2022-08-03 14:53 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thecentersquare.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thecentersquare.com)
| baby wrote:
| I'm actually wondering if I should shut down text messages and
| phone calls coming from unknown numbers. What would I lose?
| Basically restaurants calling me for a reservation or something
| but what else? Everybody I know uses WhatsApp now.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| silence unknown callers in iOS is a life saver
|
| i get 2-20 spam call a day
| rrauenza wrote:
| A couple of weekends ago we got like 20 calls within 2 hours from
| the same scammer call center. I begged them to stop calling,
| telling the "agent" it was a waste of their time as they would
| not be able to scam me and it would be in their best interest to
| flag my number. I may have finally convinced one of them after
| talking to him more than once.
|
| BUT... at the same time my wife called AT&T and kind of read them
| the riot act. We figured if everyone started complaining maybe
| they'd get their collective act together and start solving this.
| Overhearing the call, it sounded like the agent recommended
| moving to VOIP to gain access to tools to help cut this down.
|
| If they can largely solve this on cell (we get maybe a 1/10th of
| the calls on cell) and voip, why can't they solve this for
| landlines? I suspect the industry has a vested interest to get us
| off of landlines/POTS.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| I just answer the call, put the phone down, still live, and let
| them talk away whilst listening to my background noise.
|
| No call center supervisor is going to allow an employee to keep
| asking 'Hello....hello....can you hear me....?" for very long.
|
| As for robocalls...they just play all the way through. I don't
| care, as I'm not listening.
|
| I get very few spam calls compared to my friends and
| colleagues.
| 1-more wrote:
| the free cruise scam has an INSANELY long script requiring
| very little interaction from me, the scammee. They read for
| over a minute uninterrupted. Then I give them a fake CC
| number from a generator. Then they get mad. Then I tell them
| to join the Naxalites. But even if I didn't interact with
| them they'd have a very long time on the line due to telling
| me all about the cruise.
|
| Haven't gotten one in a year or so. Would love to know why.
| Does the well dry up a bit for them on that one particular
| thing?
| dwheeler wrote:
| The thieves have stolen our phones from us.
|
| I remember a time when I could answer my phone. Today phone calls
| are almost unknown, not because it's "out of fashion" but because
| thieves have stolen the ability to _practically_ use phones. I
| would like my phone back, please.
| jhot wrote:
| This spring I was applying for jobs so I answered my phone for
| more unknown numbers than usual. This has lead to a huge increase
| in spam calls that I receive on a daily basis and Google Phone's
| spam filter isn't strict enough for my liking (not to mention no
| longer available since I'm running GrapheneOS).
|
| If you're an Android and Tasker user you can take matters into
| your own hands and set Tasker as your call screen app. There are
| two different blocking types, one shows that you missed a call as
| a notification and one does not. I have set it so that all non-
| contact calls are rejected but I see a missed call notification.
| I also have a contact with a growing list of numbers that is
| rejected and I do not see a notification. Additionally there is a
| regex filter that rejects several area codes without a
| notification.
|
| When I start seeing more spam calls from a random area code in
| Michigan (or wherever), I just add that area code to my regex
| filter and then just have to worry about clearing my voicemail at
| the end of the day.
|
| If I'm expecting a call from a doctor or someone who is not a
| contact in my phone, I just turn off the profile and deal with
| some spam for a day.
|
| Of course, I would love some strict regulations around this, but
| I do no expect the legislation to go far enough or be effective
| (I'm in the US).
| kmacdough wrote:
| I totally expect this will be fairly effective, because there
| aren't any major forces pushing against.
|
| - It's a simple technical problem to identify potential
| spammers. There are clear patterns & habits of robocallers to
| id them.
|
| - It's fairly simple to confirm spam/scams by pretending to be
| a target.
|
| - Scam spam calls, though profitable, are relatively isolated
| and any public support will make them easier to trace. So we
| aren't facing huge lobby pressure to oppose the nearly
| universal support for spam reduction.
|
| So it's really just a matter of allocating the resources to do
| something, which is exactly what this is.
| godelski wrote:
| I think you're overestimating the ease of detecting spam. A
| lot of major companies have this issue. You may argue that
| it's a lack of will, but they have things in place and if it
| was easy they'd be effective.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Are we at a place where as potential new hire candidates, we
| request a formal meeting to be scheduled or a quick text to let
| us know that the next call is legit? Or is it acceptable to
| tell hiring managers via checkbox on applications to say that
| all calls will be screened via voice mail, but will be checked
| with anticipation of it being a call to be returned promptly?
| ghaff wrote:
| Being high maintenance sounds like a poor job search tactic.
| dylan604 wrote:
| yes, but...
|
| it's not an unusual situation unique to that applicant.
| it's so rampant, that even the HR/hiring people will be
| subject to it and totally understand the request. if you
| want to stand out to me as a potential employer, being
| proactive and stating we don't have answer unknown calls as
| alternate arrangements via _____ method to set up a call.
| godelski wrote:
| I've tried screening with Google's screening service and
| recruiters don't use it. So I'm not sure a checkbox will do
| any better than "Hi the person you are calling is using a
| Google screening service. Please state why you are calling."
| They always go to voice mail and then complain about me not
| picking up.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I dunno how successful this is, but when I get spam called, I
| do what I can to reach a person and then say, "Put me on the do
| not call list, please!" and (possibly) as a result, I really
| don't get as many of these spam calls as it sounds like folks
| here are getting.
| 0xC0ncord wrote:
| I found that when I started doing this I would just get even
| more calls, just not the same ones.
|
| I presume this is because these spammers just keep selling
| other spammers valid phone numbers to add to their own lists.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| My point is I am _not_ getting "even more" calls, at all.
| kxrm wrote:
| Agreed, what I have done is just not answer my phone unless
| they are in my contact list. I also do not share my
| cellphone number with anyone. Seems like everyone wants it
| these days and the pandemic made it worse, so I have a
| Google Voice number for people who insist on having a
| number.
|
| The only phone number that gets spam calls anymore is that
| Google Voice number.
|
| For all other numbers, the calls have virtually stopped.
| 1-more wrote:
| This doesn't work with the car warranty spam. Heck, now that
| I actually own a car I get letters about it too that happen
| to know what car we have.
| kshacker wrote:
| It does not work. I tried to take the approach of wasting
| their time by asking for their name and what not, but they
| are also getting trained to cut such calls off quite fast.
| godelski wrote:
| This WILL NOT work. The best thing you can do is sign up for
| the FCC DNC list. It'll take a month but then after that
| every legal spam call will stop.
|
| The problem with your method is that spammers call phones
| just to see if they pick up. This then confirms an active
| number that they maintain in their lists. This can be done
| legally because technically calling and hanging up and never
| calling again (from the same number) isn't spam. So just
| don't answer.
| NotTameAntelope wrote:
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _It 'll take a month but then after that every legal spam
| call will stop._
|
| Not the ones from politicians.
| godelski wrote:
| That's true. They have an exception for some reason.
| mrandish wrote:
| > "The task force has already made demands to 20 of the gateway
| providers and entities that are allegedly responsible for the
| majority of the foreign robocalls. The task force believes that
| some of the providers are intentionally turning a blind eye to
| the offenders."
|
| Since it's all 50 U.S. State's Attorney Generals, this _might_
| actually help a little because AGs can file suits & subpoenas
| against US-based companies which are landing the offshore VOIP
| calls. This won't stop phone spammers entirely but it might raise
| their costs somewhat by pressuring their supply chain.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| My setup seems to work well for me.
|
| I have my mobile phone, which I never published. Only my family
| has it.
|
| I have a VoIP number tied to my mobile phone, and desktop
| computer. This allows me to take calls with my headset on, not
| just on my mobile.
|
| All calls from numbers not in my contacts list go to the VoIP
| voice mail, which gets auto-transcribed. (If it is English, it
| works well, but any other languages it fails.)
|
| If someone really wants to talk to me, they will leave a name,
| reason for the call, and the number I can call them back.
|
| I also use Tasker[0] on my Android mobile. The carrier charges a
| monthly fee to have the feature to identify spammers and auto-
| reject them. Type Incoming Number
| !C:ANY
|
| This rejects all calls that are not in the contacts list.
|
| [0] https://tasker.joaoapps.com/
| orev wrote:
| Phone companies are trying to turn this problem into a revenue
| generation "opportunity". Not only do they get paid for the calls
| that traverse their network, but now they also want you to sign
| up for their "premium" blocking services, at a monthly cost, to
| stop them. This screams for not only a crackdown on the bad
| carriers who initiate the calls, but also on the big telcos who
| are double-dipping.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| What companies sell this additional premium service?
| muixoozie wrote:
| I didn't look too much, but I found T-Mobile does.
| https://www.t-mobile.com/customers/scam-shield
| orev wrote:
| AT&T allows you to sign up for enhanced protection for
| $3.99/mo.
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| That's a protection racket
| nus07 wrote:
| 90% of those scam calls originate from one city in India-
| Kolkata. It's a state that has had communist rule for over 30
| years and now a government which also runs on anti-corporate
| agenda. As a result there are no industries and all jobs have
| dried up in that state of West Bengal. This is the only industry
| left and the local government and police turn a blind eye since
| they get kickbacks and is the only source of income in the state.
| woevdbz wrote:
| There is never a shortage of desperate people living under
| corrupt regimes. That's the wrong problem to focus on
| flerchin wrote:
| Nothing is true here. The government of West Bengal is BJP.
| There's tons of industries and jobs there. This is easily
| Googled.
| Victerius wrote:
| Fascinating.
| snarf21 wrote:
| This is the sadder but true point that we have too many people
| and many are stuck doing nonsense and scam work to try to feed
| their family.
| tbihl wrote:
| I find your misanthropy surprising since the parent provided
| a clear explanation of the problem.
|
| Nonetheless, it is a shame that they engage in such behavior
| and that they live under abusive government structures that
| funnel them into such things.
| snarf21 wrote:
| I understand the parent point that this is driven by
| corruption. The point I was trying to convey is that
| corruption isn't a sufficient reason for there to be
| _literally_ zero other work that could feed a family. I don
| 't blame the people, they are just trying to get by. But I
| think the majority of people worldwide find that a major
| portion of their work life is spent on nonsense work. I
| think this will only get worse as software and automation
| continues to eat the world. Of course, this is just my
| personal opinion.
| rmatt2000 wrote:
| It's interesting that failed communist regimes often seem to be
| succeeded by kleptocracies. I wonder if any political
| scientists have studied this and can explain why.
| antisthenes wrote:
| You need an economist to explain it, not a political
| "scientist".
|
| Communism does not produce globally competitive industries.
| So the only thing left to do is either to steal and pillage
| what is left or work in an industry that has local demand
| like food or energy. Those tend not to be very attractive
| jobs.
| nicbou wrote:
| tbihl wrote:
| I'll cite Conquest's 3rd law: The behavior of any
| bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming
| that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.
|
| That's not exactly explanatory, though. Any time a position
| is powerful or enriching well beyond the extent to which it
| serves others, the people optimizing to seek out and attain
| those positions are those who want the power and wealth,
| rather than those who care about the organization's mission.
| For those people, the original mission is, at best, a
| distraction, and at worst actively antithetical to their
| personal goals.
| boredumb wrote:
| Communism and socialism concentrate power to a single
| government/state entity and when it fails there is no
| industrial competition so the most well connected/wealthy
| people that are able to take control of the industry are able
| to pretty much run unabated without any natural market forces
| you'd find in a system/industry that began in a more free
| enviroment.
| [deleted]
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| The communist party was ousted from control of government in
| West Bengal in 2011[1]. Manufacturing growth is actually down
| since then[2]. And relevant to the current topic, Indian scam
| calls have only been an issue in the past decade. A decade of
| non-communist rule seems to either not improved things much or
| made things worse. The issue is more complicated than
| "communism bad".
|
| [1]https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2011/5/13/defeat-rocks-
| in...
|
| [2]https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/macroeconomics/west-
| beng...
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Stop allowing phone numbers to be spoofed. Tell Big Corp (tm) to
| get stuffed if they have a problem with it.
| [deleted]
| rr888 wrote:
| My phone number is a robocall magnet like everyone else's, its
| the main reason I gave up a land line too. I only need it because
| so many sites require sending text messages for authentication
| (esp password resets). Fix authentication I am freed from phones.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| It's absolutely insane that they are so ineffective. Major phone
| networks should be held responsible. I've been getting texts like
| crazy from spammer tries to get me to click their links. The
| messages are 100% identical and would be trivial to block.
| rafale wrote:
| The fact they are identical making it trivial today only.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| From other areas where spam is prevalent, I think it's an arms
| race issue.
|
| Sure, right now, that spam that's identical every time would be
| easy to detect and block. But if it's blocked, they start
| adding variation. Block that too and they get more and more
| creative. Every time a way to block the spam is found, the
| spammers just get more creative with getting around it. It's an
| arms race, and is essentially un-beatable because the spammers
| outnumber those trying to stop them by a magnitude or two.
| Drakim wrote:
| I just have a hard time believing that's really what's gonna
| happen. I'm a 34 year old man living in a western country and
| I have not gotten one robot spam call nor spam text message
| in my life. I've gotten 5 fake Microsoft support calls, but
| always from a real human pretending to work for Microsoft.
| ruined wrote:
| you're right. we should just give up, and allow ourselves to
| be overwhelmed now, instead of wasting all that time
| pointlessly resisting the inevitable. none of this will ever
| get better
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| That's not what I meant. I meant there's no silver bullet
| that stops all spam forever. There's no easy solutions to
| the problem. It's an uphill battle and the best you can
| hope for is to block the majority of it with a lot of
| continuous effort.
| pradn wrote:
| Yes, but we've gotten quite good at blocking email spam. So
| much so that it's basically a solved problem for regular
| users using GMail or Outlook. There's no reason we can't
| achieve the same with text and phone call blocking. My iPhone
| is pretty accurate when it classifies incoming calls as "Spam
| Likely".
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What if they accidentally block an important text and get sued?
| It's not easy to do at scale.
| dymk wrote:
| Enforcing the use of STIR/SHAKEN across networks and
| providing an easy way (aka in the messaging and dialer app)
| to report spam messages and calls would likely fix 99% of the
| problem.
|
| I'm sure Google and Apple are nipping at the bit to add
| "Report as spam" in their apps, carriers just need to provide
| a way to ingest that information and have it be actionable by
| disallowing spoofing.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Being held responsible means the government hands them a huge
| check and nothing changes.
| nikanj wrote:
| 1) Let my filter out all calls not originating on an US/Canadian
| landline/mobile carrier
|
| 2) Yes, I'm happy to lose all calls that come via VoIP.
|
| 3) I don't answer my phone anymore, so I miss those calls anyway
|
| 4) I'm very happy to sacrifice 1% of signal for 100% of noise
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _1) Let my filter out all calls not originating on an US
| /Canadian landline/mobile carrier_
|
| This, plus state/province level filtering as well would
| completely solve the issue for me.
| powerhour wrote:
| Relay the full trace of all IPs and switches involved in
| sending a call my way and give me a way to filter based on that
| trace. I want to block an entire source if they don't do a good
| job of screening their clients.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Similarly, if my phone would just allow me to do some simple
| filtering based on number or location, it would filter out 99%
| of all spam calls. I have a Florida number but have lived
| outside of Florida for about 2 decades. No one who I have any
| relationship with has a Florida number except for my family who
| are all in my contacts. Simply filter out my own area code but
| not in my contacts would eliminate the vast majority of spam
| calls. Yet, there is no built-in capability to do this on my
| iPhone as far as I can tell.
| boredumb wrote:
| ^ The fact I haven't lived in my numbers area code for a few
| decades as well I've noticed the exact same thing. If I don't
| have a contact for a number from that areacode it is
| 99.99999% chance of being a scam.
| thfuran wrote:
| >Yes, I'm happy to lose all calls that come via VoIP
|
| At that point, why not just block everything other than
| contacts?
| dymk wrote:
| Because lots of legitimate callers to me are located in the
| US, calling from a cell phone or landline, and I don't have
| them in my contacts.
|
| For instance, contractors coming to do work on the house may
| be calling from any number of cell phones, or people buying
| things from Craigslist. For Craigslist, if I were to filter
| out all the non-US originating calls and texts, would
| probably result in all the spam being dropped and at no
| expense to legitimate buyers.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| Seems like maybe a good business would be listing peoples
| known numbers and making a caller ID app that it outside
| the carriers' control that relies on ... I dunno a web of
| trust and crowdsourced data and reputation?
| dymk wrote:
| The problem still is with number spoofing, and
| STIR/SHAKEN seems to not be sufficiently rolled out and
| enforced
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN
|
| Many of the spam calls I receive come from my own area
| code, with the number spoofed.
| NavinF wrote:
| Those are all VoIP callers. Few businesses have enough
| copper phone wires for everyone in the building.
| dymk wrote:
| They're not VoIP callers. I'm primarily dealing with
| small to medium sized businesses, which use landlines, or
| cell plans like Verizon for Small Business, which are
| basically normal lines on normal cellphones.
| thfuran wrote:
| A ton of small and medium businesses use voip. Even
| residential landline phone service can be voip these
| days.
| [deleted]
| anjel wrote:
| With no evidence to back me up other than the daily volume of
| scam calls, I feel nevertheless confident concluding my cable
| company sells my "land line tel number" that "saves me money" on
| my cable bill to list brokers who service off-shore boiler room
| ops. One more reason to love the cable monopolists and their K
| Street influence peddlers.
| dpeck wrote:
| Only a task force? Not even a blue ribbon committee for the mess
| that public use comms has become?
| brk wrote:
| It is unfortunate that the cellular companies have allowed their
| core product (voice calls) to be so devalued that they need to be
| forced to solve this problem instead of just doing it naturally.
|
| The carriers are clearly customer-hostile, as this is really a
| very solvable problem. Instead, we now are moving to alternate
| mechanisms to manage audio calls (eg: Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook,
| etc.). My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least
| preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot
| trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls.
| alberth wrote:
| > The carriers are clearly customer-hostile
|
| It's actually not the carriers. The carriers actual try to
| actively block spam.
|
| It's actual the Twilio's of the world that originate the bulk
| of the spam.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| The carriers could absolutely implement authenticated caller
| id as a very first start. Then, you can at least trust the
| caller ID and screen/block effectively.
| alberth wrote:
| Do you mean like Shaken/Stir?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN
| bashinator wrote:
| It's not at all surprising to me that corporations are happy to
| redirect people from utilities to products as core means of
| communicating.
| dylan604 wrote:
| to the point, I used to refer to the device as a mobile phone
| or cell phone. now, because I so rarely use the "phone" app, it
| is just now my "device". 99% of the time my phone app gives me
| notifications is SPAM LIKELY reaching out to me, but won't take
| the hint that we broke up years ago and I have zero interest in
| touching base and catching up. however, if anyone of my known
| contacts actually uses the phone app to reach me, i know it
| must be significant to not use a text/chat app like 99.9% of
| our typical interactions take place.
|
| times have changed for phone calls, but the lack of Anti-Spam
| from these providers only hastened the change away from their
| core service
| ryandrake wrote:
| Imagine if nobody knew what a phone was, and then the device
| manufacturers suddenly introduced the phone app: it would
| outrage and annoy people!
|
| Here is an app that allows any rando person in the world to
| cause your device to wake up, interrupt whatever you are
| doing, display a notification, play a sound, vibrate, and if
| you push the green button, that rando person (identifiable by
| a spoofable string of numbers) can hear and talk to you! It
| would not be well received in 2022 where privacy and digital
| well-being is increasingly important to people. Yet for
| historical reasons, it's pre-installed on every phone.
| dylan604 wrote:
| How is that any different than a notification from any
| messaging, social media, or any app really with
| notifications turned on? They all know that the human brain
| is very susceptible to these notifications.
|
| At least with the old school phone, you could leave the
| receiver off hook to send the callers a busy signal or just
| unplugged.
| munk-a wrote:
| It's also unfortunate that robocalling isn't bannable across
| the board because politicians want to continue to have the
| ability to spam call constituents. It's really unfortunate that
| all sorts of automatic calls need to continue being permitted
| just so we can have the delightful luxury of getting spam
| fundraising calls from politicians.
|
| This has real world consequences, last year a lost hiker ended
| up declining calls from search and rescue[1] since they assumed
| they were spam.
|
| There is a really easy and extremely effective solution to this
| problem - charge calls on both ends. Make the caller pay a few
| cents for every call placed instead of placing the full charge
| on the receiver.
|
| 1. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049252333/lost-hiker-
| mount-e...
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| Aren't the robocallers paying for VoIP services now?
| bluGill wrote:
| Since most robo calls are also illegal scams even if the call
| was legal all we really need is verified numbers so that we
| can use phone records to catch the person making the call.
|
| Politicians want you to know who is calling - name
| recognition is important. "I got a call from X is a big
| deal".
| brk wrote:
| Yes, there are lots of solutions if there is a genuine
| attempt to solve the problem and not just dance around it.
|
| Political calls and texts should absolutely be blockable by
| users if they so choose.
|
| Cost-based calling may not be practical, IMO. I look at the
| amount of junk mail I get from the USPS and I am not sure a
| "sender pays" approach would result in a meaningful reduction
| with a cost structure that didn't also impact regular users.
| A rate-limiting approach on call origination could work, but
| in the end I still think that a simple that gives the users
| control to block unwanted calls/texts, coupled with an
| origination source validation would solve most of the
| problem. There is nothing preventing us from capturing and
| passing accurate call origination data.
| godelski wrote:
| Just an FYI, FTC has a signup for junk mail just like they
| do for phone calls. I just do the prescreen one and the
| only junk I get now is for previous tenants. Unfortunately
| I don't know how to solve that one.
|
| https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-stop-junk-mail
| thewebcount wrote:
| Ugh. That's an awful solution. In order to not be spammed
| and have your privacy invaded, you have to submit
| information about yourself to the bad actors in the first
| place. Plus you have to pay them for the privilege of not
| harassing you, and on top of it, they only stop for 10
| years and then you have to do it all over again. It's
| fucking ridiculous. This is not a real solution.
| godelski wrote:
| It is awful, but they already are buying that information
| tbh. So I'm not sure there's an information gain through
| this. I don't do the paid service (which is $2... come
| on...) and my spam (phone and mail) is significantly
| reduced. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a real
| solution.
| njarboe wrote:
| I've thought this would be a good solution for years. I would
| like if you could choose the amount to charge people to call
| you that aren't on your white list. You get 90% of that and
| the phone company gets 10%. A win-win-win for you the, the
| phone company, and people trying to talk to you. I would
| probably set to a dollar or two. Warren Buffet or Elon Musk
| could set it to $10 million put you would probably need and
| escrow account for that amount of money.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I feel like the legacy POTS system does more harm to society
| than good. Step back and imagine the web without SSL. Think of
| the sheer scale of fraud and abuse that would run rampant.
| That's the service phone carriers are operating _right now_.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred
| method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust
| that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls.
|
| I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network
| operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all, and hence
| their inability to effectively fight spam.
|
| Otherwise, what would stop the situation from becoming like
| email, where email is more likely to be delivered if sent from
| a big player and less likely from a small player.
| brk wrote:
| There is nothing preventing them from providing users with
| more granular call-rejection controls. Their networks need to
| be "accessible" on the incoming call side, but that does not
| mean as a customer I should be forced to have every call
| intended for my number to be routed through to my phone.
|
| An iptables concept with a user friendly UI would address
| much of this problem, particularly if we could filter on
| useful call origination data, or lack thereof.
| nightski wrote:
| The major carriers have this but charge for it. Like $5/mo.
| It's pretty sad.
| phkahler wrote:
| > I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network
| operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all...
|
| If only they were required to use caller ID to reliably tell
| us who is calling...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing
| 300bps wrote:
| _I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network
| operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all_
|
| Is it a legal requirement to allow spoofed caller ID from bad
| actors?
|
| Spoofed IP addresses used to be a much bigger problem on the
| Internet than they are today (many examples but see Smurf
| Attack).
|
| We collectively implemented security to reduce the threat.
| Phone companies could do the same for spoofed caller ID for
| companies that consistently abuse it.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Spoofed IP addresses used to be a much bigger problem on
| the Internet than they are today (many examples but see
| Smurf Attack).
|
| Most of the large DDoS attacks are UDP reflection, the
| attacker spoofs the victims address and sends to chargen[1]
| servers or whatever. So spoofing is still alive and well.
|
| [1] yes really, the worst ones are people who install
| Microsoft's Services for Unix and enable the chargen server
| to the public... It sends a 64k fragmented response. Thanks
| Microsoft.
| 300bps wrote:
| How long have you been on the Internet? I ask because I
| started an ISP in 1996 and IP address spoofing used to be
| soooo much worse.
|
| Today's situation is the product of literally 2.5 decades
| of encouraging and/or shaming Internet-connected networks
| into properly configuring their routers to drop spoofed
| packets egressing from their network with a spoofed IP
| address not from their network.
| cr1895 wrote:
| What does "accessible to all" mean in this context?
|
| Why do I in Europe get almost zero spam calls or text while
| in the US it seems like a plague?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| When you target Americans, you can use a single language to
| hit 239 million people with their native/first language.
| You can't do that in Europe.
| cptskippy wrote:
| In the US, one of the loopholes in rules requiring
| STIR/SHAKEN and other protections was that smaller
| carriers, usually serving rural or under served markets,
| were exempt. This became a profit center for them as they
| became one of the only means for these spam calls, which
| originated in overseas call centers, to connect to US
| callers.
|
| Thus the smaller carriers were incentivized by profit to
| connect the calls.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Because you have a functioning government.
| enlyth wrote:
| UK here, we get tons of scam robocalls to the point where I
| leave my phone on airplane mode with Wi-Fi enabled like 95%
| of the time.
| pdpi wrote:
| You mean you haven't been in an accident that wasn't your
| fault?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Accessible to all meaning the rules for being part of the
| public switched telephone network:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_switched_telephone_net
| w...
|
| Again, I am not sure and very well may be wrong, but I
| think I recall reading or maybe just assuming that the FCC
| or maybe a global agreement bars individual network
| operators from not accepting calls from others within the
| network.
|
| I imagine this gets very hairy due to international
| jurisdictions and things like caller ID spoofing.
|
| See section on Legal Considerations:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing
|
| An interesting conversation that came up in my research
| about this topic for why a telco might be barred from
| blocking against certain numbers:
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2007/03/16/can-a-telco-block-
| phone-...
|
| I have no idea why European numbers might not get spam
| calls with the same frequency as American. Maybe the
| spammers are looking for English speaking people, or
| Americans are richer or easier to scam?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Depends on the country. I think it comes down to
| availability of cheap labour for call-based vectors.
|
| French numbers can get tons of spam calls, because
| there's no shortage of impoverished French speakers in
| the world.
| toast0 wrote:
| US has a larger market with a single language, and our
| regulators demanded calls to mobile phones to be on an
| equal footing for callers. You never needed to pay more to
| call a cell phone than a land line from the same rate
| center; the cell phone user has to pay any additional cost
| to carry the call over the air. Additionally, inter-carrier
| rates are regulated and set to approximate costs, which is
| now pretty much zero. This makes bulk calling and texting
| inexepensive (less than a penny per message or minute). In
| (most of?) Europe, callers have to pay for the privilege or
| calling a cell phone, and the numbers are in different
| ranges, and it's not cheap, 10 cents or more per minute or
| message at bulk rates; even though the underlying cost is
| probably similar to the US, near zero.
| kmacdough wrote:
| EU may be stricter about enforcing, but I've also
| experienced it's very person-dependent.
|
| People who need to answer unknown callers for business
| reasons (small business owners, sales, etc.) get put on
| lists of "known active numbers" and may get multiple spam
| calls a day. Folks like me who can just ignore any unknown
| number & respond only if they leave a real voicemail, get
| FAR fewer (maybe 1 a month on avg). We tend to complain
| less about the issue (even if it is annoying & I still
| treat all unknown calls as spam by default).
|
| Also, if you own a google device, they're very good at
| IDing spam callers. I recently switched from Google to
| Samsung and get far more.
| katbyte wrote:
| In Canada and while I do get some it's fairly rare. Maybe 1
| a month.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| I get 4-5 a week on Bell, my SO gets 1-2 a day on Rogers.
| katbyte wrote:
| Have you signed up for the national do not call list?
| happyopossum wrote:
| Anecdotes do not constitute data. My family in Canada
| gets tons of robocalls and spam calls, to the point that
| nobody answers unrecognized numbers unless they're
| expecting a call...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Things seem to be improving: I'm getting fewer and fewer
| "neighbourhood" calls.
|
| I suspect the vector is moving away from VoIP systems and
| more toward buying masses of prepaid plans and stuffing
| them into various contraptions that hold hundreds of sims
| to blast out messages/calls.
|
| https://m.aliexpress.com/item/1005004095035108.html
| katbyte wrote:
| Have they signed up for the national do not call list or
| renewed it? as it expires iirc. My friends in the same
| boat often never signed up like I did.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| Over the last few years the FCC rules on carriers were
| relaxed so that they can discriminate against calls
| originating from domestic networks. Previously they could not
| block calls even if it was obvious it was a scam call.
| However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are
| legitimate and which aren't.
|
| The bigger issue though is not about domestic origin calls,
| it's about foreign originated calls that the FCC has no power
| over. The domestic carriers had to forward these calls. There
| is traction gaining to require that calls that originate
| overseas verify their identity to US based networks. Domestic
| carriers can reject calls that don't verify (spoofed numbers
| that originate offshore).
|
| That still may not stop all the spam calls but it will slow
| it down. The problem here is really that telephony became
| extremely cheap and accessible to the whole world.
| kabdib wrote:
| I never, ever get legitimate calls from overseas. Just turn
| those calls off for my phone.
|
| Well, perhaps callbacks from helpdesks located in other
| countries, in which case give me time-boxed control over
| foreign calls, and perhaps a passcode that I can
| communicate along with my callback number.
|
| There are billions of dollars at stake, of course. This is
| a solvable problem, and the FCC doesn't even need to get
| involved. The carriers care more about the money than their
| customers (so what else is new?)
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| Can't all of this be done locally on the phone? Why does
| the phone app not have an option to simply ignore all
| garbage calls
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I want the ability to block all overseas calls, and I
| want that ability in a way that is easy enough to opt
| into that most people choose to. This would resolve the
| overseas helpdesk problem by forcing domestic companies
| to use domestic call centers to succeed in reaching
| people.
|
| I have never received a legitimate phonecall from
| overseas, and I don't expect I ever will. In every case
| that I've had a legitimate reason to talk to somebody
| overseas, we used voip-to-voip, never telephones.
| bluGill wrote:
| The problem is someone from overseas can claim to be from
| a US number. The number you see on your phone can be
| anything the caller wants it to be. A fair number of
| robocalls are from overseas but looks to you like they
| come from your country.
| kabdib wrote:
| That's precisely what the carriers need to solve.
|
| They're not interested.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are
| legitimate and which aren't.
|
| I can make this real simple. I don't want any robocalls.
| karagenit wrote:
| I feel you. Still, there are legitimate uses for
| robocalls. My doctor's office uses robocalls for lab test
| results, so that patients can get their lab results as
| soon as the lab tech puts it in the computer instead of
| having to wait for a person to make the call. Sure, you
| can email/text these results for most people, but there
| are still some older folks who don't know how to
| email/text.
| munk-a wrote:
| That's cool - we can wait two extra days for a call from
| our doctor if it's warranted. I don't need instantaneous
| feedback on my bloodwork.
| kube-system wrote:
| Well, grandma _does_ need her bloodwork results. And she
| 's the one most likely to fall for a robocall scam
| anyway.
|
| And do you think illicit callers are going to follow the
| law? They're already committing wire fraud, and the
| software already exists.
| munk-a wrote:
| Yea - I think illicit callers are going to follow laws
| whenever possible. "Criminals always be crime-ing" is an
| argument that can be used to counter having any laws but
| it has a fatal flaw - criminals generally don't want
| unnecessary attention. The more agencies they piss off by
| violating regulations the more likely it is that their
| activities will be suspended.
|
| A lot of the crime you see on TV comes from highly
| irrational and unpredictable people, but scamming is
| usually a pretty rational decision if you live somewhere
| where repercussions are unlikely and the expected income
| is high.
| kube-system wrote:
| I'm not arguing that we should roll back any legislation
| against wire fraud or spam calls. I am saying that the
| evidence demonstrates that those laws were not effective
| in deterring the overseas criminals who continue to
| constitute the bulk of these calls. They are simply not
| in the jurisdiction in which we are passing these laws.
| If US wire fraud charges aren't enough attention, I'm not
| sure what marginal increase in attention one could
| possibly expect from an additional law.
| lamontcg wrote:
| I get an e-mail and they show up on a web UI and it is
| instantaneous more or less.
|
| And I don't know why I have to get robocalls because
| gramma can't operate the internet.
|
| And both my 80+ year old parents can navigate the
| internet well enough to get lab test results off of
| websites.
| kube-system wrote:
| We should still take into account the usability of public
| utilities for those who struggle with internet illiteracy
| or disabilities, regardless of how well your parents can
| cope. A full 25% of people 65+ don't use the internet in
| any capacity at all.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Again, why does this mean that I have to suffer from
| robocalls, other than cynical justification to defend
| robocalls in the abstract and continue to inflict them on
| everyone?
| kube-system wrote:
| I suppose if you have enough money, you might be able to
| convince AT&T or your local lawmaker to cater
| specifically to your desires.
|
| I just doubt that the result of your stated preference is
| a solution that would be workable enough for the general
| public. The rest of the world just wants the spam calls
| to go away but still get calls from their
| bank/pharmacy/doctor/school/etc. Asking them to choose
| between the two is not a solution for them, even if it is
| for you. No law maker is going to propose that. And your
| carrier already DGAF.
| lamontcg wrote:
| If this was an option available to every consumer I
| suspect uptake would be closer to 50% or more. It would
| look a lot more like Apple's privacy features than some
| bespoke setting that I'm the only person in the world who
| cares about it. And this is probably what you're actually
| afraid of for some reason.
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't doubt that, I'm sure 50% of people will check the
| option thinking it'll just block spam. The problem is
| that blocking robocalls entirely would block legitimate
| calls that they're not aware of until it'll cause pain
| and frustration down the line.
|
| Most people do want fraud notifications from their bank,
| notifications from their utilities about maintenance,
| notifications that their kid's school is closed today, a
| call back from customer service when they ask for one,
| etc. But nobody would think or even have the ability to
| know about this when checking your "block all robocalls"
| option, and now you have created a new problem.
|
| If you give people a footgun, they will use it, and they
| will blame whoever came up with the idea. This is why
| nobody will do what you are asking.
| djcannabiz wrote:
| I definitely appreciated getting called quickly the last
| time i got a covid test
| coldpie wrote:
| Then you can leave robocalls on.
| kube-system wrote:
| Imposing that option on people negates its usefulness.
| Which option would you recommend to your elderly
| relatives? Accept robocalls from international scammers
| or receive updates from their doctors office?
|
| You might as well ban robocalls for legitimate uses too,
| since legitimate users won't be able to rely on it
| anymore.
| lostapathy wrote:
| My doctor (well, their hospital system) uses Epic/MyChart
| as their EMR. I also have the MyChart app on my phone. I
| get a push notification via the MyChart app when anything
| new posts to my chart - no phone call, text, or email
| required. And I don't want the push notifications, I
| could opt out of that too.
|
| Surely most doctors offices use a vanishingly small
| amount of EMR providers, and they could support similar
| very easily.
| kube-system wrote:
| The people who use the hospital system the most are the
| ones who are the least likely to be able to use those
| functions effectively.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| Never underestimate how out of touch and incapable of
| understanding other people HN nerds are.
| r00fus wrote:
| Politicians exempted themselves from the do not call
| list: https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-
| yes-robocall...
| krisoft wrote:
| > It is unfortunate that the cellular companies have allowed
| their core product (voice calls) to be so devalued that they
| need to be forced to solve this problem instead of just doing
| it naturally.
|
| And they did this while loudly complaining that they don't want
| to become a mere dumb pipe! That is the true twist.
| fullshark wrote:
| How did they allow this? I think text is just an alternative
| that most people prefer for large number of use cases.
| hancholo wrote:
| It kind of goes both ways, politicians "allowing" themselves to
| be lobbied by big telecom.
| johnklos wrote:
| This is so easily fixable with the lessons we've learned with
| egress filtering on the Internet.
|
| Legally require large providers to never allow their customers to
| falsify caller ID. Then have the large providers disconnect small
| providers who pass along fraudulent caller ID until all small
| providers are either out of business or aren't facilitating
| spammers.
|
| It's literally that easy, but Congress has ducked this up time
| and time again, and the FCC has been neutered. We really need
| proper, technically sound legislation to fix this.
| browningstreet wrote:
| I have two contacts on my ATT iPhone to enable and disable cell
| network calling, based on this that I found somewhere:
|
| "You actually can turn off cellular network calling altogether,
| if you are willing to do that. Dial (star)#67# (or call 611 if it
| doesn't show up there) to see what number your voicemail center
| is. Then dial (star)21(star)1(that number)#. That will
| automatically forward all calls, at the network level, to your
| voicemail. To cancel this, dial #21#."
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Do we know if reporting a call as spam in Android gets reported
| to the FTC? Or do we need to file it as spam _and_ report it
| ourselves to the FTC?
| z3c0 wrote:
| I'm not sure I'd want it to. On multiple occasions, I've
| received "returned" calls from people who have received scam
| calls from my number. I'm sure a lot of money would be wasted
| on red herrings if those reported numbers end up at the FTC.
| bluGill wrote:
| Those should be reported too. I want the FTC to take action
| on falsified caller id! The more of these reports the FTC
| gets, the more likely to they are to take action. (action
| probably means talking to congress)
| srj wrote:
| One of the core issues here is that the "caller id" information
| is unauthenticated. If we could have the phones themselves
| receive all of the call routing information that the carrier has,
| we could build anti-spam technology against it.
| rightbyte wrote:
| The piece is censured in the EU ...
| btilly wrote:
| Websites have been given a practical choice between annoying
| popups and blocking Europe.
|
| It makes my life better when they block Europe, and I wish more
| did. I also wish Europe got rid of the GDPR.
| nullc wrote:
| Or they could just not track people...
|
| pretty sad that this is unthinkable.
| krisoft wrote:
| There is also the the third option of course: not tracking
| users.
| Alupis wrote:
| A lot of non-technical organizations deem it safer (and
| cheaper) to just block EU users than to study the law,
| become domain experts, and implement lawyer-approved
| mechanisms to become compliant.
|
| The reality is, however, unless you have a major presence
| in the EU, or are the size of Google or Facebook... you can
| freely ignore the GDPR without consequence. EU laws do not
| apply across the ocean.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Once again, that ignores the third option, simply not
| embedding javascript tracking bloat in your site, or at
| least serving that version to the EU (since they've
| clearly already spent the technical resources of
| identifying it and serving a different response).
|
| You don't need to be a legal expert to just not collect
| data you don't need.
| Alupis wrote:
| It's not that simple for non-technical organizations, I'm
| afraid. Simply embedding Google Analytics (the de facto
| website traffic analyzer, for better or worse) is enough
| to violate GDPR, and embedding Google Analytics is very
| often a simple checkbox in the web host admin portal.
|
| The "technical resources" involved in identifying EU
| traffic is nearly always just a simple IP block list,
| where one can often just checkmark a list of countries in
| their web host's portal.
|
| I think you grossly overestimate the technical prowess
| required to operate a website these days, and I think
| many grossly overestimate the actual real-world impact of
| GDPR outside the EU borders.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Google Analytics is exactly the kind of tracker bloat I'm
| pointing out that a website serving static articles
| doesn't need. It can strip that out and serve a static
| html page, with no bloat, through Cloudflare, and even
| get their tracking through Cloudflare as well.
|
| The reason why such "technical prowess" is needed is
| because businesses have made it more complicated than it
| needs to be. Keep in mind, the context of this
| conversation is the arrogance of literally claiming
| claiming you are being "censored" (because that's what
| the 451 response code indicates), just because you refuse
| to remove tracking analytics from your website.
| Alupis wrote:
| I think this is a forest and trees situation. Using
| things like Cloudflare, alternative niche "privacy
| conscience" trackers, adding GDPR popups, etc. are all
| way above an beyond your average website operator's
| abilities or understanding.
|
| The dude trying to sell custom T-Shirts has a website
| because it's a necessity to sell T-Shirts, not because he
| enjoys operating, optimizing and customizing websites. He
| just wants to sell more T-Shirts, and some European Union
| law isn't going to give him pause even for a second if he
| is physically not in a EU country.
|
| While good intentioned, the GDPR was specifically
| designed to be a "viral" law and force the entire
| internet to comply... unfortunately the EU's long arm of
| the law is fairly short. Further, the EU's ability to
| enforce the GDPR is limited to businesses physically
| under it's jurisdiction - ie. the US is not going to
| extradite some website operator for an alleged GDPR
| violation, no matter how severe the case may be, and the
| EU can only fine a business into compliance if the
| business cares about EU laws (which would imply a
| physical presence in the EU).
|
| Ignoring the GDPR is the right move for most websites.
|
| If people desire comprehensive, impactful privacy
| guarantees, then a similar law needs to be passed within
| the US.
| kube-system wrote:
| If there's not a tech expert in the room when a content
| publisher meets with their legal counsel, that is not a
| possibility anyone even realizes exists.
|
| It is also more expensive to implement than
| if(blocklist.contains(ip)) res.sendStatus(451)
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| The effective result of GDPR has been less than ideal, but
| was a step in the right direction. Abolishing it entirely in
| favor of a vacuum would carry a more weighty cost.
| mrandish wrote:
| The frustrating part is that the unintended consequences of
| GDPR were inevitable and clearly foreseeable, yet it was
| passed into law anyway and now it's incredibly difficult
| (if not practically impossible) to fix through iterative
| adjustment. It often seems like politicians and bureaucrats
| are incapable of seeing the myriad ways their well-intended
| rules will fail in the real-world. Maybe all legislation
| should first have to pass an "Unintended Consequences
| Analysis" review.
|
| Meanwhile, GDPR is yet another disruptive annoyance to
| users, a burden on overworked, under-funded website teams
| and isn't delivering the benefits promised.
| powerhour wrote:
| It doesn't have to be disruptive to users, companies go
| out of their way to make it disruptive. As others here
| have said, companies can just stop adding code to track
| users and stop storing so much information. It's actually
| way less work.
| babypuncher wrote:
| But why blame the companies who are directly responsible
| for this annoyance when we can blame the government who
| is indirectly responsible?
| Innominate wrote:
| The GDPR covers tracking of users, but is much more broad
| in scope. Simply not tracking users doesn't stop the GDPR
| from applying.
|
| The GDPR provides a framework by which bad actors can do
| their thing legally without too much trouble. To a good
| actor, who only stores the data they actually need and
| doesn't track users, the GDPR still applies and is just
| as big a pain in the ass.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Legitimate interest is excluded from the GDPR, so what
| kind of "good actors" are you describing that are hobbled
| by the GDPR? Be specific, please.
| tzs wrote:
| Anyone who doesn't want to deal with the hassle of hiring
| someone in the Union as their Article 27 representative.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Meanwhile, GDPR is yet another disruptive annoyance to
| users, a burden on overworked, under-funded website teams
| and isn't delivering the benefits promised.
|
| Users can now demand we delete their account and data and
| we have to do it, this is some work for us but it is good
| for users.
|
| Also do you forget that popups were a thing before GDPR?
| Modal for you to subscribe to some shit,monthly Terms of
| Service changes, notifications to see what new feature
| was added, to see what new stuff some contact posted were
| a thing, with GDPR you get a one time popup , you make
| your choice and you should be done.
|
| In summary
|
| Pros for users:
|
| - transparency, you now know about the 100+ partners and
| you can decide
|
| - you can ask for your data and ask for it to be deleted
|
| - you will get notified if your private data is
| lost(mioght be adifferent law for security breaches)
|
| Cons:
|
| - Shit websites use dark patterns and annoy you with a
| popup one time
|
| No Pros for developers, companies: Cons for devs and
| companies:
|
| - you need to research the law and find ways to screw the
| user with dark patterns
|
| - you need to update some old project and remove tracking
| or implement some popup , implement account deletion,
| data demands etc
|
| - you need to update your ToS documents, privacy policies
|
| - almost never happens, you remove tracking or configure
| your ad script to don't track and you don't store private
| data.
|
| From what I see users EU ones) have a lot to win, I
| assume if you are not in EU seeing the popup is a bug and
| would be fix .
| babypuncher wrote:
| > a burden on overworked, under-funded website teams
|
| It's only a burden on these people if they choose to be
| user-hostile.
|
| There are really easy ways to deal with GDPR but these
| dumb companies insist on avoiding those solutions at all
| cost.
|
| If companies insist on being dicks, then the only
| possible government-level solution might be to just ban
| this kind of tracking outright.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Wouldn't you rather websites just stop invading your privacy?
| The EU is not to blame for the shitty business practices of
| these websites.
| tzs wrote:
| GDPR has compliance costs even if you are doing nothing
| that violates privacy. As long as you've got data that can
| be associated with a user you might have GDPR obligations,
| including handling inquiries from users about what data you
| have about them, requests from users to delete their data,
| and similar.
|
| Just being able to receive such requests has costs, because
| GDPR requires that you have a contact _in_ _the_ _Union_
| that users can contact for such things.
|
| So say you've got an online forum in California and some EU
| people join and participate. Whether or not that is enough
| to make you subject to GDPR depends on Article 3(2).
| There's lots of subjectiveness in Article 3(2) so it is not
| at all clear where the boundaries are.
|
| If it does, then whether or not you have to have an in-
| Union representative is covered under Article 27. You do
| not need one if your processing of covered data is all of
| the following: (1) occasional, (2) does not fall under some
| special categories of data, (3) is unlikely to result in a
| "risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons".
|
| That's pretty fuzzy. What is occasional processing?
|
| If you aren't sure that GDPR does not apply, or aren't sure
| that if it does your processing is occasional enough to fly
| under Article 27's radar, you need an Article 27
| representative.
|
| Eventually there will be rulings from EU data regulators
| that will make the boundaries of Article 3(2) clearer, so
| that you may be able to stay in "does not apply" without
| blocking. Or maybe rulings will clarify Article 27 so you
| will be able to confidently determine that your processing
| is occasional enough to not need a rep.
|
| There's actually a lot of unclarity in GDPR. Take the data
| subject's right to have you delete their data. How do you
| actually implement that? Writing some scripts to delete
| from your database is probably not too hard.
|
| But what about backups? Do you need to go through all your
| backup sets and delete their data from those? What about
| printed records (yes, GDPR covers printed data)? Offsite
| long term archives?
|
| For a site like a forum, what about data that was in
| messages they posted that were quoted in messages from
| other users?
|
| Until all these kind of things are cleared up by EU data
| regulator rulings it can make a lot of sense for a site
| that is aimed mainly at a non-EU audience to block EU
| users.
| cbg0 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/tRiQI
| rightbyte wrote:
| Thanks I meed to bookmark that site. It is sad the hops you
| need to go through to browse the web.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Correction: they _claim_ that it is. The 451 code is
| specifically made for that, referencing Fahrenheit 451, so
| using this specific code implies _censorship_.
|
| However, it would be totally legal for them to provide the
| content. They just don't want to take responsibility for their
| privacy invading practices. So it's not censorship at all.
|
| /me shrugs. Personally, I have yet to find the website I can't
| just close if it behaves like this.
| godelski wrote:
| I've always wondered, why can't I find a phone app that auto
| reports calls to the FCC? Isn't this something Google and Apple
| should build in? Or is this something someone builds an app, it
| becomes popular, and then Google and Apple build it in? (I have
| less than zero app developing skills)
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| If you're on iOS, I highly recommend WideProtect [1] which allows
| you to define filters matching a range of numbers based on
| prefix. For example, you can block all numbers from a specific
| area code that you receive a lot of spam calls from. It has been
| an absolute lifesaver for me.
|
| [1]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wideprotect-spam-call-
| blocker/...
| [deleted]
| mikeortman wrote:
| A trick I've used to get certain robocalls to stop: once you get
| someone on the line, especially after they say the call is
| recorded. Offer them X amount of bitcoin, in escrow, if they
| callback to your number at later time and share details about who
| they work for and for access to their systems.
|
| Nobody has called my bluff, but usually that call center stops
| trying that scam to your number. I guess that's enough to trigger
| a do not call by their supervisors or they don't want to get in
| trouble by even hearing that opportunity.
|
| Unfortunately, I do occasionally get stuck in a system where I
| get a robocall, but once I get past the sweet robot named Mary
| asking for final living expense coverages, I now get a 'this
| number is no longer available' when transferred. After a couple
| of weeks, I do drop off that list too.
| Evidlo wrote:
| Semi-related project I worked on:
| https://github.com/evidlo/nanpa_lookup
|
| Simple bash script to lookup what companies own spam numbers.
| Almost all of my spam calls are from domestic VOIP companies.
| >>> ./lookup.sh -n 907-200-1234 "GCI COMMUNICATION CORP.
| DBA GENERAL COMMUNICATION" >>> ./lookup.sh -f
| path/to/numbers.txt "GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GENERAL
| COMMUNICATION" "CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS -
| NC" "ONVOY, LLC - TN"
| tzs wrote:
| That example doesn't work for me. It produces no output for
| that number. The problem seems to be that the entry in
| database.csv for that number is this:
| 907|200||GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GE|PCS||6872
|
| Given 907-200-1234 lookup.sh looks it up by grepping for
| '907\|200\|1'.
|
| Compare to a number that works, 858-598-7654. That ends up
| grepping for '858\|598\|7' and that matches this line from
| database.csv: 858|598|7|T-MOBILE USA,
| INC.|PCS|tmomail.net|6529
|
| In general lookup.sh looks for the first 3 digits of the phone
| number in the first field of database.csv, the second 3 digits
| in the second field, and the next digit in the third field.
|
| Looking up 907200 or 907-200 (but not 907-200-) will match.
|
| I'd guess that the database allows a blank third field to mean
| that the entry covers all numbers that match the first 6 digits
| that aren't covered by a more explicit entry.
|
| If that's the case the database is not using that mechanism
| optimally. For example there is this:
| 360|654||ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
| 360|654|0|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
| 360|654|1|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
| 360|654|2|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
| 360|654|3|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324
| 360|654|4|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121
| 360|654|5|AT&T - LOCAL|CLEC||7421 360|654|6|LEVEL 3
| COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121 360|654|7|ONVOY, LLC -
| WA|CLEC||483E 360|654|8|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC
| DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|9|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC
| DBA|ICO||4324
|
| which could be reduced to: 360|654||ZIPLY FIBER
| NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|4|LEVEL 3
| COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121 360|654|5|AT&T -
| LOCAL|CLEC||7421 360|654|6|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC -
| |CLEC||6121 360|654|7|ONVOY, LLC - WA|CLEC||483E
|
| There are 92492 different 6 first digit combinations where the
| database has explicit entries for all 10 possible 7th digits
| has a wildcard/default entry also. Cleaning up all these will
| cut the database.csv size to 52% of its current size. Appended
| is a script to do that.
|
| Anyway, it seems like what lookup.sh should be doing is doing
| the 7 digit lookup like it does now, but if that doesn't match
| try a 6 digit lookup.
|
| Here's a script to clean up database.csv. The output is sorted
| by name not number, but a "sort -n" can fix that.
| #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; main();
| sub main { my %db; my %wild;
| while (<>) { chomp; my($f3, $s3, $t1,
| @rest) = split /\|/; my $rest = join '|', @rest;
| my $key = "$f3|$s3|$rest"; if ($t1 eq '') {
| $wild{$key} = 1; } else { push @{$db{$key}}, $t1; }
| } foreach my $key (sort keys %db) {
| my($f3, $s3, @rest) = split /\|/, $key; my $rest =
| join '|', @rest; if ($wild{$key}) {
| print "$f3|$s3||$rest\n"; } else {
| if (10 == scalar(@{$db{$key}})) { print
| "$f3|$s3||$rest\n"; } else {
| foreach my $t1 (sort @{$db{$key}}) {
| print "$f3|$s3|$t1|$rest\n"; }
| } } } }
| sonofhans wrote:
| Some weeks ago I broke my iPhone and had it replaced. During the
| process I had to get re-authorized with Verizon. They tried to
| call my partner to get her permission, since she's the account
| owner. Of course she never picked up the phone, because it was
| from an unknown caller.
|
| The irony is incredible: the literal phone company cannot use
| their own product to contact their own customers, because they
| have let that product become a cesspool of spam.
| jugg1es wrote:
| My wife had to drive all the way back home from the phone store
| recently because I wouldn't pick up my phone for this exact
| reason.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It's the modern version of the Problem of Evil.
|
| Are the carriers willing to stop robocalls and spam texts, but
| not able? The very idea is absurd, as it's their network. As
| others have pointed out it can't be that hard to identify and
| interdict abusive behavior on such a massive scale.
|
| Are they able, but not willing? Then they're complicit, and
| should face wire fraud charges.
|
| Are they both able and willing? Then why don't they?
| koheripbal wrote:
| All the negative comments are focusing on the old-school
| providers, but it is worth noting that I get multiple daily
| spam calls on Google Fi service also.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| Could she not leave a message? I have the same setup as someone
| here mentioning Tasker. I route all calls to voice mail, where
| I can decide if I need to call back. If they are not willing to
| leave a voice mail with a return number and reason, the call
| was not that important.
| doliveira wrote:
| Wow, no one from any age group ever listens to voice messages
| anymore either, at least down here in my country
| sonofhans wrote:
| The need was synchronous -- I either got authorized right
| away, or we moved on to plan B. And yeah, as others have
| said, even listening to VMs this days is outlier behavior :/
| matsemann wrote:
| I have never in my life received or listened to a voice
| message. To me that's something from 90s movies. Weird how
| different things can be.
| jader201 wrote:
| VM is becoming more of a necessity these days due to
| robocalls. I have any numbers that aren't on my contacts go
| straight to VM, and that's how I get in touch with non-
| contacts that I really want calling me.
|
| In my experience, the signal:noise of unknown calls is
| about 1:20. VMs, on the other hand, are much higher --
| about 1:2.
| trebbble wrote:
| I don't listen to mine--I read them. Built-in feature on my
| phone, these days. iPhone, but I'd be surprised if Android
| doesn't have it, too. Quick glance is enough to tell if any
| of the recent ones were anything other than junk.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| ignore all unknown numbers
|
| iOS transcribe feature makes it easy to read the voicemail
| and then in the 1/20 case where it's legit, i act
| accordingly
| ghaff wrote:
| For a lot of people, not being reachable by voice is not
| really an option in the case of emergencies, medical
| offices, business, etc. I do more texting than leaving
| voice messages but, for example, my dad essentially will
| not text or email.
| matsemann wrote:
| I guess it's more that no one here ever leaves a message.
| A medical office for instance would never call to give
| out that info over phone, instead I would get an email or
| sms telling me to log in securely to their portal to see
| test results etc there.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I do the same thing. But I also have a habit of letting the
| voicemails sit around for days if they're not from someone I
| know. I'm not going to stop what I'm doing and listen to the
| voicemail, because, 19 times out of 20, it's just another
| robocall.
| godelski wrote:
| What's also funny about this is that I've tried using Google's
| screening service and I've literally never had an important
| caller answer the screening, they just go to voice mail
| instead. It's a weird situation because everyone knows that no
| one picks up calls from unknown numbers but everyone also
| expects you to pick up for them. It's kinda like when someone
| texts you "Hi" after exchanging numbers. No, text me "Hi it's
| so and so from xyz" because I can't differentiate you from spam
| without that. It's amazing to me that with such a universal
| problem that people don't adapt to the situation.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Not trolling or being a bad HN citizen but:
|
| Why did this take so long?
|
| There are already laws on the books. New legislation (read: added
| time) isn't necessary. _Everyone_ suffers from this problem. No
| one, sans the violators, is in favor of this problem. That is, it
| 's a political win regardless of party, state, etc.
|
| Yet after years of pin-prick torture there's going to be a task
| force?
|
| I'm confused.
| sebringj wrote:
| idk I think this is a red herring. You have to ensure the
| technology itself isn't so susceptible to hacking. Gmail goes a
| long way to do this and Google is a technology company that helps
| other companies with their tech. Hmm, I wonder who can help?
| synergy20 wrote:
| Whenever I got a call not speaking "your car warranty will expire
| soon" these days I feel like just won some lottery.
|
| Please put those who are doing this to jail for life. I will vote
| for you in the midterm election.
| mastercheif wrote:
| An idea: Would it be possible to use phone number "extension"
| conventions to create a shared secret key that verifies that the
| caller is a trusted contact?
|
| Let's say I'm at the DR's office and I'd like them to call me
| with my test results.
|
| Before giving them my phone number, I pull out my phone, open the
| phone app, and tap the "new trusted contact extension" button. It
| then displays the text "ext 47901" and prompts me to input a
| contact name.
|
| Then, when I give the front desk my phone number, I give
| "5558081111*47901".
|
| One could then have a setting on the phone for "send non-trusted
| contacts to voicemail".
|
| Is this feasible from a technical standpoint?
|
| I think the motivation would be there (in the us at least)
| socially. I'd generate these ext numbers for close friends and
| family and whenever a business asks for my number.
|
| My inspiration was the Gmail "+" email address thing that allows
| one to create infinite sub-email addresses for specific purposes
| ie myemail+newsletters@gmail.com for easy filtering.
| galdosdi wrote:
| A similar idea that a friend of mine implemented is, when he
| gets called, the caller hears this message "Thanks for calling
| (name); press one to be connected immediately"
|
| This filters out pretty much all spam!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-03 23:02 UTC)