15 ms·

The thing that puzzles me is why is the goal to stop the robocaller, and punish them, and not the punish the company that hires them? Okay, we can't find the s

The thing that puzzles me is why is the goal to stop the robocaller, and punish them, and not the punish the company that hires them? Okay, we can't find the scammer easily, but they're advertising a service, and we CAN find that service company! If the car warranty company that keeps calling me is in the US, aren't they liable for contracting for an illegal service? If they're out of the US, can't we impose some block on all payments from the US to them?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rhacker 6y ago
It's often a round-about crap that causes it. It's not that the legit companies are hiring sleezy companies, but that they have promotional programs that other companies "sign up" and join to be a partner. The partners are really unknown entities and there's not much in the way of checking. But then these partners start contributing and getting people signed up. It's impossible for the legit companies (if you can really call any major conglomerate a legit company) to know whether those signups were obtained through spammers or what have you. So maybe it's these promotional networks that need to be banned. Problem is, almost all of the advertising and lead generation in the world happens through networks like that. Some of it is legit, some is not. So I do think it's correct to go after robocalling and make it stop. Now one thing I don't agree on is the WAY in which we're doing it via tracing or whatever. Instead if I was the FCC I would simply require, starting today, that all calls made in the US must be signed to be completed. I would rather have no phone calls in the US for a month than let this shit go on indefinitely. Something like that would force all carriers to immediately figure out a way to get every phone call signed. Then once we have calls signed, the spammers would lose their right to call pretty much after a few calls are made and reported. I think the current strategy is pretty hand-wavy and doesn't have any end in sight.
- chris_st 6y ago
  > Problem is, almost all of the advertising and lead generation in the world happens through networks like that. Some of it is legit, some is not. At the risk of being draconian, okay, fine, you don't know who "ultimately" signed Fred up for your service, but HEY, Fred was signed up illegally, so it's still your fault. I'd like to think that suddenly, companies would get a LOT more careful about who they let sign up to be partners, if they're now at risk. Don't we already do this kind of things with banks, in other words KYC ("Know Your Customer")? A long term business relationship is worth a bit of hassle.
  - aqme28 6y ago
    This would work, but there are all sort of secondary problems with forcing service providers to take on the role of policing their networks. There are more than a few detractors of KYC laws, for example.
    - brewdad 6y ago
      Besides the banks and financial services themselves? I would expect them to lobby against KYC since it internalizes the costs. No business wants to take on costs that could otherwise be passed on to others. That is the core of why regulations are needed.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    It's not just that Fred was signed up using illegal tactics. The culpability comes from the fact that these US companies are paying the scammers to do this. The number or complexity of intermediaries is morally immaterial. That's why industries where these kinds of scams happen get special regulations. Advertising for some reason has just escaped oversight for now.
  - btilly 6y ago
    The problem is that this opens up dark patterns. If you meaningfully punish the company who paid for it, then robocallers can blackmail any customer-centric company that they want. They start robocalling on behalf of the company then tell the company that they will have to pay to stop. As long as the payment is enough below the legal penalty for continuing, the company will pay the blackmail and the robocaller moves on to their next target.
    - etrabroline 6y ago
      Except these are huge publicly traded companies. They money flow could easily be tracked from the advertiser to the scammer if efforts weren't being made to hide it. So this is a moot point.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 6y ago
the car warranty companies are careful to ensure that they use enough third parties to cover their track. The warranty company isn't doing anything wrong, it is the resellers that are selling.
- corty 6y ago
  Not doing anything wrong is not correct. If prosecuted properly, this should be a criminal conspiracy and profits from that are subject to forfeiture.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  If you're not doing anything wrong why do you need to cover your tracks? Let's not be disingenuous - they're not stupid enough to believe that Robocaller Company A, who is charging them a quarter of what other telemarketing companies are, is all above board. Hiding behind plausible deniability of shell companies and third parties to me isn't demonstrating "they aren't doing anything wrong and swear to god, we had no idea what the company we did business with intended".
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Are they using telemarketers, or just underwriting for any independent insurance salesperson. When you buy a used car the dealer isn't doing the warranty himself, just selling for some warranty company.
LinuxBender 6y ago
Part of the problem is the conceptual designs around the SS7 signalling network. Trust is all or none. If you allow a switch in {x} country to connect to your switches, then they can spoof calls. All it takes is one shady company with an SS7 link and they can resell access for all manor of spoofing. The SS7 network really has no concept around levels of trust or banning specific connections from specific types of messages. It's a very ancient system, much older than the internet. It's only newer than the even more ancient "A" series mechanical phone switch networks. To overhaul such a system on such a large scale would require building out a new system in parallel in my opinion. I can not even fathom the level of bureaucratic battles, legal battles required for such an undertaking. Back in the day, I wanted to nix a SS7 link to a shady vendor that was spamming cell phones. I got in trouble for that. "They are paying their bills, leave them alone and keep your nose out of it". That is another aspect of the problem. Even if a telco wanted to stop abuse on their own network, it would not be permitted unless they are legally obligated to do so. Even then, telco's have more lobbyists than all the silicon valley big tech combined, no exaggeration. That is just based on my very dated experience. I have long since left telco and very happy I did.
- chris_st 6y ago
  Ouch... if that's the case, how can the FCC do anything to find the scammers? It sounds like it's technically impossible (and maybe also politically, alas).
  - LinuxBender 6y ago
    At best, they could require the U.S. to implement STIR/SHAKEN [1], maybe. There will be significant technical and legal challenges in this. Overhauling or upgrading the existing switches is non trivial. This is just my opinion, but I predict this will result in legal battles and legal stalling on the part of the telcos. Even if all the telcos agreed to do this, there would be a period of time that nothing is enforced and even then, this has no impact on anyone outside of U.S. jurisdiction unless laws with teeth require amended agreements between the U.S. and non-U.S. telcos. I am not a lawyer, but I don't need to be one to see some of the ways this will play out and how this can turn into political posturing, deflection of responsibility and saber rattling between the U.S. and other countries. [1] - https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/stir-and-shaken-overview/ https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/stir-and-shaken-overview/
ipython 6y ago
The US based companies will make the argument that they aren't liable for the infringement made by the third-party "lead generation" companies that they employ. They will argue that they have no way to police their actions, and therefore should not be held liable for any illegal activity. What's worse are the scammers who call from the "social security administration" trying to get you to wire them thousands and thousands of $$. They are quite insidious, sophisticated, and can sniff out even the slightest misstep you make when you try to string them along. I have heard stories, second-hand, of senior citizens who were scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars through schemes like this. It's abhorrent. Source: I sued a home security company who made the above argument re: using a third-party lead generation company in person with me at the local courthouse during settlement talks. I did manage to get him to settle for several thousand $$ anyway, plus he had to travel several hundred miles to make an 8am Monday court appointment, so I figure that's a win.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Even if you want to get to the scammer, you'll have to trace and find the caller.
reaperducer 6y ago
The thing that puzzles me is why is the goal to stop the robocaller, and punish them, and not the punish the company that hires them? I can't say that I know the technical or legal process, but from a layman's view it seems that going after the entity committing the crime is faster and cheaper than going after the company behind the shell company behind the lead generator behind another shell company behind another company behind another shell company, all of which may be in different countries. In this case, the direct approach seems to be a good place to start.
- derefr 6y ago
  > the company behind the shell company behind the lead generator behind another shell company behind another company behind another shell company In the end, there’s a US business somewhere in that chain that exists to take the money of US customers, and to pay taxes on that revenue; and that company is the one you’re put in contact with when you phone the number specified in the robocall. It doesn’t matter who owns a controlling interest in that company. The only thing that matters is the point at which it’s interfacing with the US phone network and banking system. Just send the company some money (like they want you to do!), find out where it goes (in the US; it doesn’t matter what happens after that) and find out who owns that bank account. Then arrest that guy, and/or freeze those accounts. And maybe prosecute the bank or payment-processor that was willing to take their business, in order to disincentivize such service providers from offering them accounts in the future. Do that over and over.
floatingatoll 6y ago
Deplatforming the services used by robocallers would be a very effective way to decrease the financial incentive to robocall and increase the financial incentive to help authorities identify your customers.
jjeaff 6y ago
Even figuring out the service provider is more difficult than it seems. These spam callers use made up and ever changing company names. If you ask them much of anything about the company they are working for when they call, they will usually immediately hang up.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rhacker 6y ago

It's often a round-about crap that causes it. It's not that the legit companies are hiring sleezy companies, but that they have promotional programs that other companies "sign up" and join to be a partner. The partners are really unknown entities and there's not much in the way of checking. But then these partners start contributing and getting people signed up. It's impossible for the legit companies (if you can really call any major conglomerate a legit company) to know whether those signups were obtained through spammers or what have you. So maybe it's these promotional networks that need to be banned. Problem is, almost all of the advertising and lead generation in the world happens through networks like that. Some of it is legit, some is not. So I do think it's correct to go after robocalling and make it stop. Now one thing I don't agree on is the WAY in which we're doing it via tracing or whatever. Instead if I was the FCC I would simply require, starting today, that all calls made in the US must be signed to be completed. I would rather have no phone calls in the US for a month than let this shit go on indefinitely. Something like that would force all carriers to immediately figure out a way to get every phone call signed. Then once we have calls signed, the spammers would lose their right to call pretty much after a few calls are made and reported. I think the current strategy is pretty hand-wavy and doesn't have any end in sight.

chris_st 6y ago
> Problem is, almost all of the advertising and lead generation in the world happens through networks like that. Some of it is legit, some is not. At the risk of being draconian, okay, fine, you don't know who "ultimately" signed Fred up for your service, but HEY, Fred was signed up illegally, so it's still your fault. I'd like to think that suddenly, companies would get a LOT more careful about who they let sign up to be partners, if they're now at risk. Don't we already do this kind of things with banks, in other words KYC ("Know Your Customer")? A long term business relationship is worth a bit of hassle.
- aqme28 6y ago
  This would work, but there are all sort of secondary problems with forcing service providers to take on the role of policing their networks. There are more than a few detractors of KYC laws, for example.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    Besides the banks and financial services themselves? I would expect them to lobby against KYC since it internalizes the costs. No business wants to take on costs that could otherwise be passed on to others. That is the core of why regulations are needed.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  It's not just that Fred was signed up using illegal tactics. The culpability comes from the fact that these US companies are paying the scammers to do this. The number or complexity of intermediaries is morally immaterial. That's why industries where these kinds of scams happen get special regulations. Advertising for some reason has just escaped oversight for now.
- btilly 6y ago
  The problem is that this opens up dark patterns. If you meaningfully punish the company who paid for it, then robocallers can blackmail any customer-centric company that they want. They start robocalling on behalf of the company then tell the company that they will have to pay to stop. As long as the payment is enough below the legal penalty for continuing, the company will pay the blackmail and the robocaller moves on to their next target.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Except these are huge publicly traded companies. They money flow could easily be tracked from the advertiser to the scammer if efforts weren't being made to hide it. So this is a moot point.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bluGill 6y ago

the car warranty companies are careful to ensure that they use enough third parties to cover their track. The warranty company isn't doing anything wrong, it is the resellers that are selling.

corty 6y ago
Not doing anything wrong is not correct. If prosecuted properly, this should be a criminal conspiracy and profits from that are subject to forfeiture.
FireBeyond 6y ago
If you're not doing anything wrong why do you need to cover your tracks? Let's not be disingenuous - they're not stupid enough to believe that Robocaller Company A, who is charging them a quarter of what other telemarketing companies are, is all above board. Hiding behind plausible deniability of shell companies and third parties to me isn't demonstrating "they aren't doing anything wrong and swear to god, we had no idea what the company we did business with intended".
- bluGill 6y ago
  Are they using telemarketers, or just underwriting for any independent insurance salesperson. When you buy a used car the dealer isn't doing the warranty himself, just selling for some warranty company.

LinuxBender 6y ago

Part of the problem is the conceptual designs around the SS7 signalling network. Trust is all or none. If you allow a switch in {x} country to connect to your switches, then they can spoof calls. All it takes is one shady company with an SS7 link and they can resell access for all manor of spoofing. The SS7 network really has no concept around levels of trust or banning specific connections from specific types of messages. It's a very ancient system, much older than the internet. It's only newer than the even more ancient "A" series mechanical phone switch networks. To overhaul such a system on such a large scale would require building out a new system in parallel in my opinion. I can not even fathom the level of bureaucratic battles, legal battles required for such an undertaking. Back in the day, I wanted to nix a SS7 link to a shady vendor that was spamming cell phones. I got in trouble for that. "They are paying their bills, leave them alone and keep your nose out of it". That is another aspect of the problem. Even if a telco wanted to stop abuse on their own network, it would not be permitted unless they are legally obligated to do so. Even then, telco's have more lobbyists than all the silicon valley big tech combined, no exaggeration. That is just based on my very dated experience. I have long since left telco and very happy I did.

chris_st 6y ago
Ouch... if that's the case, how can the FCC do anything to find the scammers? It sounds like it's technically impossible (and maybe also politically, alas).
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  At best, they could require the U.S. to implement STIR/SHAKEN [1], maybe. There will be significant technical and legal challenges in this. Overhauling or upgrading the existing switches is non trivial. This is just my opinion, but I predict this will result in legal battles and legal stalling on the part of the telcos. Even if all the telcos agreed to do this, there would be a period of time that nothing is enforced and even then, this has no impact on anyone outside of U.S. jurisdiction unless laws with teeth require amended agreements between the U.S. and non-U.S. telcos. I am not a lawyer, but I don't need to be one to see some of the ways this will play out and how this can turn into political posturing, deflection of responsibility and saber rattling between the U.S. and other countries. [1] - https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/stir-and-shaken-overview/ https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/stir-and-shaken-overview/

ipython 6y ago

The US based companies will make the argument that they aren't liable for the infringement made by the third-party "lead generation" companies that they employ. They will argue that they have no way to police their actions, and therefore should not be held liable for any illegal activity. What's worse are the scammers who call from the "social security administration" trying to get you to wire them thousands and thousands of $$. They are quite insidious, sophisticated, and can sniff out even the slightest misstep you make when you try to string them along. I have heard stories, second-hand, of senior citizens who were scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars through schemes like this. It's abhorrent. Source: I sued a home security company who made the above argument re: using a third-party lead generation company in person with me at the local courthouse during settlement talks. I did manage to get him to settle for several thousand $$ anyway, plus he had to travel several hundred miles to make an 8am Monday court appointment, so I figure that's a win.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Even if you want to get to the scammer, you'll have to trace and find the caller.

reaperducer 6y ago

The thing that puzzles me is why is the goal to stop the robocaller, and punish them, and not the punish the company that hires them? I can't say that I know the technical or legal process, but from a layman's view it seems that going after the entity committing the crime is faster and cheaper than going after the company behind the shell company behind the lead generator behind another shell company behind another company behind another shell company, all of which may be in different countries. In this case, the direct approach seems to be a good place to start.

derefr 6y ago
> the company behind the shell company behind the lead generator behind another shell company behind another company behind another shell company In the end, there’s a US business somewhere in that chain that exists to take the money of US customers, and to pay taxes on that revenue; and that company is the one you’re put in contact with when you phone the number specified in the robocall. It doesn’t matter who owns a controlling interest in that company. The only thing that matters is the point at which it’s interfacing with the US phone network and banking system. Just send the company some money (like they want you to do!), find out where it goes (in the US; it doesn’t matter what happens after that) and find out who owns that bank account. Then arrest that guy, and/or freeze those accounts. And maybe prosecute the bank or payment-processor that was willing to take their business, in order to disincentivize such service providers from offering them accounts in the future. Do that over and over.

floatingatoll 6y ago

Deplatforming the services used by robocallers would be a very effective way to decrease the financial incentive to robocall and increase the financial incentive to help authorities identify your customers.

jjeaff 6y ago

Even figuring out the service provider is more difficult than it seems. These spam callers use made up and ever changing company names. If you ask them much of anything about the company they are working for when they call, they will usually immediately hang up.