13 ms·
US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rightbyte 4y agoThe piece is censured in the EU ...
- btilly 4y agoWebsites have been given a practical choice between annoying popups and blocking Europe. It makes my life better when they block Europe, and I wish more did. I also wish Europe got rid of the GDPR.
- nullc 4y agoOr they could just not track people... pretty sad that this is unthinkable.
- krisoft 4y agoThere is also the the third option of course: not tracking users.
- Alupis 4y agoA lot of non-technical organizations deem it safer (and cheaper) to just block EU users than to study the law, become domain experts, and implement lawyer-approved mechanisms to become compliant. The reality is, however, unless you have a major presence in the EU, or are the size of Google or Facebook... you can freely ignore the GDPR without consequence. EU laws do not apply across the ocean.
- LordDragonfang 4y agoOnce again, that ignores the third option, simply not embedding javascript tracking bloat in your site, or at least serving that version to the EU (since they've clearly already spent the technical resources of identifying it and serving a different response). You don't need to be a legal expert to just not collect data you don't need.
- Alupis 4y agoIt's not that simple for non-technical organizations, I'm afraid. Simply embedding Google Analytics (the de facto website traffic analyzer, for better or worse) is enough to violate GDPR, and embedding Google Analytics is very often a simple checkbox in the web host admin portal. The "technical resources" involved in identifying EU traffic is nearly always just a simple IP block list, where one can often just checkmark a list of countries in their web host's portal. I think you grossly overestimate the technical prowess required to operate a website these days, and I think many grossly overestimate the actual real-world impact of GDPR outside the EU borders.
- LordDragonfang 4y agoGoogle Analytics is exactly the kind of tracker bloat I'm pointing out that a website serving static articles doesn't need. It can strip that out and serve a static html page, with no bloat, through Cloudflare, and even get their tracking through Cloudflare as well. The reason why such "technical prowess" is needed is because businesses have made it more complicated than it needs to be. Keep in mind, the context of this conversation is the arrogance of literally claiming claiming you are being "censored" (because that's what the 451 response code indicates), just because you refuse to remove tracking analytics from your website.
- Alupis 4y agoI think this is a forest and trees situation. Using things like Cloudflare, alternative niche "privacy conscience" trackers, adding GDPR popups, etc. are all way above an beyond your average website operator's abilities or understanding. The dude trying to sell custom T-Shirts has a website because it's a necessity to sell T-Shirts, not because he enjoys operating, optimizing and customizing websites. He just wants to sell more T-Shirts, and some European Union law isn't going to give him pause even for a second if he is physically not in a EU country. While good intentioned, the GDPR was specifically designed to be a "viral" law and force the entire internet to comply... unfortunately the EU's long arm of the law is fairly short. Further, the EU's ability to enforce the GDPR is limited to businesses physically under it's jurisdiction - ie. the US is not going to extradite some website operator for an alleged GDPR violation, no matter how severe the case may be, and the EU can only fine a business into compliance if the business cares about EU laws (which would imply a physical presence in the EU). Ignoring the GDPR is the right move for most websites. If people desire comprehensive, impactful privacy guarantees, then a similar law needs to be passed within the US.
- IntrepidWorm 4y agoThe effective result of GDPR has been less than ideal, but was a step in the right direction. Abolishing it entirely in favor of a vacuum would carry a more weighty cost.
- mrandish 4y agoThe frustrating part is that the unintended consequences of GDPR were inevitable and clearly foreseeable, yet it was passed into law anyway and now it's incredibly difficult (if not practically impossible) to fix through iterative adjustment. It often seems like politicians and bureaucrats are incapable of seeing the myriad ways their well-intended rules will fail in the real-world. Maybe all legislation should first have to pass an "Unintended Consequences Analysis" review. Meanwhile, GDPR is yet another disruptive annoyance to users, a burden on overworked, under-funded website teams and isn't delivering the benefits promised.
- powerhour 4y agoIt doesn't have to be disruptive to users, companies go out of their way to make it disruptive. As others here have said, companies can just stop adding code to track users and stop storing so much information. It's actually way less work.
- babypuncher 4y agoBut why blame the companies who are directly responsible for this annoyance when we can blame the government who is indirectly responsible?
- Innominate 4y agoThe GDPR covers tracking of users, but is much more broad in scope. Simply not tracking users doesn't stop the GDPR from applying. The GDPR provides a framework by which bad actors can do their thing legally without too much trouble. To a good actor, who only stores the data they actually need and doesn't track users, the GDPR still applies and is just as big a pain in the ass.
- babypuncher 4y agoWouldn't you rather websites just stop invading your privacy? The EU is not to blame for the shitty business practices of these websites.
- tzs 4y agoGDPR has compliance costs even if you are doing nothing that violates privacy. As long as you've got data that can be associated with a user you might have GDPR obligations, including handling inquiries from users about what data you have about them, requests from users to delete their data, and similar. Just being able to receive such requests has costs, because GDPR requires that you have a contact in the Union that users can contact for such things. So say you've got an online forum in California and some EU people join and participate. Whether or not that is enough to make you subject to GDPR depends on Article 3(2). There's lots of subjectiveness in Article 3(2) so it is not at all clear where the boundaries are. If it does, then whether or not you have to have an in-Union representative is covered under Article 27. You do not need one if your processing of covered data is all of the following: (1) occasional, (2) does not fall under some special categories of data, (3) is unlikely to result in a "risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons". That's pretty fuzzy. What is occasional processing? If you aren't sure that GDPR does not apply, or aren't sure that if it does your processing is occasional enough to fly under Article 27's radar, you need an Article 27 representative. Eventually there will be rulings from EU data regulators that will make the boundaries of Article 3(2) clearer, so that you may be able to stay in "does not apply" without blocking. Or maybe rulings will clarify Article 27 so you will be able to confidently determine that your processing is occasional enough to not need a rep. There's actually a lot of unclarity in GDPR. Take the data subject's right to have you delete their data. How do you actually implement that? Writing some scripts to delete from your database is probably not too hard. But what about backups? Do you need to go through all your backup sets and delete their data from those? What about printed records (yes, GDPR covers printed data)? Offsite long term archives? For a site like a forum, what about data that was in messages they posted that were quoted in messages from other users? Until all these kind of things are cleared up by EU data regulator rulings it can make a lot of sense for a site that is aimed mainly at a non-EU audience to block EU users.
- cbg0 4y agohttps://archive.ph/tRiQI https://archive.ph/tRiQI
- rightbyte 4y agoThanks I meed to bookmark that site. It is sad the hops you need to go through to browse the web.
- black_puppydog 4y agoCorrection: they claim that it is. The 451 code is specifically made for that, referencing Fahrenheit 451, so using this specific code implies censorship. However, it would be totally legal for them to provide the content. They just don't want to take responsibility for their privacy invading practices. So it's not censorship at all. /me shrugs. Personally, I have yet to find the website I can't just close if it behaves like this.
- nikanj 4y ago1) Let my filter out all calls not originating on an US/Canadian landline/mobile carrier 2) Yes, I’m happy to lose all calls that come via VoIP. 3) I don’t answer my phone anymore, so I miss those calls anyway 4) I’m very happy to sacrifice 1% of signal for 100% of noise
- powerhour 4y agoRelay the full trace of all IPs and switches involved in sending a call my way and give me a way to filter based on that trace. I want to block an entire source if they don't do a good job of screening their clients.
- hangonhn 4y agoSimilarly, if my phone would just allow me to do some simple filtering based on number or location, it would filter out 99% of all spam calls. I have a Florida number but have lived outside of Florida for about 2 decades. No one who I have any relationship with has a Florida number except for my family who are all in my contacts. Simply filter out my own area code but not in my contacts would eliminate the vast majority of spam calls. Yet, there is no built-in capability to do this on my iPhone as far as I can tell.
- boredumb 4y ago^ The fact I haven't lived in my numbers area code for a few decades as well I've noticed the exact same thing. If I don't have a contact for a number from that areacode it is 99.99999% chance of being a scam.
- thfuran 4y ago>Yes, I’m happy to lose all calls that come via VoIP At that point, why not just block everything other than contacts?
- dymk 4y agoBecause lots of legitimate callers to me are located in the US, calling from a cell phone or landline, and I don't have them in my contacts. For instance, contractors coming to do work on the house may be calling from any number of cell phones, or people buying things from Craigslist. For Craigslist, if I were to filter out all the non-US originating calls and texts, would probably result in all the spam being dropped and at no expense to legitimate buyers.
- 0xbadcafebee 4y agoDo we know if reporting a call as spam in Android gets reported to the FTC? Or do we need to file it as spam and report it ourselves to the FTC?
- z3c0 4y agoI'm not sure I'd want it to. On multiple occasions, I've received "returned" calls from people who have received scam calls from my number. I'm sure a lot of money would be wasted on red herrings if those reported numbers end up at the FTC.
- bluGill 4y agoThose should be reported too. I want the FTC to take action on falsified caller id! The more of these reports the FTC gets, the more likely to they are to take action. (action probably means talking to congress)
- jhot 4y agoThis spring I was applying for jobs so I answered my phone for more unknown numbers than usual. This has lead to a huge increase in spam calls that I receive on a daily basis and Google Phone's spam filter isn't strict enough for my liking (not to mention no longer available since I'm running GrapheneOS). If you're an Android and Tasker user you can take matters into your own hands and set Tasker as your call screen app. There are two different blocking types, one shows that you missed a call as a notification and one does not. I have set it so that all non-contact calls are rejected but I see a missed call notification. I also have a contact with a growing list of numbers that is rejected and I do not see a notification. Additionally there is a regex filter that rejects several area codes without a notification. When I start seeing more spam calls from a random area code in Michigan (or wherever), I just add that area code to my regex filter and then just have to worry about clearing my voicemail at the end of the day. If I'm expecting a call from a doctor or someone who is not a contact in my phone, I just turn off the profile and deal with some spam for a day. Of course, I would love some strict regulations around this, but I do no expect the legislation to go far enough or be effective (I'm in the US).
- dylan604 4y agoAre we at a place where as potential new hire candidates, we request a formal meeting to be scheduled or a quick text to let us know that the next call is legit? Or is it acceptable to tell hiring managers via checkbox on applications to say that all calls will be screened via voice mail, but will be checked with anticipation of it being a call to be returned promptly?
- ghaff 4y agoBeing high maintenance sounds like a poor job search tactic.
- dylan604 4y agoyes, but... it's not an unusual situation unique to that applicant. it's so rampant, that even the HR/hiring people will be subject to it and totally understand the request. if you want to stand out to me as a potential employer, being proactive and stating we don't have answer unknown calls as alternate arrangements via _____ method to set up a call.
- nus07 4y ago90% of those scam calls originate from one city in India- Kolkata. It’s a state that has had communist rule for over 30 years and now a government which also runs on anti-corporate agenda. As a result there are no industries and all jobs have dried up in that state of West Bengal. This is the only industry left and the local government and police turn a blind eye since they get kickbacks and is the only source of income in the state.
- Victerius 4y agoFascinating.
- snarf21 4y agoThis is the sadder but true point that we have too many people and many are stuck doing nonsense and scam work to try to feed their family.
- QuarterReptile 4y agoI find your misanthropy surprising since the parent provided a clear explanation of the problem. Nonetheless, it is a shame that they engage in such behavior and that they live under abusive government structures that funnel them into such things.
- snarf21 4y agoI understand the parent point that this is driven by corruption. The point I was trying to convey is that corruption isn't a sufficient reason for there to be literally zero other work that could feed a family. I don't blame the people, they are just trying to get by. But I think the majority of people worldwide find that a major portion of their work life is spent on nonsense work. I think this will only get worse as software and automation continues to eat the world. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
- rmatt2000 4y agoIt's interesting that failed communist regimes often seem to be succeeded by kleptocracies. I wonder if any political scientists have studied this and can explain why.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- onepointsixC 4y agoIt's absolutely insane that they are so ineffective. Major phone networks should be held responsible. I've been getting texts like crazy from spammer tries to get me to click their links. The messages are 100% identical and would be trivial to block.
- rafale 4y agoThe fact they are identical making it trivial today only.
- Night_Thastus 4y agoFrom other areas where spam is prevalent, I think it's an arms race issue. Sure, right now, that spam that's identical every time would be easy to detect and block. But if it's blocked, they start adding variation. Block that too and they get more and more creative. Every time a way to block the spam is found, the spammers just get more creative with getting around it. It's an arms race, and is essentially un-beatable because the spammers outnumber those trying to stop them by a magnitude or two.
- Drakim 4y agoI just have a hard time believing that's really what's gonna happen. I'm a 34 year old man living in a western country and I have not gotten one robot spam call nor spam text message in my life. I've gotten 5 fake Microsoft support calls, but always from a real human pretending to work for Microsoft.
- pradn 4y agoYes, but we've gotten quite good at blocking email spam. So much so that it's basically a solved problem for regular users using GMail or Outlook. There's no reason we can't achieve the same with text and phone call blocking. My iPhone is pretty accurate when it classifies incoming calls as "Spam Likely".
- ruined 4y agoyou're right. we should just give up, and allow ourselves to be overwhelmed now, instead of wasting all that time pointlessly resisting the inevitable. none of this will ever get better
- brk 4y agoIt is unfortunate that the cellular companies have allowed their core product (voice calls) to be so devalued that they need to be forced to solve this problem instead of just doing it naturally. The carriers are clearly customer-hostile, as this is really a very solvable problem. Instead, we now are moving to alternate mechanisms to manage audio calls (eg: Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook, etc.). My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls.
- dylan604 4y agoto the point, I used to refer to the device as a mobile phone or cell phone. now, because I so rarely use the "phone" app, it is just now my "device". 99% of the time my phone app gives me notifications is SPAM LIKELY reaching out to me, but won't take the hint that we broke up years ago and I have zero interest in touching base and catching up. however, if anyone of my known contacts actually uses the phone app to reach me, i know it must be significant to not use a text/chat app like 99.9% of our typical interactions take place. times have changed for phone calls, but the lack of Anti-Spam from these providers only hastened the change away from their core service
- ryandrake 4y agoImagine if nobody knew what a phone was, and then the device manufacturers suddenly introduced the phone app: it would outrage and annoy people! Here is an app that allows any rando person in the world to cause your device to wake up, interrupt whatever you are doing, display a notification, play a sound, vibrate, and if you push the green button, that rando person (identifiable by a spoofable string of numbers) can hear and talk to you! It would not be well received in 2022 where privacy and digital well-being is increasingly important to people. Yet for historical reasons, it’s pre-installed on every phone.
- dylan604 4y agoHow is that any different than a notification from any messaging, social media, or any app really with notifications turned on? They all know that the human brain is very susceptible to these notifications. At least with the old school phone, you could leave the receiver off hook to send the callers a busy signal or just unplugged.
- anjel 4y agoWith no evidence to back me up other than the daily volume of scam calls, I feel nevertheless confident concluding my cable company sells my "land line tel number" that "saves me money" on my cable bill to list brokers who service off-shore boiler room ops. One more reason to love the cable monopolists and their K Street influence peddlers.
- fuckcensorship 4y agoIf you’re on iOS, I highly recommend WideProtect [1] which allows you to define filters matching a range of numbers based on prefix. For example, you can block all numbers from a specific area code that you receive a lot of spam calls from. It has been an absolute lifesaver for me. [1]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wideprotect-spam-call-blocker/id1171024059 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wideprotect-spam-call-blocker/...
- sonofhans 4y agoSome weeks ago I broke my iPhone and had it replaced. During the process I had to get re-authorized with Verizon. They tried to call my partner to get her permission, since she's the account owner. Of course she never picked up the phone, because it was from an unknown caller. The irony is incredible: the literal phone company cannot use their own product to contact their own customers, because they have let that product become a cesspool of spam.
- jugg1es 4y agoMy wife had to drive all the way back home from the phone store recently because I wouldn't pick up my phone for this exact reason.
- koheripbal 4y agoAll the negative comments are focusing on the old-school providers, but it is worth noting that I get multiple daily spam calls on Google Fi service also.
- WaitWaitWha 4y agoCould she not leave a message? I have the same setup as someone here mentioning Tasker. I route all calls to voice mail, where I can decide if I need to call back. If they are not willing to leave a voice mail with a return number and reason, the call was not that important.
- matsemann 4y agoI have never in my life received or listened to a voice message. To me that's something from 90s movies. Weird how different things can be.
- trebbble 4y agoI don't listen to mine—I read them. Built-in feature on my phone, these days. iPhone, but I'd be surprised if Android doesn't have it, too. Quick glance is enough to tell if any of the recent ones were anything other than junk.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoNot trolling or being a bad HN citizen but: Why did this take so long? There are already laws on the books. New legislation (read: added time) isn't necessary. Everyone suffers from this problem. No one, sans the violators, is in favor of this problem. That is, it's a political win regardless of party, state, etc. Yet after years of pin-prick torture there's going to be a task force? I'm confused.
- synergy20 4y agoWhenever I got a call not speaking "your car warranty will expire soon" these days I feel like just won some lottery. Please put those who are doing this to jail for life. I will vote for you in the midterm election.
- rrauenza 4y agoA couple of weekends ago we got like 20 calls within 2 hours from the same scammer call center. I begged them to stop calling, telling the "agent" it was a waste of their time as they would not be able to scam me and it would be in their best interest to flag my number. I may have finally convinced one of them after talking to him more than once. BUT... at the same time my wife called AT&T and kind of read them the riot act. We figured if everyone started complaining maybe they'd get their collective act together and start solving this. Overhearing the call, it sounded like the agent recommended moving to VOIP to gain access to tools to help cut this down. If they can largely solve this on cell (we get maybe a 1/10th of the calls on cell) and voip, why can't they solve this for landlines? I suspect the industry has a vested interest to get us off of landlines/POTS.
- InCityDreams 4y agoI just answer the call, put the phone down, still live, and let them talk away whilst listening to my background noise. No call center supervisor is going to allow an employee to keep asking 'Hello....hello....can you hear me....?" for very long. As for robocalls...they just play all the way through. I don't care, as I'm not listening. I get very few spam calls compared to my friends and colleagues.
- 1-more 4y agothe free cruise scam has an INSANELY long script requiring very little interaction from me, the scammee. They read for over a minute uninterrupted. Then I give them a fake CC number from a generator. Then they get mad. Then I tell them to join the Naxalites. But even if I didn't interact with them they'd have a very long time on the line due to telling me all about the cruise. Haven't gotten one in a year or so. Would love to know why. Does the well dry up a bit for them on that one particular thing?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- baby 4y agoI'm actually wondering if I should shut down text messages and phone calls coming from unknown numbers. What would I lose? Basically restaurants calling me for a reservation or something but what else? Everybody I know uses WhatsApp now.
- throwaway98797 4y agosilence unknown callers in iOS is a life saver i get 2-20 spam call a day
- sebringj 4y agoidk I think this is a red herring. You have to ensure the technology itself isn't so susceptible to hacking. Gmail goes a long way to do this and Google is a technology company that helps other companies with their tech. Hmm, I wonder who can help?
- rr888 4y agoMy phone number is a robocall magnet like everyone else's, its the main reason I gave up a land line too. I only need it because so many sites require sending text messages for authentication (esp password resets). Fix authentication I am freed from phones.
- browningstreet 4y agoI have two contacts on my ATT iPhone to enable and disable cell network calling, based on this that I found somewhere: "You actually can turn off cellular network calling altogether, if you are willing to do that. Dial (star)#67# (or call 611 if it doesn't show up there) to see what number your voicemail center is. Then dial (star)21(star)1(that number)#. That will automatically forward all calls, at the network level, to your voicemail. To cancel this, dial #21#."
- mikeortman 4y agoA trick I've used to get certain robocalls to stop: once you get someone on the line, especially after they say the call is recorded. Offer them X amount of bitcoin, in escrow, if they callback to your number at later time and share details about who they work for and for access to their systems. Nobody has called my bluff, but usually that call center stops trying that scam to your number. I guess that's enough to trigger a do not call by their supervisors or they don't want to get in trouble by even hearing that opportunity. Unfortunately, I do occasionally get stuck in a system where I get a robocall, but once I get past the sweet robot named Mary asking for final living expense coverages, I now get a 'this number is no longer available' when transferred. After a couple of weeks, I do drop off that list too.
- Evidlo 4y agoSemi-related project I worked on: https://github.com/evidlo/nanpa_lookup https://github.com/evidlo/nanpa_lookup Simple bash script to lookup what companies own spam numbers. Almost all of my spam calls are from domestic VOIP companies. >>> ./lookup.sh -n 907-200-1234 "GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GENERAL COMMUNICATION" >>> ./lookup.sh -f path/to/numbers.txt "GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GENERAL COMMUNICATION" "CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS - NC" "ONVOY, LLC - TN"
- tzs 4y agoThat example doesn't work for me. It produces no output for that number. The problem seems to be that the entry in database.csv for that number is this: 907|200||GCI COMMUNICATION CORP. DBA GE|PCS||6872 Given 907-200-1234 lookup.sh looks it up by grepping for '907\|200\|1'. Compare to a number that works, 858-598-7654. That ends up grepping for '858\|598\|7' and that matches this line from database.csv: 858|598|7|T-MOBILE USA, INC.|PCS|tmomail.net|6529 In general lookup.sh looks for the first 3 digits of the phone number in the first field of database.csv, the second 3 digits in the second field, and the next digit in the third field. Looking up 907200 or 907-200 (but not 907-200-) will match. I'd guess that the database allows a blank third field to mean that the entry covers all numbers that match the first 6 digits that aren't covered by a more explicit entry. If that's the case the database is not using that mechanism optimally. For example there is this: 360|654||ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|0|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|1|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|2|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|3|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|4|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121 360|654|5|AT&T - LOCAL|CLEC||7421 360|654|6|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121 360|654|7|ONVOY, LLC - WA|CLEC||483E 360|654|8|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|9|ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 which could be reduced to: 360|654||ZIPLY FIBER NORTHWEST, LLC DBA|ICO||4324 360|654|4|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121 360|654|5|AT&T - LOCAL|CLEC||7421 360|654|6|LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC - |CLEC||6121 360|654|7|ONVOY, LLC - WA|CLEC||483E There are 92492 different 6 first digit combinations where the database has explicit entries for all 10 possible 7th digits has a wildcard/default entry also. Cleaning up all these will cut the database.csv size to 52% of its current size. Appended is a script to do that. Anyway, it seems like what lookup.sh should be doing is doing the 7 digit lookup like it does now, but if that doesn't match try a 6 digit lookup. Here's a script to clean up database.csv. The output is sorted by name not number, but a "sort -n" can fix that. #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; main(); sub main { my %db; my %wild; while (<>) { chomp; my($f3, $s3, $t1, @rest) = split /\|/; my $rest = join '|', @rest; my $key = "$f3|$s3|$rest"; if ($t1 eq '') { $wild{$key} = 1; } else { push @{$db{$key}}, $t1; } } foreach my $key (sort keys %db) { my($f3, $s3, @rest) = split /\|/, $key; my $rest = join '|', @rest; if ($wild{$key}) { print "$f3|$s3||$rest\n"; } else { if (10 == scalar(@{$db{$key}})) { print "$f3|$s3||$rest\n"; } else { foreach my $t1 (sort @{$db{$key}}) { print "$f3|$s3|$t1|$rest\n"; } } } } }
- WaitWaitWha 4y agoMy setup seems to work well for me. I have my mobile phone, which I never published. Only my family has it. I have a VoIP number tied to my mobile phone, and desktop computer. This allows me to take calls with my headset on, not just on my mobile. All calls from numbers not in my contacts list go to the VoIP voice mail, which gets auto-transcribed. (If it is English, it works well, but any other languages it fails.) If someone really wants to talk to me, they will leave a name, reason for the call, and the number I can call them back. I also use Tasker[0] on my Android mobile. The carrier charges a monthly fee to have the feature to identify spammers and auto-reject them. Type Incoming Number !C:ANY This rejects all calls that are not in the contacts list. [0] https://tasker.joaoapps.com/ https://tasker.joaoapps.com/
- orev 4y agoPhone companies are trying to turn this problem into a revenue generation “opportunity”. Not only do they get paid for the calls that traverse their network, but now they also want you to sign up for their “premium” blocking services, at a monthly cost, to stop them. This screams for not only a crackdown on the bad carriers who initiate the calls, but also on the big telcos who are double-dipping.
- Night_Thastus 4y agoWhat companies sell this additional premium service?
- cuteboy19 4y agoThat's a protection racket
- dpeck 4y agoOnly a task force? Not even a blue ribbon committee for the mess that public use comms has become?
- johnklos 4y agoThis is so easily fixable with the lessons we've learned with egress filtering on the Internet. Legally require large providers to never allow their customers to falsify caller ID. Then have the large providers disconnect small providers who pass along fraudulent caller ID until all small providers are either out of business or aren't facilitating spammers. It's literally that easy, but Congress has ducked this up time and time again, and the FCC has been neutered. We really need proper, technically sound legislation to fix this.
- jdeibele 4y ago"Falsifying caller ID" sounds bad but: 1) we get calls if one of our kids misses class. The number is of their school but they use an outside service. 2) we get calls from business on one of their lines but they want the number to show as the main number. Businesses have a few to a few thousand outgoing lines but they may have many too many thousand extensions. 3) there are people who work from home and call out to customers. There are legit reasons to falsify caller ID. The issue seems to be more "this call is from a number belonging to a Verizon Wireless customer but it's originating from John's Bait and Telco".
- johnklos 4y agoYou're confused about the meaning of "falsify": alter so as to mislead. Using a caller ID name / number that you have the right to use is, of course, fine. Using a caller ID name / number that is clearly and obviously not you is attempting to mislead. You can't walk in to a bank and say you're someone else. So, just like that, but with phones. But I really wonder why you think it necessary to make excuses for scammers...
- MiddleEndian 4y agoPut some sort of restriction or registration for falsifying ID. If I work for your school, can associate my number to your school, it's registered with the telco, and call you with that number showing up. Maybe I call the school first and all the calls go through them. Either way, still a verifiable chain of events. If some random scammer tries to set its ID to the school, the call should not go through. If for some reason the school lends out its number to scammers, then the school should face legal consequences along with the scammer.
- godelski 4y agoI've always wondered, why can't I find a phone app that auto reports calls to the FCC? Isn't this something Google and Apple should build in? Or is this something someone builds an app, it becomes popular, and then Google and Apple build it in? (I have less than zero app developing skills)
- srj 4y agoOne of the core issues here is that the "caller id" information is unauthenticated. If we could have the phones themselves receive all of the call routing information that the carrier has, we could build anti-spam technology against it.
- mastercheif 4y agoAn idea: Would it be possible to use phone number “extension” conventions to create a shared secret key that verifies that the caller is a trusted contact? Let’s say I’m at the DR’s office and I’d like them to call me with my test results. Before giving them my phone number, I pull out my phone, open the phone app, and tap the “new trusted contact extension” button. It then displays the text “ext 47901” and prompts me to input a contact name. Then, when I give the front desk my phone number, I give “5558081111*47901”. One could then have a setting on the phone for “send non-trusted contacts to voicemail”. Is this feasible from a technical standpoint? I think the motivation would be there (in the us at least) socially. I’d generate these ext numbers for close friends and family and whenever a business asks for my number. My inspiration was the Gmail “+” email address thing that allows one to create infinite sub-email addresses for specific purposes ie myemail+newsletters@gmail.com for easy filtering.
- galdosdi 4y agoA similar idea that a friend of mine implemented is, when he gets called, the caller hears this message "Thanks for calling (name); press one to be connected immediately" This filters out pretty much all spam!
- thewebcount 4y agoIt probably filters out legit calls, too. I used to have an answering machine (in the late 90s or early 2000's) that allowed you to have voice mailboxes for different people. We had it set up so you could "Press 1 to leave a message for (me), Press 2 to leave a message for (my spouse)". It was smart enough that if the caller didn't press a number, it would still record a message and put it into a catch-all category. Literally every call, even from friends and relatives, went into the catch-all category. I tried calling our phone from a friend's house and testing it out to make sure I hadn't set it up incorrectly. It worked just fine, but nobody ever pressed any number. They just heard, "Hi, we're not at home..." then ignored everything else and waited until they heard a beep.
- dwheeler 4y agoThe thieves have stolen our phones from us. I remember a time when I could answer my phone. Today phone calls are almost unknown, not because it's "out of fashion" but because thieves have stolen the ability to practically use phones. I would like my phone back, please.
- mrandish 4y ago> "The task force has already made demands to 20 of the gateway providers and entities that are allegedly responsible for the majority of the foreign robocalls. The task force believes that some of the providers are intentionally turning a blind eye to the offenders." Since it's all 50 U.S. State's Attorney Generals, this might actually help a little because AGs can file suits & subpoenas against US-based companies which are landing the offshore VOIP calls. This won't stop phone spammers entirely but it might raise their costs somewhat by pressuring their supply chain.
- JustSomeNobody 4y agoStop allowing phone numbers to be spoofed. Tell Big Corp (tm) to get stuffed if they have a problem with it.