4 ms·
I wish my phone or carrier would allow me to batch block phone numbers, and auto update with a shared list, just like I do with adblock. Although I understand t
by vmception 5y ago
I wish my phone or carrier would allow me to batch block phone numbers, and auto update with a shared list, just like I do with adblock. Although I understand that spammers can call with non-spammers numbers, I think that's tolerable because I don't know those people and likely never will!
- duskwuff 5y agoThe vast majority of spam phone calls are made with false Caller ID information. Blocking these calls based on their Caller ID would at best be useless, as spammers can easily change what false Caller ID they're using, and would risk blocking legitimate calls from the real owners of those numbers. The obvious comparison is spam email. Nobody seriously recommends using "From" headers to block spammers. Caller ID is effectively the same thing, but for phone calls.
- Taniwha 5y agoA large point of STIR/SHAKEN is that caller ID is now signed and shouldn't be able to be forged - STIR/SHAKEN is being rolled out across the US now the FCC is requiring foreign carriers who want to connect to the US to do the same Effectively the "from headers" will no longer be able to be forged
- MiddleEndian 5y agoJust let me block foreign carriers entirely. I have some friends and family outside of the US, but we communicate on non-telephone platforms.
- scotu 5y agodoes somebody know why the hell caller id spoofing is a thing though? It must have served a purpose at some point, otherwise we could just fix it, right? I'm befuddled by the fact that we just don't make caller ids not spoofable... I cannot browse the web without leaving all the personal information ever imagined about me, but a phone call? Impossible to trace back, but please, report it on donotcall.gov thanks.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoLet's say I'm using my personal phone to make work calls, because reasons. I want my caller ID to say "XYZ Corp" instead of "Animal Muppet", because people are more likely to answer.
- scotu 5y agosure. Looks like we need to mildly inconvenience personal-phone-for-work users then? All in favor say "aye" Aye
- potiuper 5y agoCall center: show general call back number instead of direct agent number who may be unavailable to answer at call back.
- scotu 5y agothere you go, good one. Can we resolve with something like a company level "NAT" but for phones? (not a question directed to you obviously :D )
- potiuper 5y agoEver hear "If you know the extension of the party you are trying to reach please enter it now."? Unfortunately, an extension standard does not seem to exist at the carrier level? But, NAT is also private. Some CMS likely has the ability to auto route a callback to the same extension/agent given his or her current status without requiring entering an extension.
- TeMPOraL 5y agoFrom the POV of the callee, that's not a legitimate use case. Honestly, I wish call centers would disappear.
- wombatpm 5y agoI just wish I could *7726 to report that the last call received was spam. Let the carriers figure out who to block since they connected the circuit. I’m sure if I called the Whitehouse with fake caller I’d and made a threat the secret service would track me down in a heartbeat. The problem is not that they can’t, it’s that they make money by not doing it
- encryptluks2 5y agoI am convinced that the issue can be fixed, but that too many people on the inside profiting from it. Robocallers cause financial ruin on the vulnerable and tie up critical infrastructure. They are literal terrorist and should be treated like it. I guarantee that they'll have a hard time finding people to handle those calls when they realize there are serious consequences, like having a drone drop a missle into your call center.