4 ms·

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

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues and useful in different cases.
- josefresco 8y ago
  "most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity" I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business. They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    You should be able to call politicians or organizations which criticise authorities, and they should set up anonymous means of doing so (perhaps required by law). You shouldn't be able to call someone's Grandma, impersonate her son, and scam her out of her retirement.
    - josefresco 8y ago
      I think the problem is an "anonymous tip line" just for criticizing or whistle blowing purposes is too limited in scope. There are plenty of other reasons people need anonymity where you can't setup a dedicated, anonymous system. You would also be at the mercy of those who setup the system, because you'd be calling it with your "real ID" telephone line. If you setup a general system that allows anonymity on-demand, it will be abused. I'm not advocating for or against this, just trying to work out the ethical model where citizens are protected, but criminals can be identified and prosecuted. I don't have the answer ;)
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  There's anonymity, fraud, and strong guarantees of identity. I'm fine with 1 and 3. There's no reason for the phone company to have a knowingly spoofable caller ID system when it's already being used so heavily for 2.
BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agents or between not wanting to be spied upon and wanting to know who the fuck is calling you so that you can rationally choose whether to ignore it.
- josefresco 8y ago
  You're right, and my argument is not fully worked out. I had the thought yesterday and didn't post - I just find it odd that we're demanding "real ID" for telephone calls, but recoil in horror when proposals are made to tie "real ID" to IP addresses to online activity. I frequently advise my clients on website security, and tell them that all day long there are criminals who "jiggle the locks" (to put it tamely) of their website without any legal recourse or ramifications. They always ask why these people aren't identified and criminally prosecuted. I explain to them how they evade detection, and how "anonymity" is built into the ethos of our online world. Clients are shocked there's no way to identify, stop or even prosecute these people. Privacy advocates of course champion this anonymity because of the danger of abuse by government/corporate entities. Why don't we have the same attitude towards telephone calls? Both systems are widely abused, yet privacy for both are important. Like I said, this one is still rolling a round in my head - feel free to tear my argument a new one ;)
  - xahrepap 8y ago
    I think part of the problem is that caller ID claims to provide clear identification. People are conditioned to believe caller ID and don't realize it can be easily spoofed. This feeds into the scam because people are willingly more gullible.
dwc 8y ago
Spoofed Caller ID is a lie, not anonymity. Here's a proposal: 1) Caller may choose to hide/suppress their Caller ID, 2) mandatory option for phone carriers to allow Callee to completely block calls (no ring, no voicemail) that don't carry Caller ID, 3) When present Caller ID must be accurate. The above allows anonymity but disallows deceit. It also provides opt-out for people not to receive anonymous calls. (Anonymity does not give you the right to have any given individual listen to you) We could have had this for ages, as there are no great technical hurdles.
- dwc 8y ago
  Note on above: there are legitimate reasons for businesses to set Caller ID to something other than the call origin. But the "something other" should be selected from a set under the control of the business, not a free for all. I.e., a desk phone with DID may show as the main company number, etc. This takes a little more work to account for, but it shouldn't be a roadblock.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    No, a phone should give the exact number for that exact phone, since that is whom I want to call back, should I need to. That phone may be manned by more than one individual (in case of shift work), but nobody should have to go through a phone tree.
    - softawre 8y ago
      This won't work, contact centres are more complicated that you'd imagine.
- brownbat 8y ago
  If we want authentication, public-private key pairs are a great idea. A trusted network is fine, but are the telephone networks trusted? Can't get them to implement simple features in our interests, doesn't seem very much like a trusted third party to me. Meanwhile, OTT services work. Some let you whitelist contacts. Killer features like that will push everyone off POTS eventually anyway. Inertia and legacy will keep holdouts using POTS, just like people still use fax machines, but they're mostly irrelevant.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
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.
provolone 8y ago
My impression has been that HN's audience generally wants government mandated solutions.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

I think you'll find many people are not in favor of universal anonymity, and most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity. They are separate issues and useful in different cases.

josefresco 8y ago
"most people are in favor of strong guarantees of identity" I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business. They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  You should be able to call politicians or organizations which criticise authorities, and they should set up anonymous means of doing so (perhaps required by law). You shouldn't be able to call someone's Grandma, impersonate her son, and scam her out of her retirement.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    I think the problem is an "anonymous tip line" just for criticizing or whistle blowing purposes is too limited in scope. There are plenty of other reasons people need anonymity where you can't setup a dedicated, anonymous system. You would also be at the mercy of those who setup the system, because you'd be calling it with your "real ID" telephone line. If you setup a general system that allows anonymity on-demand, it will be abused. I'm not advocating for or against this, just trying to work out the ethical model where citizens are protected, but criminals can be identified and prosecuted. I don't have the answer ;)
TallGuyShort 8y ago
There's anonymity, fraud, and strong guarantees of identity. I'm fine with 1 and 3. There's no reason for the phone company to have a knowingly spoofable caller ID system when it's already being used so heavily for 2.

BugsJustFindMe 8y ago

You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agents or between not wanting to be spied upon and wanting to know who the fuck is calling you so that you can rationally choose whether to ignore it.

josefresco 8y ago
You're right, and my argument is not fully worked out. I had the thought yesterday and didn't post - I just find it odd that we're demanding "real ID" for telephone calls, but recoil in horror when proposals are made to tie "real ID" to IP addresses to online activity. I frequently advise my clients on website security, and tell them that all day long there are criminals who "jiggle the locks" (to put it tamely) of their website without any legal recourse or ramifications. They always ask why these people aren't identified and criminally prosecuted. I explain to them how they evade detection, and how "anonymity" is built into the ethos of our online world. Clients are shocked there's no way to identify, stop or even prosecute these people. Privacy advocates of course champion this anonymity because of the danger of abuse by government/corporate entities. Why don't we have the same attitude towards telephone calls? Both systems are widely abused, yet privacy for both are important. Like I said, this one is still rolling a round in my head - feel free to tear my argument a new one ;)
- xahrepap 8y ago
  I think part of the problem is that caller ID claims to provide clear identification. People are conditioned to believe caller ID and don't realize it can be easily spoofed. This feeds into the scam because people are willingly more gullible.

dwc 8y ago

Spoofed Caller ID is a lie, not anonymity. Here's a proposal: 1) Caller may choose to hide/suppress their Caller ID, 2) mandatory option for phone carriers to allow Callee to completely block calls (no ring, no voicemail) that don't carry Caller ID, 3) When present Caller ID must be accurate. The above allows anonymity but disallows deceit. It also provides opt-out for people not to receive anonymous calls. (Anonymity does not give you the right to have any given individual listen to you) We could have had this for ages, as there are no great technical hurdles.

dwc 8y ago
Note on above: there are legitimate reasons for businesses to set Caller ID to something other than the call origin. But the "something other" should be selected from a set under the control of the business, not a free for all. I.e., a desk phone with DID may show as the main company number, etc. This takes a little more work to account for, but it shouldn't be a roadblock.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  No, a phone should give the exact number for that exact phone, since that is whom I want to call back, should I need to. That phone may be manned by more than one individual (in case of shift work), but nobody should have to go through a phone tree.
  - softawre 8y ago
    This won't work, contact centres are more complicated that you'd imagine.
brownbat 8y ago
If we want authentication, public-private key pairs are a great idea. A trusted network is fine, but are the telephone networks trusted? Can't get them to implement simple features in our interests, doesn't seem very much like a trusted third party to me. Meanwhile, OTT services work. Some let you whitelist contacts. Killer features like that will push everyone off POTS eventually anyway. Inertia and legacy will keep holdouts using POTS, just like people still use fax machines, but they're mostly irrelevant.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

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.

provolone 8y ago

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