5 ms·

Implementing a challenge system could be a potential solution. In this system, each outgoing call would require the caller to pay a dime as a deposit. If the re

Implementing a challenge system could be a potential solution. In this system, each outgoing call would require the caller to pay a dime as a deposit. If the recipient marks the call as legitimate after the conversation, either through the app or website, the caller would receive the dime back. To ensure customer convenience, inbound business numbers could have the option to opt out of the challenge deposit requirement, allowing customers to call in without any deposit. While requiring all outgoing calls to be charged might be more effective, it might not be a popular direction, especially in the United States. Thus, the challenge system with a deposit and the optional opt-out for inbound business numbers appears to be a more balanced and acceptable approach, considering both the need for legitimacy verification and user satisfaction.

j-bos 3y ago
This would be a cool idea for an email filter.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  There was a proposal for this in the 90s called Hashcash. Senders would have to brute force some random data to append onto email headers until they found some such that the first n bits of the hashed header were 0s. Sending emails would be computationally expensive, but not to a point that it would impact non-bulk users. The proof-of-work email use case never took really took off, but if you're acquainted with cryptocurrencies some parts of the implementation might sound familiar :)
c0nsumer 3y ago
Like STIR/SHAKEN to provide affirmation that the calling number is legit? https://ribboncommunications.com/company/media-center/blog/overview-stirshaken-what-it-and-why-it-important https://ribboncommunications.com/company/media-center/blog/o...
- unsignedint 3y ago
  STIR/SHAKEN is a mechanism that validates the origination of calls but doesn't verify the legitimacy of the call, which can only be determined by the recipient. While it is a good starting point to protect against spoofing, what we truly need is an end-to-end deterrent to prevent these annoying calls altogether. I believe that imposing a potential financial burden on the caller could be the only effective solution to counter these calls.
madsbuch 3y ago
While that would be a solution, it appears to be a solved problem. Neither my Portugese, nor my Danish number receives any robocalls. Frinds with US numbers get a lot of robocalls, though.
- lightbendover 3y ago
  Size of market.
  - arp242 3y ago
    I never got any in the UK either. Are you saying that 67 million people is too small of a market? Even the 10 and 6 million of Portugal and Denmark seems plenty large enough to make these type of things viable.
    - lightbendover 3y ago
      > Are you saying that 67 million people is too small of a market? Yes. If I'm a scammer, I'm going to target the most profitable single market that I understand. Building an international capability on top of that is a fairly large leap.
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        I can ensure you that both Portugal and Denmark has plenty og spam and scams. Also in local languages. Just not robocalls.
      - arp242 3y ago
        You can apply that reasoning to every product or service. Do you actually have any knowledge on this?
        lightbendover 3y ago
        Having worked on GTM strategies for nearly a dozen new technology products at an international company and seen countless more, I have more than reason to believe that targeting the entire world at once is almost never done. You do your market research and make the best decision you can, scamming is no different. Scamming’s addressable market is dictated by many factors other than population: mean income by cohort, regularity climate, normal liquidity situations, bank policies, etc..
coder543 3y ago
The recipient of the call would have zero incentive to mark any call as legitimate, so this system would not work due to sheer apathy. All calls would automatically be considered illegitimate. Unless you're proposing to also fine people 10 cents for every call that they receive that they don't mark as legitimate or illegitimate? That's not going to be popular either.
- unsignedint 3y ago
  Under the challenge system, your friend pays a dime for the call, providing an incentive for you to return that money unless you want to be inconsiderate. For other callers, like businesses, if the recipient does not mark the call as legitimate, they have the option to discontinue offering calls to that customer in the future or absorb the associated cost. To strike a balance, the cost for the challenge should be small enough for typical calling cases, allowing users to accept the occasional expense if necessary. However, as the calling volume becomes excessive, the cost should increase significantly, serving as a deterrent against excessive or spammy calling behavior. This way, the system encourages genuine calls while discouraging misuse of the service.
  - coder543 3y ago
    > Under the challenge system, your friend pays a dime for the call, providing an incentive for you to return that money unless you want to be inconsiderate. At most, this "consideration" would extend to a handful of people. In reality, no, most people would not care to mark calls as legitimate, even from friends. > For other callers, like businesses, if the recipient does not mark the call as legitimate, they have the option to discontinue offering calls to that customer in the future or absorb the associated cost. Yes, it would just be part of the cost of doing business. It would be a tax on all phone calls. No one would mark these calls as legit. > This way, the system encourages genuine calls while discouraging misuse of the service. Again, the incentives aren't aligned. It would not work. If you had proposed the opposite, your idea would have a much greater chance of working, but you didn't. If more than a handful of people mark a particular number as having called them illegitimately, then yes, fine that number a large sum of money. That would work. People are incentivized to complain when they receive spam calls and texts. People are not incentivized to confirm that normal calls are normal. Imagine applying this idea to credit card fraud instead of phone calls, so you had to mark every single credit card transaction as legitimate, or else the business gets charged an extra 10 cents. The customer faces no consequences for "forgetting" to mark the charges as legitimate. The people who empathize enough with the business to do that for every single charge would just be faced with a major hassle, and the credit card companies would have a null signal where most "illegitimate" (by default) charges are actually legitimate. People can already contest illegitimate credit card charges, and that system works much better than a default-illegitimate system.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> each outgoing call would require the caller to pay a dime as a deposit This means the single mom whose account is overdrawn, with only a debit card, can't call their bank to have the overdraft fee waived. For lack of ten cents.
- unsignedint 3y ago
  Or it could be handled more like a postpaid phone bill.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > it could be handled more like a postpaid phone bill There is still a strong predatory incentive for people with limited choices. Who wants to guess, for example, what cheque-cashing establishments will do? Or asshat landlords?
    - unsignedint 3y ago
      That's why I suggested (also in another thread) that the amount charged should be modest. I'm merely suggesting the concept and not the specifics. Perhaps businesses should be subjected to different types of regulations on how they can charge their clients under such a system, just like businesses are excluded from the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Oh come on. It would be nonsense to go all the way to the bank account every phone call. It would not work that way. Also you could waive the first several calls per day per number.

j-bos 3y ago

This would be a cool idea for an email filter.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
There was a proposal for this in the 90s called Hashcash. Senders would have to brute force some random data to append onto email headers until they found some such that the first n bits of the hashed header were 0s. Sending emails would be computationally expensive, but not to a point that it would impact non-bulk users. The proof-of-work email use case never took really took off, but if you're acquainted with cryptocurrencies some parts of the implementation might sound familiar :)

c0nsumer 3y ago

Like STIR/SHAKEN to provide affirmation that the calling number is legit? https://ribboncommunications.com/company/media-center/blog/overview-stirshaken-what-it-and-why-it-important https://ribboncommunications.com/company/media-center/blog/o...

unsignedint 3y ago
STIR/SHAKEN is a mechanism that validates the origination of calls but doesn't verify the legitimacy of the call, which can only be determined by the recipient. While it is a good starting point to protect against spoofing, what we truly need is an end-to-end deterrent to prevent these annoying calls altogether. I believe that imposing a potential financial burden on the caller could be the only effective solution to counter these calls.

madsbuch 3y ago

While that would be a solution, it appears to be a solved problem. Neither my Portugese, nor my Danish number receives any robocalls. Frinds with US numbers get a lot of robocalls, though.

lightbendover 3y ago
Size of market.
- arp242 3y ago
  I never got any in the UK either. Are you saying that 67 million people is too small of a market? Even the 10 and 6 million of Portugal and Denmark seems plenty large enough to make these type of things viable.
  - lightbendover 3y ago
    > Are you saying that 67 million people is too small of a market? Yes. If I'm a scammer, I'm going to target the most profitable single market that I understand. Building an international capability on top of that is a fairly large leap.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      I can ensure you that both Portugal and Denmark has plenty og spam and scams. Also in local languages. Just not robocalls.
    - arp242 3y ago
      You can apply that reasoning to every product or service. Do you actually have any knowledge on this?
      - lightbendover 3y ago
        Having worked on GTM strategies for nearly a dozen new technology products at an international company and seen countless more, I have more than reason to believe that targeting the entire world at once is almost never done. You do your market research and make the best decision you can, scamming is no different. Scamming’s addressable market is dictated by many factors other than population: mean income by cohort, regularity climate, normal liquidity situations, bank policies, etc..

coder543 3y ago

The recipient of the call would have zero incentive to mark any call as legitimate, so this system would not work due to sheer apathy. All calls would automatically be considered illegitimate. Unless you're proposing to also fine people 10 cents for every call that they receive that they don't mark as legitimate or illegitimate? That's not going to be popular either.

unsignedint 3y ago
Under the challenge system, your friend pays a dime for the call, providing an incentive for you to return that money unless you want to be inconsiderate. For other callers, like businesses, if the recipient does not mark the call as legitimate, they have the option to discontinue offering calls to that customer in the future or absorb the associated cost. To strike a balance, the cost for the challenge should be small enough for typical calling cases, allowing users to accept the occasional expense if necessary. However, as the calling volume becomes excessive, the cost should increase significantly, serving as a deterrent against excessive or spammy calling behavior. This way, the system encourages genuine calls while discouraging misuse of the service.
- coder543 3y ago
  > Under the challenge system, your friend pays a dime for the call, providing an incentive for you to return that money unless you want to be inconsiderate. At most, this "consideration" would extend to a handful of people. In reality, no, most people would not care to mark calls as legitimate, even from friends. > For other callers, like businesses, if the recipient does not mark the call as legitimate, they have the option to discontinue offering calls to that customer in the future or absorb the associated cost. Yes, it would just be part of the cost of doing business. It would be a tax on all phone calls. No one would mark these calls as legit. > This way, the system encourages genuine calls while discouraging misuse of the service. Again, the incentives aren't aligned. It would not work. If you had proposed the opposite, your idea would have a much greater chance of working, but you didn't. If more than a handful of people mark a particular number as having called them illegitimately, then yes, fine that number a large sum of money. That would work. People are incentivized to complain when they receive spam calls and texts. People are not incentivized to confirm that normal calls are normal. Imagine applying this idea to credit card fraud instead of phone calls, so you had to mark every single credit card transaction as legitimate, or else the business gets charged an extra 10 cents. The customer faces no consequences for "forgetting" to mark the charges as legitimate. The people who empathize enough with the business to do that for every single charge would just be faced with a major hassle, and the credit card companies would have a null signal where most "illegitimate" (by default) charges are actually legitimate. People can already contest illegitimate credit card charges, and that system works much better than a default-illegitimate system.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> each outgoing call would require the caller to pay a dime as a deposit This means the single mom whose account is overdrawn, with only a debit card, can't call their bank to have the overdraft fee waived. For lack of ten cents.

unsignedint 3y ago
Or it could be handled more like a postpaid phone bill.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > it could be handled more like a postpaid phone bill There is still a strong predatory incentive for people with limited choices. Who wants to guess, for example, what cheque-cashing establishments will do? Or asshat landlords?
  - unsignedint 3y ago
    That's why I suggested (also in another thread) that the amount charged should be modest. I'm merely suggesting the concept and not the specifics. Perhaps businesses should be subjected to different types of regulations on how they can charge their clients under such a system, just like businesses are excluded from the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Oh come on. It would be nonsense to go all the way to the bank account every phone call. It would not work that way. Also you could waive the first several calls per day per number.