5 ms·

Do you feel that telephone companies should take action when someone is using their services to harass a person, such as repeated prank calls or using SS7 signa

Do you feel that telephone companies should take action when someone is using their services to harass a person, such as repeated prank calls or using SS7 signalling to capture calls that aren’t theirs?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LinuxBender 4y ago
I believe that is a divergence from free speech when it delves into malicious intent or intent to do harm or intent to defraud. If I swat your home and someone is harmed or property is damaged as a result, I should most certainly be held culpable for any and all damages.
- freen 4y ago
  Intent to overthrow a free and fair election? Seditious conspiracy?
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    Sure. If it can be proven that one has intent to commit a crime then law enforcement should step in to handle the situation. This is probably not appropriate for the platform to manage as they are not the executive branch. The platform should make a best-effort to provide enough information for law enforcement to take over and use verbiage that is compatible with the legal system.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      >This is probably not appropriate for the platform to manage as they are not the executive branch. Not siding for private corps, but what happens when it is the executive branch doing the deeds that you are expecting the executive to crack down on?
      - LinuxBender 4y ago
        In my opinion that dilemma exists both inside and outside of tech. If my local Sheriff is abusing their authority then they must be removed and prosecuted. The same would be true for any branch of government. I accept that this is easier said than done, but it must be done.
    - jnwatson 4y ago
      The Cloudflare-like “we are not the executive branch” is so wrong-headed it is hard to know where to start. Imagine an effective executive branch that can handle all such enforcement. The size would be massive. You’re implicitly asking for a Chinese-government-like internet monitor capable of charging tens of thousands of people a day.
      - LinuxBender 4y ago
        This is not an easy problem and I agree that I would not want a totalitarian style government to be put in place to solve this. Rather I believe there should be a group reporting mechanism that raises the visibility of content to law enforcement similar to Echelon [1] and give folks menu options and categories to route things to the correct organization. This system should also be transparent so that people can see their content is being reported or even see that their content is at risk. This system should dynamically adjust thresholds based on the number of agents signed on otherwise they could be overwhelmed by alert fatigue. So for example, if I create posts saying I am going to shoot up a place, people should be able to report that and based on my location the appropriate law enforcement agents should see a red light on their dashboard. Moderators should have votes with higher weight. Agents can then investigate the content and mark it is "false alert" or as "credible threat" thus raising visibility to partner agencies. False reporting must also have consequences or the system would be abused to DDoS the assorted agencies. People that do not wish to participate in such a system might in theory find some tech-savvy friends to host private servers for the conversations that would otherwise be flagged as inciting or committing a crime. This removes risk and liability from the platform, its investors and moves the liability to the people creating the risk. There are a myriad of self hosted platforms with varying degrees of complexity or simplicity. [1] - https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/ECHELON?lang=en https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/ECHELON?lang=en
  - api 4y ago
    People are indeed going to jail for that right now. More are likely to follow. Some politicians will likely be barred from office. Swatting is a serious felony too and can get you serious time.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  You should be held culpable for swatting,but the telephone company should not.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    I mostly agree. The telephone company did not commit a crime through inaction but rather they indirectly facilitated a crime by not fixing their architecture with known security gaps to prevent it from occurring in the first place. These gaps have existed since the first non-telco SS7 private links were permitted. I say this knowing full well that SS7 will never be fixed. I maintained SS7 switches and understand the international complexity this dated system brings. Its a full topic in and of itself but I believe it is time to move everything off SS7, to what exactly I am not sure.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Even that is subject to debate. Is the telco responsible for maintaining an architecture where swatting is impossible? I think not. I think this limited liability is part of being a commons. The city isn't liable if a bank robber uses a road to escape. The Forrest service shouldn't be liable if a hiker trips and breaks their leg. Full liability leads to full restriction and full oppression
PubliusMI 4y ago
>prevent legal communication https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-prank-calls-get-you-arrested https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-pran...
kube-system 4y ago
I don’t think common carriers are prohibited from discriminating against illegal uses of their services.
zie 4y ago
When Tito asks their cell phone provider to not allow calls from Tootie, it just blocks the known endpoint of Tootie's from being able to call Tito, but it doesn't make any assumptions that Tootie is bad, or that Tito's version of reality is correct. It also doesn't make Tootie unable to communicate with anyone else. That is a far cry from a telephone company deciding(rightly or wrongly) that Tootie is harassing Tito or that it rises to a legal level of harassment and just blocking Tootie from the platform entirely. They are not in the judgement game here, they are in the make it easy for Tito to decide for himself if Tootie should be able to reach him via $TelephoneCompany. As for SS7 signalling, that's clearly breaking laws, that's a totally different thing.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  > As for SS7 signalling, that's clearly breaking laws, that's a totally different thing. Hate speech is illegal in many jurisdictions too. So are specific uses of phones for other purposes, aka "wire fraud." Of course, "you can only moderate speech that's illegal" is different from "you can moderate anything you want" but it's also incompatible with the ruling
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    But the phone company won't cancel your phone if you commit fraud. Even a convicted fraudster can still have home telephone service. The courts are responsible for determining the correct course of action, post-conviction. A court may rule that a convict can't use a phone as a condition of parole, but a phone company will never refuse service. No one is complaining about the courts pursuing crimes. The issue is extra-judicial punishments enacted by corporations often under pressure from the government.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  Absolutely correct. The point many are missing is that phone companies do not ban people from having a telephone based on their conduct. If I use my phone to say terrible things or even to commit felony fraud the police will investigate me, arrest me, I'll be tried and convicted and so on. But at no point will the phone company cancel my telephone service. Fraudsters can get phone service. Murders can get phone service. The court will place limits on the person, but it's unheard of for the phone company to restrict access because of conduct. The problem we're facing is that modern communications platforms (including social media) have very different norms. Some of those norms are imposed because of direct governmental regulatory influence. We're dragging various social media companies to testify before congress and openly pressuring them to censor with overt threats to their business. This destroys the notion that these companies are somehow engaging in censorship entirely of their own volition. This 5th circuit court ruling isn't framed right, but the underlying issue here does need to be addressed.
amluto 4y ago
> Do you feel that telephone companies should take action when someone is using their services to harass a person In a functioning society, no. This power and responsibility belongs to the judicial system. > or using SS7 signalling to capture calls that aren’t theirs? If SS7 had a real security model, then carriers should enforce that security model. In cases where the protocol security does not help (many cases, AIUI), then I think carriers probably should be able to enforce correct use of the system. (The latter has nothing in particular to do with who the offending SS7 user’s customers are or what they’re saying.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

LinuxBender 4y ago

I believe that is a divergence from free speech when it delves into malicious intent or intent to do harm or intent to defraud. If I swat your home and someone is harmed or property is damaged as a result, I should most certainly be held culpable for any and all damages.

freen 4y ago
Intent to overthrow a free and fair election? Seditious conspiracy?
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  Sure. If it can be proven that one has intent to commit a crime then law enforcement should step in to handle the situation. This is probably not appropriate for the platform to manage as they are not the executive branch. The platform should make a best-effort to provide enough information for law enforcement to take over and use verbiage that is compatible with the legal system.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >This is probably not appropriate for the platform to manage as they are not the executive branch. Not siding for private corps, but what happens when it is the executive branch doing the deeds that you are expecting the executive to crack down on?
    - LinuxBender 4y ago
      In my opinion that dilemma exists both inside and outside of tech. If my local Sheriff is abusing their authority then they must be removed and prosecuted. The same would be true for any branch of government. I accept that this is easier said than done, but it must be done.
  - jnwatson 4y ago
    The Cloudflare-like “we are not the executive branch” is so wrong-headed it is hard to know where to start. Imagine an effective executive branch that can handle all such enforcement. The size would be massive. You’re implicitly asking for a Chinese-government-like internet monitor capable of charging tens of thousands of people a day.
    - LinuxBender 4y ago
      This is not an easy problem and I agree that I would not want a totalitarian style government to be put in place to solve this. Rather I believe there should be a group reporting mechanism that raises the visibility of content to law enforcement similar to Echelon [1] and give folks menu options and categories to route things to the correct organization. This system should also be transparent so that people can see their content is being reported or even see that their content is at risk. This system should dynamically adjust thresholds based on the number of agents signed on otherwise they could be overwhelmed by alert fatigue. So for example, if I create posts saying I am going to shoot up a place, people should be able to report that and based on my location the appropriate law enforcement agents should see a red light on their dashboard. Moderators should have votes with higher weight. Agents can then investigate the content and mark it is "false alert" or as "credible threat" thus raising visibility to partner agencies. False reporting must also have consequences or the system would be abused to DDoS the assorted agencies. People that do not wish to participate in such a system might in theory find some tech-savvy friends to host private servers for the conversations that would otherwise be flagged as inciting or committing a crime. This removes risk and liability from the platform, its investors and moves the liability to the people creating the risk. There are a myriad of self hosted platforms with varying degrees of complexity or simplicity. [1] - https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/ECHELON?lang=en https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/ECHELON?lang=en
- api 4y ago
  People are indeed going to jail for that right now. More are likely to follow. Some politicians will likely be barred from office. Swatting is a serious felony too and can get you serious time.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
You should be held culpable for swatting,but the telephone company should not.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  I mostly agree. The telephone company did not commit a crime through inaction but rather they indirectly facilitated a crime by not fixing their architecture with known security gaps to prevent it from occurring in the first place. These gaps have existed since the first non-telco SS7 private links were permitted. I say this knowing full well that SS7 will never be fixed. I maintained SS7 switches and understand the international complexity this dated system brings. Its a full topic in and of itself but I believe it is time to move everything off SS7, to what exactly I am not sure.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Even that is subject to debate. Is the telco responsible for maintaining an architecture where swatting is impossible? I think not. I think this limited liability is part of being a commons. The city isn't liable if a bank robber uses a road to escape. The Forrest service shouldn't be liable if a hiker trips and breaks their leg. Full liability leads to full restriction and full oppression

PubliusMI 4y ago

>prevent legal communication https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-prank-calls-get-you-arrested https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-pran...

kube-system 4y ago

I don’t think common carriers are prohibited from discriminating against illegal uses of their services.

zie 4y ago

When Tito asks their cell phone provider to not allow calls from Tootie, it just blocks the known endpoint of Tootie's from being able to call Tito, but it doesn't make any assumptions that Tootie is bad, or that Tito's version of reality is correct. It also doesn't make Tootie unable to communicate with anyone else. That is a far cry from a telephone company deciding(rightly or wrongly) that Tootie is harassing Tito or that it rises to a legal level of harassment and just blocking Tootie from the platform entirely. They are not in the judgement game here, they are in the make it easy for Tito to decide for himself if Tootie should be able to reach him via $TelephoneCompany. As for SS7 signalling, that's clearly breaking laws, that's a totally different thing.

kevingadd 4y ago
> As for SS7 signalling, that's clearly breaking laws, that's a totally different thing. Hate speech is illegal in many jurisdictions too. So are specific uses of phones for other purposes, aka "wire fraud." Of course, "you can only moderate speech that's illegal" is different from "you can moderate anything you want" but it's also incompatible with the ruling
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  But the phone company won't cancel your phone if you commit fraud. Even a convicted fraudster can still have home telephone service. The courts are responsible for determining the correct course of action, post-conviction. A court may rule that a convict can't use a phone as a condition of parole, but a phone company will never refuse service. No one is complaining about the courts pursuing crimes. The issue is extra-judicial punishments enacted by corporations often under pressure from the government.
throwaway09223 4y ago
Absolutely correct. The point many are missing is that phone companies do not ban people from having a telephone based on their conduct. If I use my phone to say terrible things or even to commit felony fraud the police will investigate me, arrest me, I'll be tried and convicted and so on. But at no point will the phone company cancel my telephone service. Fraudsters can get phone service. Murders can get phone service. The court will place limits on the person, but it's unheard of for the phone company to restrict access because of conduct. The problem we're facing is that modern communications platforms (including social media) have very different norms. Some of those norms are imposed because of direct governmental regulatory influence. We're dragging various social media companies to testify before congress and openly pressuring them to censor with overt threats to their business. This destroys the notion that these companies are somehow engaging in censorship entirely of their own volition. This 5th circuit court ruling isn't framed right, but the underlying issue here does need to be addressed.

amluto 4y ago

> Do you feel that telephone companies should take action when someone is using their services to harass a person In a functioning society, no. This power and responsibility belongs to the judicial system. > or using SS7 signalling to capture calls that aren’t theirs? If SS7 had a real security model, then carriers should enforce that security model. In cases where the protocol security does not help (many cases, AIUI), then I think carriers probably should be able to enforce correct use of the system. (The latter has nothing in particular to do with who the offending SS7 user’s customers are or what they’re saying.)