4 ms·

There is a solution to this problem. 1. Change the phone number system to require 207 digit phone numbers instead of the current 10 digits. 2. Assign random p

There is a solution to this problem. 1. Change the phone number system to require 207 digit phone numbers instead of the current 10 digits. 2. Assign random phone numbers to everybody. Now the only people who can call you are the people who know you. You have to actively share your number with people. If people call random numbers they will get "not in service" messages all day long. We have 20 years of experience with NEW communication systems with NEW addressing systems where people can't connect without knowing your email address or IM handle. It can be done, i.e. it is workable to require people to share contact info before you can communicate. People will find a way.

noxToken 11y ago
My knee-jerk reaction was to balk to a 207 digit number system, but after digesting it, I realized that this isn't a terrible idea. 207 is little much, but longer length numbers in an age where everything can be scanned, pasted, mailed, etc. is actually smart.
URSpider94 11y ago
They are not calling "random" numbers. They are buying lead lists from telemarketing firms. I would bet they may even have demographic data on the people they are calling to be sure they are dialing susceptible people (the elderly).
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
I don't think a solution is a longer phone number. A solution is a better system that provides more security. So you can call someone by their name or other information and that person can simply block everything except for trusted friends and family. Or better yet have government run whitelists so you subscribe to it and if that business does too many shitty things they get axed from the whitelist that is instantly updated to everyone across the country. What I suggested has many flaws I just don't think extending a current, shitty system is all that useful especially since the majority of these phone numbers are purchased anyway (almost no one dials random numbers to figure out if someone is there, who they are, etc).
wernercd 11y ago
Why create a new system? Just move everything on top of IPv6? Not like most of this junk isn't routed over the internet anyways... With as much address space as is available in IPv6, it shouldn't be hard to create something that points to the person yet is malleable enough to not be easily abuse.

noxToken 11y ago

My knee-jerk reaction was to balk to a 207 digit number system, but after digesting it, I realized that this isn't a terrible idea. 207 is little much, but longer length numbers in an age where everything can be scanned, pasted, mailed, etc. is actually smart.

URSpider94 11y ago

They are not calling "random" numbers. They are buying lead lists from telemarketing firms. I would bet they may even have demographic data on the people they are calling to be sure they are dialing susceptible people (the elderly).

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

I don't think a solution is a longer phone number. A solution is a better system that provides more security. So you can call someone by their name or other information and that person can simply block everything except for trusted friends and family. Or better yet have government run whitelists so you subscribe to it and if that business does too many shitty things they get axed from the whitelist that is instantly updated to everyone across the country. What I suggested has many flaws I just don't think extending a current, shitty system is all that useful especially since the majority of these phone numbers are purchased anyway (almost no one dials random numbers to figure out if someone is there, who they are, etc).

wernercd 11y ago

Why create a new system? Just move everything on top of IPv6? Not like most of this junk isn't routed over the internet anyways... With as much address space as is available in IPv6, it shouldn't be hard to create something that points to the person yet is malleable enough to not be easily abuse.