5 ms·

I live in Houston. I recently read a Houston Chronicle article describing very similar scenario. I don't have the exact link (it was from 2019), but here's one

I live in Houston. I recently read a Houston Chronicle article describing very similar scenario. I don't have the exact link (it was from 2019), but here's one from 2013 [0]. Combined with the inability to verify the actual phone number displayed on caller ID has led me to tell all of my family to not ever accept a phone call from a number they don't recognize. There's literally zero trust in our phone system upon which we've built our modern economy. Unfortunately that's not possible for everyone. Some people are legally required to answer the phone, always, even for numbers they don't recognize. [0]: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-police-Email-phone-scam-may-cost-you-4952941.php https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Hou...

losteric 7y ago
Given caller ID spoofing, they really shouldn't even accept calls from numbers they do recognize... especially with tech like this. Let it go to voice mail then return the call afterwards.
- inetknght 7y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. I don't answer the phone for unknown numbers unless I'm expecting a call from an unknown number; the expectation will have been set up via prior correspondence. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that. Some people are legally required to answer the phone, even if they don't recognize the number. And unfortunately many businesses only communicate via the phone system. So, unfortunately, our entire country is built upon a system in which we're told to implicitly trust but doesn't have any capability for us to verify.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
    Why are there people who are legally required to answer the phone? On what grounds? Why? (Assuming private persons here)
    - inetknght 7y ago
      For example: people who are entangled in the court systems are required to answer their phone. Even if they're not convicted and are out on bail, they still must answer the phone -- it could be their bail bondsman. If someone's on parole, they must answer their parole officer. So as part of the bond contract and the parole contract, you must answer the phone.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
        Oh!
- drdec 7y ago
  So what's the end game there - using voicemail as a poor man's texting?
  - rstuart4133 7y ago
    The end game is everyone gets the shits, and there is a noticeable drop in the usage of the old POTS (plain old telephone system) network. People use Apple Facetime, Google Duo or whatever instead. Then the telco's start to notice they are loosing customers. At that point one of two things happen. One is that telco's fix their networks. The second thing is they decide it isn't worth the effort, and let the traditional phone system die. Given phone calls are effectively free so there is stuff all revenue in them, I bet it's the latter. If that happens it will be painful. Like it is with messaging now, but even more so. Messaging now is either SMS with it's limitations (like you can't use it from a computer), or a choice of a zillion walled gardens - Apple, Hangouts, Slack, Signal, Viber, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook, ... most of which I don't have installed so I can't communicate with someone using them. The voice equivalents are Facetime, Duo, Viber, Signal - many of the same things in fact. The result will worse than messaging - the ability to communicate universally with anyone dies, but with no SMS fallback. But that's not the end point. Universal communication is just too useful to be dispensed with - as the explosion of internet and the postal system before that have shown. So something will replace it, and once again we will all be able communicate with anyone we please. However, the replacement has to solve the parasite problem. Once the cost of sending a message drops below a certain point every universal system we've had so far has been overrun with parasites, aka spammers. The postal system has junk mail, email has it's spam, now the phone system, and of course SMS. A solution may be to allow the recipient to charge the sender any amount they like for successful delivery of a message. Most people would allow friends to send for free, messages from unknown recipients to cost something, messages from spammers cost more. That could happen with the existing phone system of course, but I'd lay log odds the incumbents have too much in common with the dinosaurs for it to even cross their minds. Sadly that means we are in for a very painful transition period. In fact they are already losing customers as people stop using land lines in droves, so I'd say the writing is on the wall.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
- jiveturkey 7y ago
  to someone that will likewise not answer any calls!
  - Tepix 7y ago
    Chances are whoever just called you will answer the phone when you call back rightaway. It reminds me of port knocking.
krustyburger 7y ago
I’ll bite. Who is legally required to do that? Are they not allowed to sleep or be otherwise indisposed?
- gt2 7y ago
  One I can think of-- people whose job requires it of them. Risk could still be to them personally if someone gets their number/extension/transferred to them. But risk could be on the business as well, which could just as easily be targeted by scams like this.

losteric 7y ago

Given caller ID spoofing, they really shouldn't even accept calls from numbers they do recognize... especially with tech like this. Let it go to voice mail then return the call afterwards.

inetknght 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't answer the phone for unknown numbers unless I'm expecting a call from an unknown number; the expectation will have been set up via prior correspondence. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that. Some people are legally required to answer the phone, even if they don't recognize the number. And unfortunately many businesses only communicate via the phone system. So, unfortunately, our entire country is built upon a system in which we're told to implicitly trust but doesn't have any capability for us to verify.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  Why are there people who are legally required to answer the phone? On what grounds? Why? (Assuming private persons here)
  - inetknght 7y ago
    For example: people who are entangled in the court systems are required to answer their phone. Even if they're not convicted and are out on bail, they still must answer the phone -- it could be their bail bondsman. If someone's on parole, they must answer their parole officer. So as part of the bond contract and the parole contract, you must answer the phone.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
      Oh!
drdec 7y ago
So what's the end game there - using voicemail as a poor man's texting?
- rstuart4133 7y ago
  The end game is everyone gets the shits, and there is a noticeable drop in the usage of the old POTS (plain old telephone system) network. People use Apple Facetime, Google Duo or whatever instead. Then the telco's start to notice they are loosing customers. At that point one of two things happen. One is that telco's fix their networks. The second thing is they decide it isn't worth the effort, and let the traditional phone system die. Given phone calls are effectively free so there is stuff all revenue in them, I bet it's the latter. If that happens it will be painful. Like it is with messaging now, but even more so. Messaging now is either SMS with it's limitations (like you can't use it from a computer), or a choice of a zillion walled gardens - Apple, Hangouts, Slack, Signal, Viber, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook, ... most of which I don't have installed so I can't communicate with someone using them. The voice equivalents are Facetime, Duo, Viber, Signal - many of the same things in fact. The result will worse than messaging - the ability to communicate universally with anyone dies, but with no SMS fallback. But that's not the end point. Universal communication is just too useful to be dispensed with - as the explosion of internet and the postal system before that have shown. So something will replace it, and once again we will all be able communicate with anyone we please. However, the replacement has to solve the parasite problem. Once the cost of sending a message drops below a certain point every universal system we've had so far has been overrun with parasites, aka spammers. The postal system has junk mail, email has it's spam, now the phone system, and of course SMS. A solution may be to allow the recipient to charge the sender any amount they like for successful delivery of a message. Most people would allow friends to send for free, messages from unknown recipients to cost something, messages from spammers cost more. That could happen with the existing phone system of course, but I'd lay log odds the incumbents have too much in common with the dinosaurs for it to even cross their minds. Sadly that means we are in for a very painful transition period. In fact they are already losing customers as people stop using land lines in droves, so I'd say the writing is on the wall.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
jiveturkey 7y ago
to someone that will likewise not answer any calls!
- Tepix 7y ago
  Chances are whoever just called you will answer the phone when you call back rightaway. It reminds me of port knocking.

krustyburger 7y ago

I’ll bite. Who is legally required to do that? Are they not allowed to sleep or be otherwise indisposed?

gt2 7y ago
One I can think of-- people whose job requires it of them. Risk could still be to them personally if someone gets their number/extension/transferred to them. But risk could be on the business as well, which could just as easily be targeted by scams like this.