5 ms·

Just what we need, another startup injecting themselves into our lives. And then for the right price, "acceptable robocalls" can be Verified by Twilio™! SHAKEN

Just what we need, another startup injecting themselves into our lives. And then for the right price, "acceptable robocalls" can be Verified by Twilio™! SHAKEN/STIR[1] is a much more network-agnostic solution to the same problem, using essentially the same, well-established technology used by internet certificate authorities. As such, it has all the same basic problems that CAs do, but it's a hell of a lot better than tightly coupling yourself to Twilio. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Controversies [2] https://www.consumerreports.org/robocalls/spoofed-robocalls-relief-is-on-the-way/ https://www.consumerreports.org/robocalls/spoofed-robocalls-...

gtirloni 7y ago
This doesn't seem any more open than Verified by Twilio. Why would you trust Verizon/Comcast more than Twilio? As not a customer of both, STIR/SHAKEN doesn't help me.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  1. The promise being made is different. SHAKEN/STIR doesn't promise to only let through legitimate calls, it only promises to make caller ID accurate to prevent spoofing. This allows the weight of existing laws against robocalls to apply--the government, not Twilio, determines who is legitimate. Existing robocall laws are too lax IMO, but it's a step in the right direction. 2. This is being proposed as part of legislation. All telecoms in the US would be required to implement the technology. 3. I don't think it's accurate to call it "open", but it's not centralized in the same way that Twilio's solution is. It's a federated system analogous to HTTPS certificate authorities. Twilio's service is more analogous to content filtering services like NetNanny. As I mentioned, CAs have problems too, but they're a whole lot more open than NetNanny.
Jolter 7y ago
Looks cool but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just outlaw robocalling like the rest of the world has?
- clmckinley 7y ago
  Most robocalls are illegal in the US. We have a do not call list and everything. I believe is it a name change is currently working its way through to change the name to "seriously, do not call... please list". [https://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/robocalling-laws/ https://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/robocallin...] The problem is that determining the source is difficult and even if you did it is most likely over seas where enforcing the fine is impossible. I would love to hear a technical solution that has been implemented somewhere that had a significant impact.
  - spacehunt 7y ago
    There is a simple economic solution. Make the caller instead of the receiver pay for all calls.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - saimiam 7y ago
      This doesn’t work either. In india, calls are exclusively paid for by the caller but the number of unsolicited calls (and texts) is high.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    The bigger problem is if they're scammers they wont care about a do not call list.
- elahd 7y ago
  The telephone network is international. The US is limited in its ability to enforce anti-spam laws against operations running out of other countries. (They also seem unwilling or unable to enforce these laws domestically, but that's a completely separate issue.)
  - sbarre 7y ago

gtirloni 7y ago

This doesn't seem any more open than Verified by Twilio. Why would you trust Verizon/Comcast more than Twilio? As not a customer of both, STIR/SHAKEN doesn't help me.

kerkeslager 7y ago
1. The promise being made is different. SHAKEN/STIR doesn't promise to only let through legitimate calls, it only promises to make caller ID accurate to prevent spoofing. This allows the weight of existing laws against robocalls to apply--the government, not Twilio, determines who is legitimate. Existing robocall laws are too lax IMO, but it's a step in the right direction. 2. This is being proposed as part of legislation. All telecoms in the US would be required to implement the technology. 3. I don't think it's accurate to call it "open", but it's not centralized in the same way that Twilio's solution is. It's a federated system analogous to HTTPS certificate authorities. Twilio's service is more analogous to content filtering services like NetNanny. As I mentioned, CAs have problems too, but they're a whole lot more open than NetNanny.

Jolter 7y ago

Looks cool but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just outlaw robocalling like the rest of the world has?

clmckinley 7y ago
Most robocalls are illegal in the US. We have a do not call list and everything. I believe is it a name change is currently working its way through to change the name to "seriously, do not call... please list". [https://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/robocalling-laws/ https://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/robocallin...] The problem is that determining the source is difficult and even if you did it is most likely over seas where enforcing the fine is impossible. I would love to hear a technical solution that has been implemented somewhere that had a significant impact.
- spacehunt 7y ago
  There is a simple economic solution. Make the caller instead of the receiver pay for all calls.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - saimiam 7y ago
    This doesn’t work either. In india, calls are exclusively paid for by the caller but the number of unsolicited calls (and texts) is high.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  The bigger problem is if they're scammers they wont care about a do not call list.
elahd 7y ago
The telephone network is international. The US is limited in its ability to enforce anti-spam laws against operations running out of other countries. (They also seem unwilling or unable to enforce these laws domestically, but that's a completely separate issue.)
- sbarre 7y ago