4 ms·
The problem, I think, is that there does need to be a way to "anonymously" report suspicious activity. Imagine a legit call, where the "callee" is known by the
by CaptSpify 11y ago
The problem, I think, is that there does need to be a way to "anonymously" report suspicious activity. Imagine a legit call, where the "callee" is known by the "suspicious person". I agree that there's room for improvement/checking, but not sure how to reconcile the two.
- skybrian 11y agoNot sure what you mean since the emergency responders can keep the source of the call confidential. In any case, exact location isn't necessary. It doesn't make sense to treat a local call and a call from somewhere in Canada the same. Most swatting attempts are from far away, so having some indication of location would make it harder to do damage. Also, most calls to 911 are not anonymous - they automatically get caller id even for blocked numbers. It's just that there are some loopholes.
- btown 11y agoAs other commenters have noted, it is possible to buy local area code numbers for use on Google Voice. Very difficult to distinguish a swatter from a true resident of the area.
- hooloovoo_zoo 11y agoIs there really no information in the signal that would tell you what protocols were used to encode / transmit the call?
- someguydave 11y agoNo, there isn't. The metadata is washed away when the VOIP call hits the Signaling System Seven switch. A simple policy fix would solve this problem: Treat any caller willing to threaten police with death but unwilling to reveal his identity with great suspicion.
- hooloovoo_zoo 11y agoThey just need to treat the call differently. Don't go in guns blazing if your call came from a TOR exit node.