19 ms·

The FCC wants to criminalize AI robocall spam

229 points by mikece 3y ago

webninja 3y ago
I keep hearing this same news story but nothing is happening. Maybe if this doesn’t get enough momentum, finding the phone numbers of the FCC chairmen and telecom company presidents and signing them up for spam would do the trick. It’s one of those things that would aggravate one person but would benefit the rest of the country.
interbased 3y ago
> Current laws require telemarketers to have explicit consent from consumers before they can make automated calls using "an artificial or prerecorded" voice. Rosenworcel believes the same rules should apply for AI-generated robo-calls too. I'm confused by this part. How is AI not already included the current law of "artificial or prerecorded"?
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  > FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today proposed that the FCC recognize calls made with AI-generated voices are “artificial” voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), The FCC chair here is not saying "we should make a new law saying AI is artificial and illegal for robocalls" but saying "in our opinion AI calls are already classed as artificial under this well-tested law. Please go out and sue some people under the TCPA, here are tools to do that and we'll support your efforts in doing so." Basically the FCC thinks the existing law covers it, but, it hasn't been tested in a court yet.
advisedwang 3y ago
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the TCPA does not define or allow the FCC to define a crime. It's purely a civil action. So the headline is misleading.
6DM 3y ago
Doubt it will do anything to curb the current level of spam, not to mention its transitioning from calls to text, now that people have learned to just not answer their phone.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  A2P/10DLC registration seems to have curbed SMS spam for me significantly. As annoying as it was to comply with, I think it's useful (so far?)
  - NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
    What is that?
    - kelnos 3y ago
      A2P = Application to phone, essentially any SMS/MMS sent to a phone by an app or automated process, and not by a human just texting. 10DLC = 10-digit longcodes; in the US (well, NANP), "regular" phone numbers are 10 digits long. This is as opposed to shortcodes, which are usually 5- or 6-digit numbers (though there are some that are shorter) that are sold to specific customers after an approval process where all US mobile carriers have to sign off on their use cases. If you spam, you get your shortcode revoked. They generally cost on the order of $1000+ per month, while you can usually get a longcode for $1/mon or less. Over the past few years the US telcos have (due to regulatory action, not of their own choice) started requiring that anyone using 10DLCs for A2P use cases need to register: who they are, how responsible parties can be contacted, and what they plan to use the numbers for. Don't do this and your messages will likely be silently dropped.
      - NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
        [dead]
  - dylan604 3y ago
    I think it just comes in waves. Since the beginning of the year, I've received more spam texts and calls being silenced by my phone than I did all of last year.
binarysolo 3y ago
I remember a time when I'd pick up every single call received... now it's the opposite, I only have it ring on recognized phone numbers + I skim voicemails, filter out the ones that leave the 3-4s of silence or autoplay text, and call back those who actually have business purpose with me. If there exist AI robocalls that start spoofing my friends and loved ones... ugh, I can just imagine the hassle of doing due diligence for every voicemail going forward. (This does kinda remind me of the scams where someone pretends to be a kidnapped distant family member, cries in the background of the call, and asks for ransom money....)
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Same. If you're not already in my address book, I'm not answering your call. I don't have voice mail set up either.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    That's not realistic for many people. I don't have every doctor's office that I might come in contact with in my contact database. Nor every emergency service that may contact me because of an elderly relative or someone else. And presumably you don't have a landline either so you're simply choosing to make yourself not contactable. Which isn't a reasonable option for a lot of people assuming there are alternatives.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      That's fair. I don't have any elderly relatives I'm responsible for, but if/when that situation arrises I'd probably try to set up contact records for their caregivers and providers. It's a shame that scammers and spammers have ruined our telecommunications system and that the telecom companies haven't done anything about it.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        You probably should have at least an option to go to voicemail. I do get messages from offices I don't have in my contacts database that I generally want to receive. Ignoring total junk is mostly fairly painless at least for me.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39220462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39220462
dahart 3y ago
Meh feels like something without teeth that won’t really help. I’d rather see the FCC require telcos & celcos to require caller authentication so that spam calls can be traced to their source and cannot be anonymous, and so that spammers can no longer spoof numbers. I’m cynical about this and I’d love to be wrong, but get the feeling the FCC doesn’t dare to do things that will make a real difference, or worse, actively looks the other way, since the service providers make money on spam calling and will throw a fit if regulation gets in the way of their profits.
teeray 3y ago
If a carrier delivers a spam text or call, if they can’t definitively prove who sent it, it should be treated as though the carrier themselves sent it (and fined accordingly). Watch how fast telcos mandate authentication and other KYC measures after that.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  This is literally the 'carrier liability exemption' that section 230 is based on, HN gets all up in arms whenever carrier liability is threatened to be taken from internet sites...
- webninja 3y ago
  Should just apply to Telcos over a certain subscriber size. So, the Big 3 only. Don’t want to squash new competition into the market with new regulations.
- hackideiomat 3y ago
  I don't want that?
- partitioned 3y ago
  How is this a better world than getting spam calls
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    How is it not? It'll cut down on spam and other antisocial behavior (e.g., unsolicited intimate images).
- viraptor 3y ago
  I'm not sure why you want to connect that fine to kyc-style behaviour. Just apply the first part and fines. Essentially "you pay the fine unless you can forward it to the entity that originated the call". That would solve the issue just fine. Telcos already know where the connections come from and who to bill for what. Someone just needs to mandate it.
m3kw9 3y ago
They barely scraped thru human spam, they better ban this sht
joshstrange 3y ago
Can they make it criminal to send spam SMS as well? I get multiple sms from political candidates (that I didn't sign up for, in fact if they address me by name it's the wrong name) every day. They always come from a new number so blocking doesn't work. Responding "STOP" doesn't work either since they hop numbers constantly and ignore stops. There is no way to stop the barrage of text messages and it's driving me insane.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  In australia, political messages are exempt from anti spam and anti junk mail laws. Politicians think they’re above everyone else, which evidently in this case they’re literally above the law.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    I’ve had Amnesty International contacting me at work, using the “exemption for humanitarian emergencies” to say “We can’t remove you from mail lists, it’s a humanitarian emergency.” Highly annoying to be doxxed by who you’ve been donating to. Actually, there is a solution: Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too.
    - bootsmann 3y ago
      You actually just need to say you're an EU citizen, GDPR applies globally.
      - tzs 3y ago
        Nothing in GDPR says anything about EU citizens. Everyplace it talks about data subjects it talks about data subjects "in the Union". If he is not "in the Union" and the processor or controller processing his data is not "established in the Union" then GDPR does not apply. See Article 3 [1] for details. [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
doener 3y ago
Previous link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218669
alkonaut 3y ago
Why were Robocalls allowed to begin with, back when they were taped messages? From the beginning you couldn't screen calls to your home (no called ID) so it must have been infuriating to get up from the couch to answer a robocall? If regulation had been sane from the beginning maybe this discussion wouldn't be necessary (I can't imagine robocalls are legal in many other places? I haven't gotten one in my entire life).
- b112 3y ago
  Before the big Ma Bell split up, due to them being a monopoly, even local calls were often charged. And long distance rates were horrible, and there were none of these independents. Back then, there wasn't a reason, because such call devices cost hard cash per call. And it's really only gotten super bad the last decade.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > Why were Robocalls allowed to begin with, Because money. Duh.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    I don’t follow. Companies don’t vote but voters have to answer robocalls.
    - Karellen 3y ago
      Companies vote with their $$$, and are happy to donate to any and all political parties to do their bidding, so a) Unless it's a core part of what differentiates party A from party B, voters won't pay that much attention (compared to other issues), so parties can have the same (lack of) policy that favors the companies, to keep those donations flowing. b) If the parties all have the same policy, there's no-one the voters can vote for to work in their interests on that issue, so they'll vote for whoever they were going to vote for anyway on the other issues.
      - alkonaut 3y ago
iancmceachern 3y ago
They need to ban the software and equipment that let's them make the calls.
- AgentOrange1234 3y ago
  I don't see how that would work? Isn't this all general purpose stuff at this point?
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    The ingredients to make an explosive are too, but we've made that illegal, I think we can figure out something
- criddell 3y ago
  It would be nice if we could hold the carriers responsible. If they have to start paying penalties from allowing spammers on their network, things might change.
- viraptor 3y ago
  Software which allows robocalls is ~10 lines of code these days. You can't ban that idea. You can create your own in under an hour if you've dealt with VoIP systems before.
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    Making an explosive device or 3d printing a gun is similarly easy, but illegal
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    Lock picks are just some metal wire, but are illegal unless your a locksmith to carry around.
    - viraptor 3y ago
      Quite a few issues with this comparison: That's heavily dependent on location and usually requires the intent as well. I'm not a locksmith and have a set. They're also quite a bit more involved than a metal wire - you're not making your own quickly. Then there's multiple use. There's no/minimal difference between a script doing automated support callbacks and spam calls. You take a list of numbers, dial and connect the other end, handle hangups, do some reporting on connection success/failure. The completely isolated "other end" is either a person or an automated message or a combination of both. There's really no reason to deal with any code here specifically, rather than just making the result illegal and enforcing that.
emsign 3y ago
Thank you! I welcome this.
TrackerFF 3y ago
I never get robocalls on my private phone, but probably get 2-3 a day on my work phone. Most are easy to detect, simply because they're foreign numbers. What is worse, are the spoofed numbers. Because it could be related to work, I have to answer those. I've lost count how many times I've called someone back, mere seconds after missing the call, only to get some frustrated person on the other end: "I'm so sorry, people have been calling me all day, asking why I've tried to call them" "I don't know why my phone number is being used for this" "What, I didn't call you? You must have the wrong number" etc.
- Lendal 3y ago
  This is specifically about AI-generated voices you'd recognize, like spoofing Joe Biden's or Nancy Pelosi's voice, for example.
Asmod4n 3y ago
I still wonder why this isn’t a problem in Germany, i get at most one spam call per year.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Here's some clues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...
msoad 3y ago
As someone who lived in the US and now in Germany I just want to tell my American friends that this is not a problem in Germany as far as I know. My German number never gets any spam calls and my friends never talk about spam calls. It's the corporate greed that gets in the way of doing the right thing over there...
- throw10920 3y ago
  > It's the corporate greed that gets in the way of doing the right thing over there... That's absolutely bonkers. "Corporate greed" is a fuzzy, unprovable, politically-charged and highly unlikely to actually be true catchphrase that means nothing. The fault lies with the US government - there's nothing that prevents it from acting in the interests of their representatives and implementing anti-spam laws, like you did in Germany. There's no difference between German companies and US companies that somehow makes one "greedier" than the other, either. This comment is a nothingburger that, quite honestly, does not belong on HN.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  It's not like us Germans are free from scams... we have Turkish callcenters who scam dozens of millions of euros [1]. [1] https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/hallo-muenchen/callcenter-betruegern-tuerkei-1128-jahre-haft-ag-phaenomene-polizei-muenchen-opfer-bande-bayern-91817302.html https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/hallo-muenchen/callcenter-b...
  - msoad 3y ago
    I believe you, scam is everywhere. What you experience in the US is different. In the news article you sent it's obviously something that they could track down and sentence the fraudsters to jail. In the US you get multiple calls from those robo-callers per day and you practically can't do nothing about it. This is why Apple added "mute unknown callers" to iPhones. This is the best strategy most people have at this point.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      In the US I haven't had such a call in more than a year. The US already cracked down on spam calls (that is routing spam calls). You may remember complaints about how bad things were a year ago though, but things change. What is new is now AI can fake voices and conversations. This makes the cost of such SPAM is lower, and also you can frame someone else. Both of these give incentive to find work around to the current systems (no system is perfect)
bithead 3y ago
I'm on the federal do-not-call list. Isn't it $500 per call, and $1500 if they don't give a business address when asked? I get at least 6 per day on average. Occasionally I don't get any. I stopped answering my phone a the 12 per day peak. I figure if it's really important they'll leave a message.
- djbusby 3y ago
  I'm not in any list and get like zero per day. One a week maybe. How am I so lucky?
- coldpie 3y ago
  > Isn't it $500 per call, and $1500 if they don't give a business address when asked? Sure. How should they collect that from the overseas scammers who called you? Internationally sourced calls should be opt-in, this would solve the non-political portion of the spam problem. Almost no one needs to receive calls from overseas.
b8 3y ago
I still get invalid number calls sometimes and I use Google's PixelAI screening. It doesn't even show me the option to screen the call manually. Also, if a robocaller calls twice then they bypass my Pixel's screening feature.
ongytenes 3y ago
I use to prank the telemarketers but unable to with robo callers. One a woman called wanting me to switch long distance carriers. I halfway listened to her spill for twenty minutes while watching TV. Finally she wanted me to switch. Told her I couldn't for I was house sitting. She asked about my home number. Told her I only had a beeper. She asked me why I let her talk so long. Told her she had such a lovely voice and I enjoyed listening to it. She slammed the phone down on me.
- AlwaysRock 3y ago
  For years I got a spam call every morning during my commute to work. I found Lenny the automated old person who would keep callers on the line from anywhere from 2-20 minutes. It really was fun listening to callers freak out when they realized what was happening.
kova12 3y ago
I would applaud if FCC goes even further, and bans the robots from use in any business, which is required to accept calls For example: government forces me to have health insurance, and health insurance is unable to satisfy my needs online - DON'T FORCE ME TALK TO YOUR ROBOTS. These don't typically recognize my voice, and frankly speaking "How can we help you? You can say anything" sounds like an insult to me. Many of the businesses don't even offer touch-tone navigation anymore. It used to be that "Say blablabla, blablabla, or blablabla" meant you could use "1", "2", or "3" respectively, but now even that is no longer working in many cases. Hire f*ng human, or don't offer phone line at all.
n4jm4 3y ago
See "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
robomartin 3y ago
The solution to this problem doesn't have to be complex at all. Conceptually (meaning, all details are not covered here): - The caller/message-sender pays a per-call fee - For example, $1.00 flat fee - If the caller is in your address book, the charge is $0 - If you call them back, the charge is $0 - If you approve the caller, the charge is $0 - The person receiving the call earns a portion of the fee (30% ?) - Etc. If implemented correctly, on average, no legitimate caller pays this extra per-call or per-message fee. Machine learning could be used to augment effectiveness and reduce or eliminate fees when two people or entities know each other. For example, a company receives tons of customer service calls. Most callers might be unknown to the company (think Amazon customer service). There has to be a mechanism through which callers don't get stuck with a $1 fee just for calling to get support. This is where a detailed design of this type of a solution would be necessary. What this does do, I think, is create a situation where it would (should) cost spammers millions of dollars to reach millions of people with unwanted calls or messages. Another element of this is that consumers would make money from these stupid calls or texts. They should. If someone wants to consume somebody else's time, they should pay for it. Which brings-up another twist to this idea: Maybe people should be able to set a rate for unsolicited calls or messages. I could, for example, set my rate to $10 per minute and a 15 minute minimum. If you call me and I don't know you, the cost to talk to me or leave a message is a minimum of $150. If I call you back, the charge is negated. I can also tell the system not to charge you. Etc. Upon making a call, the caller hears: "This number charges a $150 for anonymous calls. Press 1 to accept." If it is a message, they receive a reply: "This number charges a $150 for anonymous messages. Reply YES to accept." The receiver gets a pop-up that might say: "Unknown caller: <insert name or number>." "Accept and charge $150 fee" "Accept and charge $0" "Cancel" Details would have to be worked out, of course. There are lots of ways to implement something like this such that legitimate callers are not charged any fees. Legislation and a technical infrastructure would be required to drive such a system. The reason this nonsense persists is because the cost is low and potential return on investment is high. If that equation is flipped, the nonsense stops.
fennecbutt 3y ago
He he he, because it's AI and new and shiny and they want to be seen actually doing something by the public eye. Where have they been all this time that regular spam calls have been a thing lmao

229 points by mikece 3y ago

I keep hearing this same news story but nothing is happening. Maybe if this doesn’t get enough momentum, finding the phone numbers of the FCC chairmen and telecom company presidents and signing them up for spam would do the trick. It’s one of those things that would aggravate one person but would benefit the rest of the country.

interbased 3y ago

> Current laws require telemarketers to have explicit consent from consumers before they can make automated calls using "an artificial or prerecorded" voice. Rosenworcel believes the same rules should apply for AI-generated robo-calls too. I'm confused by this part. How is AI not already included the current law of "artificial or prerecorded"?

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
> FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today proposed that the FCC recognize calls made with AI-generated voices are “artificial” voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), The FCC chair here is not saying "we should make a new law saying AI is artificial and illegal for robocalls" but saying "in our opinion AI calls are already classed as artificial under this well-tested law. Please go out and sue some people under the TCPA, here are tools to do that and we'll support your efforts in doing so." Basically the FCC thinks the existing law covers it, but, it hasn't been tested in a court yet.

advisedwang 3y ago

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the TCPA does not define or allow the FCC to define a crime. It's purely a civil action. So the headline is misleading.

6DM 3y ago

Doubt it will do anything to curb the current level of spam, not to mention its transitioning from calls to text, now that people have learned to just not answer their phone.

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
A2P/10DLC registration seems to have curbed SMS spam for me significantly. As annoying as it was to comply with, I think it's useful (so far?)
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  What is that?
  - kelnos 3y ago
    A2P = Application to phone, essentially any SMS/MMS sent to a phone by an app or automated process, and not by a human just texting. 10DLC = 10-digit longcodes; in the US (well, NANP), "regular" phone numbers are 10 digits long. This is as opposed to shortcodes, which are usually 5- or 6-digit numbers (though there are some that are shorter) that are sold to specific customers after an approval process where all US mobile carriers have to sign off on their use cases. If you spam, you get your shortcode revoked. They generally cost on the order of $1000+ per month, while you can usually get a longcode for $1/mon or less. Over the past few years the US telcos have (due to regulatory action, not of their own choice) started requiring that anyone using 10DLCs for A2P use cases need to register: who they are, how responsible parties can be contacted, and what they plan to use the numbers for. Don't do this and your messages will likely be silently dropped.
    - NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
      [dead]
- dylan604 3y ago
  I think it just comes in waves. Since the beginning of the year, I've received more spam texts and calls being silenced by my phone than I did all of last year.

binarysolo 3y ago

I remember a time when I'd pick up every single call received... now it's the opposite, I only have it ring on recognized phone numbers + I skim voicemails, filter out the ones that leave the 3-4s of silence or autoplay text, and call back those who actually have business purpose with me. If there exist AI robocalls that start spoofing my friends and loved ones... ugh, I can just imagine the hassle of doing due diligence for every voicemail going forward. (This does kinda remind me of the scams where someone pretends to be a kidnapped distant family member, cries in the background of the call, and asks for ransom money....)

SoftTalker 3y ago
Same. If you're not already in my address book, I'm not answering your call. I don't have voice mail set up either.
- ghaff 3y ago
  That's not realistic for many people. I don't have every doctor's office that I might come in contact with in my contact database. Nor every emergency service that may contact me because of an elderly relative or someone else. And presumably you don't have a landline either so you're simply choosing to make yourself not contactable. Which isn't a reasonable option for a lot of people assuming there are alternatives.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    That's fair. I don't have any elderly relatives I'm responsible for, but if/when that situation arrises I'd probably try to set up contact records for their caregivers and providers. It's a shame that scammers and spammers have ruined our telecommunications system and that the telecom companies haven't done anything about it.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      You probably should have at least an option to go to voicemail. I do get messages from offices I don't have in my contacts database that I generally want to receive. Ignoring total junk is mostly fairly painless at least for me.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39220462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39220462

dahart 3y ago

Meh feels like something without teeth that won’t really help. I’d rather see the FCC require telcos & celcos to require caller authentication so that spam calls can be traced to their source and cannot be anonymous, and so that spammers can no longer spoof numbers. I’m cynical about this and I’d love to be wrong, but get the feeling the FCC doesn’t dare to do things that will make a real difference, or worse, actively looks the other way, since the service providers make money on spam calling and will throw a fit if regulation gets in the way of their profits.

teeray 3y ago

If a carrier delivers a spam text or call, if they can’t definitively prove who sent it, it should be treated as though the carrier themselves sent it (and fined accordingly). Watch how fast telcos mandate authentication and other KYC measures after that.

NikkiA 3y ago
This is literally the 'carrier liability exemption' that section 230 is based on, HN gets all up in arms whenever carrier liability is threatened to be taken from internet sites...
webninja 3y ago
Should just apply to Telcos over a certain subscriber size. So, the Big 3 only. Don’t want to squash new competition into the market with new regulations.
hackideiomat 3y ago
I don't want that?
partitioned 3y ago
How is this a better world than getting spam calls
- torstenvl 3y ago
  How is it not? It'll cut down on spam and other antisocial behavior (e.g., unsolicited intimate images).
viraptor 3y ago
I'm not sure why you want to connect that fine to kyc-style behaviour. Just apply the first part and fines. Essentially "you pay the fine unless you can forward it to the entity that originated the call". That would solve the issue just fine. Telcos already know where the connections come from and who to bill for what. Someone just needs to mandate it.

m3kw9 3y ago

They barely scraped thru human spam, they better ban this sht

joshstrange 3y ago

Can they make it criminal to send spam SMS as well? I get multiple sms from political candidates (that I didn't sign up for, in fact if they address me by name it's the wrong name) every day. They always come from a new number so blocking doesn't work. Responding "STOP" doesn't work either since they hop numbers constantly and ignore stops. There is no way to stop the barrage of text messages and it's driving me insane.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
In australia, political messages are exempt from anti spam and anti junk mail laws. Politicians think they’re above everyone else, which evidently in this case they’re literally above the law.
- eastbound 3y ago
  I’ve had Amnesty International contacting me at work, using the “exemption for humanitarian emergencies” to say “We can’t remove you from mail lists, it’s a humanitarian emergency.” Highly annoying to be doxxed by who you’ve been donating to. Actually, there is a solution: Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too.
  - bootsmann 3y ago
    You actually just need to say you're an EU citizen, GDPR applies globally.
    - tzs 3y ago
      Nothing in GDPR says anything about EU citizens. Everyplace it talks about data subjects it talks about data subjects "in the Union". If he is not "in the Union" and the processor or controller processing his data is not "established in the Union" then GDPR does not apply. See Article 3 [1] for details. [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

doener 3y ago

Previous link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39218669

alkonaut 3y ago

Why were Robocalls allowed to begin with, back when they were taped messages? From the beginning you couldn't screen calls to your home (no called ID) so it must have been infuriating to get up from the couch to answer a robocall? If regulation had been sane from the beginning maybe this discussion wouldn't be necessary (I can't imagine robocalls are legal in many other places? I haven't gotten one in my entire life).

b112 3y ago
Before the big Ma Bell split up, due to them being a monopoly, even local calls were often charged. And long distance rates were horrible, and there were none of these independents. Back then, there wasn't a reason, because such call devices cost hard cash per call. And it's really only gotten super bad the last decade.
Karellen 3y ago
> Why were Robocalls allowed to begin with, Because money. Duh.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  I don’t follow. Companies don’t vote but voters have to answer robocalls.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    Companies vote with their $$$, and are happy to donate to any and all political parties to do their bidding, so a) Unless it's a core part of what differentiates party A from party B, voters won't pay that much attention (compared to other issues), so parties can have the same (lack of) policy that favors the companies, to keep those donations flowing. b) If the parties all have the same policy, there's no-one the voters can vote for to work in their interests on that issue, so they'll vote for whoever they were going to vote for anyway on the other issues.
    - alkonaut 3y ago

iancmceachern 3y ago

They need to ban the software and equipment that let's them make the calls.

AgentOrange1234 3y ago
I don't see how that would work? Isn't this all general purpose stuff at this point?
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  The ingredients to make an explosive are too, but we've made that illegal, I think we can figure out something
criddell 3y ago
It would be nice if we could hold the carriers responsible. If they have to start paying penalties from allowing spammers on their network, things might change.
viraptor 3y ago
Software which allows robocalls is ~10 lines of code these days. You can't ban that idea. You can create your own in under an hour if you've dealt with VoIP systems before.
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Making an explosive device or 3d printing a gun is similarly easy, but illegal
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Lock picks are just some metal wire, but are illegal unless your a locksmith to carry around.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    Quite a few issues with this comparison: That's heavily dependent on location and usually requires the intent as well. I'm not a locksmith and have a set. They're also quite a bit more involved than a metal wire - you're not making your own quickly. Then there's multiple use. There's no/minimal difference between a script doing automated support callbacks and spam calls. You take a list of numbers, dial and connect the other end, handle hangups, do some reporting on connection success/failure. The completely isolated "other end" is either a person or an automated message or a combination of both. There's really no reason to deal with any code here specifically, rather than just making the result illegal and enforcing that.

emsign 3y ago

Thank you! I welcome this.

TrackerFF 3y ago

I never get robocalls on my private phone, but probably get 2-3 a day on my work phone. Most are easy to detect, simply because they're foreign numbers. What is worse, are the spoofed numbers. Because it could be related to work, I have to answer those. I've lost count how many times I've called someone back, mere seconds after missing the call, only to get some frustrated person on the other end: "I'm so sorry, people have been calling me all day, asking why I've tried to call them" "I don't know why my phone number is being used for this" "What, I didn't call you? You must have the wrong number" etc.

Lendal 3y ago
This is specifically about AI-generated voices you'd recognize, like spoofing Joe Biden's or Nancy Pelosi's voice, for example.

Asmod4n 3y ago

I still wonder why this isn’t a problem in Germany, i get at most one spam call per year.

coldpie 3y ago
Here's some clues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...

msoad 3y ago

As someone who lived in the US and now in Germany I just want to tell my American friends that this is not a problem in Germany as far as I know. My German number never gets any spam calls and my friends never talk about spam calls. It's the corporate greed that gets in the way of doing the right thing over there...

throw10920 3y ago
> It's the corporate greed that gets in the way of doing the right thing over there... That's absolutely bonkers. "Corporate greed" is a fuzzy, unprovable, politically-charged and highly unlikely to actually be true catchphrase that means nothing. The fault lies with the US government - there's nothing that prevents it from acting in the interests of their representatives and implementing anti-spam laws, like you did in Germany. There's no difference between German companies and US companies that somehow makes one "greedier" than the other, either. This comment is a nothingburger that, quite honestly, does not belong on HN.
mschuster91 3y ago
It's not like us Germans are free from scams... we have Turkish callcenters who scam dozens of millions of euros [1]. [1] https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/hallo-muenchen/callcenter-betruegern-tuerkei-1128-jahre-haft-ag-phaenomene-polizei-muenchen-opfer-bande-bayern-91817302.html https://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/hallo-muenchen/callcenter-b...
- msoad 3y ago
  I believe you, scam is everywhere. What you experience in the US is different. In the news article you sent it's obviously something that they could track down and sentence the fraudsters to jail. In the US you get multiple calls from those robo-callers per day and you practically can't do nothing about it. This is why Apple added "mute unknown callers" to iPhones. This is the best strategy most people have at this point.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    In the US I haven't had such a call in more than a year. The US already cracked down on spam calls (that is routing spam calls). You may remember complaints about how bad things were a year ago though, but things change. What is new is now AI can fake voices and conversations. This makes the cost of such SPAM is lower, and also you can frame someone else. Both of these give incentive to find work around to the current systems (no system is perfect)

bithead 3y ago

I'm on the federal do-not-call list. Isn't it $500 per call, and $1500 if they don't give a business address when asked? I get at least 6 per day on average. Occasionally I don't get any. I stopped answering my phone a the 12 per day peak. I figure if it's really important they'll leave a message.

djbusby 3y ago
I'm not in any list and get like zero per day. One a week maybe. How am I so lucky?
coldpie 3y ago
> Isn't it $500 per call, and $1500 if they don't give a business address when asked? Sure. How should they collect that from the overseas scammers who called you? Internationally sourced calls should be opt-in, this would solve the non-political portion of the spam problem. Almost no one needs to receive calls from overseas.

b8 3y ago

I still get invalid number calls sometimes and I use Google's PixelAI screening. It doesn't even show me the option to screen the call manually. Also, if a robocaller calls twice then they bypass my Pixel's screening feature.

ongytenes 3y ago

I use to prank the telemarketers but unable to with robo callers. One a woman called wanting me to switch long distance carriers. I halfway listened to her spill for twenty minutes while watching TV. Finally she wanted me to switch. Told her I couldn't for I was house sitting. She asked about my home number. Told her I only had a beeper. She asked me why I let her talk so long. Told her she had such a lovely voice and I enjoyed listening to it. She slammed the phone down on me.

AlwaysRock 3y ago
For years I got a spam call every morning during my commute to work. I found Lenny the automated old person who would keep callers on the line from anywhere from 2-20 minutes. It really was fun listening to callers freak out when they realized what was happening.

kova12 3y ago

I would applaud if FCC goes even further, and bans the robots from use in any business, which is required to accept calls For example: government forces me to have health insurance, and health insurance is unable to satisfy my needs online - DON'T FORCE ME TALK TO YOUR ROBOTS. These don't typically recognize my voice, and frankly speaking "How can we help you? You can say anything" sounds like an insult to me. Many of the businesses don't even offer touch-tone navigation anymore. It used to be that "Say blablabla, blablabla, or blablabla" meant you could use "1", "2", or "3" respectively, but now even that is no longer working in many cases. Hire f*ng human, or don't offer phone line at all.

n4jm4 3y ago

See "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."

robomartin 3y ago

The solution to this problem doesn't have to be complex at all. Conceptually (meaning, all details are not covered here): - The caller/message-sender pays a per-call fee - For example, $1.00 flat fee - If the caller is in your address book, the charge is $0 - If you call them back, the charge is $0 - If you approve the caller, the charge is $0 - The person receiving the call earns a portion of the fee (30% ?) - Etc. If implemented correctly, on average, no legitimate caller pays this extra per-call or per-message fee. Machine learning could be used to augment effectiveness and reduce or eliminate fees when two people or entities know each other. For example, a company receives tons of customer service calls. Most callers might be unknown to the company (think Amazon customer service). There has to be a mechanism through which callers don't get stuck with a $1 fee just for calling to get support. This is where a detailed design of this type of a solution would be necessary. What this does do, I think, is create a situation where it would (should) cost spammers millions of dollars to reach millions of people with unwanted calls or messages. Another element of this is that consumers would make money from these stupid calls or texts. They should. If someone wants to consume somebody else's time, they should pay for it. Which brings-up another twist to this idea: Maybe people should be able to set a rate for unsolicited calls or messages. I could, for example, set my rate to $10 per minute and a 15 minute minimum. If you call me and I don't know you, the cost to talk to me or leave a message is a minimum of $150. If I call you back, the charge is negated. I can also tell the system not to charge you. Etc. Upon making a call, the caller hears: "This number charges a $150 for anonymous calls. Press 1 to accept." If it is a message, they receive a reply: "This number charges a $150 for anonymous messages. Reply YES to accept." The receiver gets a pop-up that might say: "Unknown caller: <insert name or number>." "Accept and charge $150 fee" "Accept and charge $0" "Cancel" Details would have to be worked out, of course. There are lots of ways to implement something like this such that legitimate callers are not charged any fees. Legislation and a technical infrastructure would be required to drive such a system. The reason this nonsense persists is because the cost is low and potential return on investment is high. If that equation is flipped, the nonsense stops.

fennecbutt 3y ago

He he he, because it's AI and new and shiny and they want to be seen actually doing something by the public eye. Where have they been all this time that regular spam calls have been a thing lmao