4 ms·

It seems like they're targeting the symptom instead of the problem. One of the biggest problems with robocalls is that it's really impossible to know who's cal

It seems like they're targeting the symptom instead of the problem. One of the biggest problems with robocalls is that it's really impossible to know who's calling you, and that SPAM reporting tools don't have much teeth. IE, when I have an incoming call, I should be able to see who's liable for the call. IE, "[phone number] is registered to [Person or corporation]", and that reports of spam should impede that party's ability to use the phone network.

jimvdv 3y ago
I think this is antithetical to most people’s view of privacy on this platform :)
- zeven7 3y ago
  Do most people actually care about being able to place phone calls and be anonymous in 2024? If I call someone it's either someone who has my number already or someone who is going to ask who it is (like a business) and I'm going to tell them who I am.
  - EarthAmbassador 3y ago
    There are many valid reasons for making anonymous calls in 2024, including but not limited to being able to suss out information without exposing ones on identity.
    - Analemma_ 3y ago
      Me and most people I know have stopped answering the phone completely if we don't recognize the number, because the ratio of spam to useful calls is so huge. Since this screening renders your use case for anonymous calls completely moot, the benefit of allowing them (very small, in my opinion) has to be weighed against the costs of the current system. Just to pick a random one, political polling is completely fucked at the moment, because so many people don't pick up pollster calls. Edit: actually the more I think about your comment, the less sense it makes. What information could be gained by an anonymous phone call? Please walk me through this scenario, because I don't see it at all. Who is giving away sensitive information to an anonymous caller that they wouldn't give if there was caller ID?
  - supertrope 3y ago
    Doctor's offices and schools are notorious for using the caller ID "blocked." I let them hit voicemail.
    - JadeNB 3y ago
      > Doctor's offices and schools are notorious for using the caller ID "blocked." I let them hit voicemail. My doctor's office won't leave messages, and appears to have about 20 minutes a day where they pick up the phone, so, if I don't pick up when they call, then I can't talk to them. (I know, I know, get a new doctor. But this is my third try to find a specialist who's willing to go beyond "here are some easy suggestions that you've already told me don't apply to you," and there are only so many battles that I can pick before I just run out of specialists entirely.)
      - supertrope 3y ago
        You can thank HIPAA for that. Under the Privacy Rule medical information has to be guarded. While I have seen some practices let you indicate on the patient forms that you allow brief or full voicemail, many won't do it as there's no one to confirm their name and DOB. Even the fact that you are a patient at a clinic can be protected health information (for example getting a call from a women's health clinic or drug rehab center that doesn't block caller ID can be compromising).
    - gwbas1c 3y ago
      It's because they don't want callbacks. To reiterate, calls need to say who's calling. They don't need to come from a number that will be answered. It's about liability, and making sure there are consequences for spamming.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Anonymity and privacy are different things. And anonymity against your interlocutor is usually a very bad thing. Even though there are a few exceptions.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Crazy to think phonebooks published your name, number, and even address. Much smaller world.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Yes. What happened to that? It's interesting that we became more private in that regard while gushing personal information from sensors worn on our bodies 24/7.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Scale I guess. No one but people nearby will have your local phonebook. And there would be no way to go through all the information even if someone had all phonebooks. The world used to be far more disconnected.
    - al_borland 3y ago
      They stopping printing phone books because everything is online. Google your name and you’ll likely find much more information than the white pages ever had. I found an old email address of mine from the 90s that is long gone, every place I’ve ever lived, relationships to various family members, my parent’s address dating back decades, even my grandfathers last couple addresses and he’s been dead for over 20 years. About 10 years ago someone on eBay tried to pull something on me and I was trying to figure out what I was dealing with. Within 45 minutes I had his name, parent’s names, phone number, and their address. I didn’t do anything with it, but it wasn’t that hard to find, with nothing more than a username or email address.
  - j33zusjuice 3y ago
    They still do. If you’ve made any public transaction (like buying a home), Whitepages will publish your info. That’s not the only reason for it, either. My 90 year-old relative was listed, and she doesn’t own anything.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  I think what I would is a level playing field. If I get a call like that I cannot trace, I would expect that I should be able to do the same. If I am held to a standard that is not conducive to privacy, so should the person on the other side of that call. But.. there is money on the line. Clearly, money from telemarketers/scammers/whoever is using this tech is enough to make telecoms hesitate from actually doing something about it.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  Make it an option. I should be able to block my number from the receiver of the call if I choose. The receiver should be notified the number is blocked and can choose accordingly. The fact that numbers can be spoofed is what should be illegal. Any company making calls should have to identify themselves to the person receiving the call.
  - gwbas1c 3y ago
    I think if you want to make an anonymous call, you need to find a party that will be liable for your call.
- Seattle3503 3y ago
  When I visited the FCC many years ago, one fo the reasons they give for allowing anonymous calls is the the protection of domestic violence victims. Eg they may need to call their abuser to talk about child support payments. They shouldn't need to reveal too much information away, particularly if it could be used to find their address (eg a phone number)
  - al_borland 3y ago
    I’ve never personally been involved in this type of situation, but it seems like if the relationship is such that there is a safety issue from information potentially slipping during a phone call, maybe the court should be dealing with that communication if there is an issue with child support payments not getting made.
    - cool_dude85 3y ago
      Wonder why my husband is 20 minutes late to drop my kid off for the weekend. Let me call up my lawyer and he'll get a date on the judge's docket next month to find out what's up.
      - al_borland 3y ago
        If he is dropping the kid off, he already knows where you live, so having him figure it out via a phone number is kind of a moot point. The example given was child support, which is financial, not visitation. I’m assuming this person would be an ex-husband, and that abuse, leading to assurance that he can’t track you down, means visitation with the kid is off the table.
gjsman-1000 3y ago
Be careful what you wish for. No reason why governments might decide they want the same thing for the Internet and domain names. Requiring a license to own domains… who are we kidding, they’d do it for the tax revenue.
- notyourwork 3y ago
  I could easily see this jump. Reminds me how important it is to have tech literate representatives. Go vote!!
- graphe 3y ago
  That's why carbon taxes will be a thing regardless of climate data. Why not have another source of revenue instead of reducing it?
ramenmeal 3y ago
I think "SHAKEN/STIR" is supposed to fix this long term. I'm not sure why it's taking so long, but I believe phones will already indicate if the phone call has a verified caller id. Probably next step is to just block any non-verified caller. I'm assuming there's just a lot of migration work to happen. https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
- tkems 3y ago
  I would say that money is the root of the problem. I think that most VOIP providers don't want to loose out on unencrypted traffic (both legitimate and spam). Also, why do I seem to always get spam from a few providers? And why aren't we holding them accountable?
  - gregmac 3y ago
    Money is always the problem. In the carrier world, the party accepting ("terminating") the call gets paid by the party originating it. This is why there are VoIP services that will give you a free inbound-only number and why others only charge for outbound calls. If you're a carrier, it pays to terminate all calls -- spam or not -- by delivering them to your actual customer. You get paid by the originating carrier, and in a lot of cases you also get to charge your customer per-minute fees (or use up their prepaid minutes).
    - Macha 3y ago
      > This is why there are VoIP services that will give you a free inbound-only number and why others only charge for outbound calls. This is the norm for standard carriers in Europe too.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  My spam volume has fallen to close to zero recently. AT&T seems to be blocking quite a few of them.
tkems 3y ago
This was my thought too. While I do think going after this kind of scam is a good first step, I don't see overseas operators not using this any less. Most spam calls I get don't follow the do not call list, why would they follow this either? I think the FCC needs to step up and have a hard deadline for STIR/SHAKEN with fines for operators who don't comply. That is the only way, IMHO, that the VOIP operators will take it seriously.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
As long as 1% or more of voters in Pennsylvania keep voting based on whomever talked to them last; and as long as Super PACs can continue to receive unlimited anonymous money; no media channel will be legally restricted from spamming people. Phone spam is too effective politically.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I don't see any reason we can't ban everything but political speech given its status as extra-super-protected.
- tptacek 3y ago
  I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that robocalls produce material swings in elections at all, let alone 1%, a number commonly attributed to all campaign GOTV efforts put together.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    Not honest ones anyways... Robocalls every election season go out to targeted communities telling them the wrong polling location. I will leave as an exercise to the reader what political slant those communities almost always have. The impact of those must be very hard to measure.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I don't think there's much evidence that these fraudulent robocalls have much of an impact, if any, either. You can tell a plausible story that they have the opposite effect (they tend to target the Black vote, and the Black vote is relatively well organized compared to other US voting blocs, and is sensitive to suppression). The people running these campaigns tend to be complete chucklefucks, so it doesn't follow from the fact that people are taking the time to do them that they actually work.
      - doctorpangloss 3y ago
        Mark Zuckerburg, Nov 11, 2016: > Personally I think the idea that fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way — I think is a pretty crazy idea. Voters make decisions based on their lived experience. Mark Zuckerburg, Sep 27, 2017 > The facts suggest the greatest role Facebook played in the 2016 election was... Campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online to get their messages out even further. That's 1000x more than any problematic ads we've found... After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it. This is too important an issue to be dismissive. But the data we have has always shown that our broader impact -- from giving people a voice to enabling candidates to communicate directly to helping millions of people vote -- played a far bigger role in this election." Mark Zuckerburg, Sep 13, 2018 > When it comes to implementing a solution [to influence campaigns opposed by both parties], certainly some investors disagree with my approach to invest so much in security. [Read the 3,300 word description of concrete actions here https://www.facebook.com/notes/737729700291613/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/737729700291613/] Do you know who the real "chucklefucks" are? The people telling Mark Zuckerburg "plausible" stories with first principle inductive reasoning about what is or is not important on Facebook. It was a huge mistake to listen to them between November 4th and November 11th, 2016, just when he issued his first erroneous comment. He controls all the data on Facebook and has the means to analyze it, so he had absolutely no reason to listen to those people at all. He should have just waited and found out what the real answer was. You're making a good faith comment. But you don't really know what evidence there is. In fact you don't know anything about it at all. You have no reason to speculate, because campaigns and phone companies have all of the data needed to answer the question, and agitating them to answer it is the right thing to do. Mistakes happen from people conflating fast answers with correct ones. Even Mark Zuckerburg does. So your answer is good because it is fast and inductive and first principles, but it is also really, really bad because it requires no reading, no analysis and no real knowledge, just fuzzy-wuzzy podcast-and-pop-sci takeaways. Sucking the air out of the room with a fast and cheap answer undermines the people trying to investigate influence campaigns. So you can be sincere and co-opted at the same time.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
That's also the issue with swatting and fake calls to 911. When investigators trace it they'll hit a VOIP provider and it becomes near impossible to take it any further.
_chu1 3y ago
It's already possible to lookup the carrier of a number, and I'd love for the ability to be listed under their location on the incoming call screen. Makes a big difference if the call is coming from T-Mobile or some company you've never heard of.
flenserboy 3y ago
It is maddening that the companies that provide the service appear to have thrown up their hands & pretend that they have no idea how they could possibly prevent spoofed numbers. Imagine if this was this easy to spoof IP #s. Perhaps it is.
rootusrootus 3y ago
> It seems like they're targeting the symptom instead of the problem. I believe this is a quickly adopted band-aid in response to the recent political scam calls that pretended to be President Biden telling voters to skip voting in the primary. It is going to be an interesting year.
ahallock 3y ago
I thought people's behavior these days was to ignore calls from numbers they don't know and let the phone screen it. I don't ever have problems with unknown numbers or SPAM calls on my Pixel
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  As in you never get spam calls, or you don't consider them a problem becausee you ignore them? Because I get 2-3 a day on my Pixel and they annoy the poop out of me, even though I don't answer them.
  - ahallock 3y ago
    I have my phone set to Dot Not Disturb except for explicit contacts
cryptoegorophy 3y ago
Twilio had some strict policies introduced that I think were industry wise for USA. Basically all voip numbers had to go through thorough checks, which even our legitimate company failed (go figure). So as long as all companies like Twilio introduce those checks then spam calls should dramatically decrease. I thought it was already the case for USA?

jimvdv 3y ago

I think this is antithetical to most people’s view of privacy on this platform :)

zeven7 3y ago
Do most people actually care about being able to place phone calls and be anonymous in 2024? If I call someone it's either someone who has my number already or someone who is going to ask who it is (like a business) and I'm going to tell them who I am.
- EarthAmbassador 3y ago
  There are many valid reasons for making anonymous calls in 2024, including but not limited to being able to suss out information without exposing ones on identity.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    Me and most people I know have stopped answering the phone completely if we don't recognize the number, because the ratio of spam to useful calls is so huge. Since this screening renders your use case for anonymous calls completely moot, the benefit of allowing them (very small, in my opinion) has to be weighed against the costs of the current system. Just to pick a random one, political polling is completely fucked at the moment, because so many people don't pick up pollster calls. Edit: actually the more I think about your comment, the less sense it makes. What information could be gained by an anonymous phone call? Please walk me through this scenario, because I don't see it at all. Who is giving away sensitive information to an anonymous caller that they wouldn't give if there was caller ID?
- supertrope 3y ago
  Doctor's offices and schools are notorious for using the caller ID "blocked." I let them hit voicemail.
  - JadeNB 3y ago
    > Doctor's offices and schools are notorious for using the caller ID "blocked." I let them hit voicemail. My doctor's office won't leave messages, and appears to have about 20 minutes a day where they pick up the phone, so, if I don't pick up when they call, then I can't talk to them. (I know, I know, get a new doctor. But this is my third try to find a specialist who's willing to go beyond "here are some easy suggestions that you've already told me don't apply to you," and there are only so many battles that I can pick before I just run out of specialists entirely.)
    - supertrope 3y ago
      You can thank HIPAA for that. Under the Privacy Rule medical information has to be guarded. While I have seen some practices let you indicate on the patient forms that you allow brief or full voicemail, many won't do it as there's no one to confirm their name and DOB. Even the fact that you are a patient at a clinic can be protected health information (for example getting a call from a women's health clinic or drug rehab center that doesn't block caller ID can be compromising).
  - gwbas1c 3y ago
    It's because they don't want callbacks. To reiterate, calls need to say who's calling. They don't need to come from a number that will be answered. It's about liability, and making sure there are consequences for spamming.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Anonymity and privacy are different things. And anonymity against your interlocutor is usually a very bad thing. Even though there are a few exceptions.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Crazy to think phonebooks published your name, number, and even address. Much smaller world.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Yes. What happened to that? It's interesting that we became more private in that regard while gushing personal information from sensors worn on our bodies 24/7.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Scale I guess. No one but people nearby will have your local phonebook. And there would be no way to go through all the information even if someone had all phonebooks. The world used to be far more disconnected.
  - al_borland 3y ago
    They stopping printing phone books because everything is online. Google your name and you’ll likely find much more information than the white pages ever had. I found an old email address of mine from the 90s that is long gone, every place I’ve ever lived, relationships to various family members, my parent’s address dating back decades, even my grandfathers last couple addresses and he’s been dead for over 20 years. About 10 years ago someone on eBay tried to pull something on me and I was trying to figure out what I was dealing with. Within 45 minutes I had his name, parent’s names, phone number, and their address. I didn’t do anything with it, but it wasn’t that hard to find, with nothing more than a username or email address.
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  They still do. If you’ve made any public transaction (like buying a home), Whitepages will publish your info. That’s not the only reason for it, either. My 90 year-old relative was listed, and she doesn’t own anything.
A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
I think what I would is a level playing field. If I get a call like that I cannot trace, I would expect that I should be able to do the same. If I am held to a standard that is not conducive to privacy, so should the person on the other side of that call. But.. there is money on the line. Clearly, money from telemarketers/scammers/whoever is using this tech is enough to make telecoms hesitate from actually doing something about it.
strangattractor 3y ago
Make it an option. I should be able to block my number from the receiver of the call if I choose. The receiver should be notified the number is blocked and can choose accordingly. The fact that numbers can be spoofed is what should be illegal. Any company making calls should have to identify themselves to the person receiving the call.
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  I think if you want to make an anonymous call, you need to find a party that will be liable for your call.
Seattle3503 3y ago
When I visited the FCC many years ago, one fo the reasons they give for allowing anonymous calls is the the protection of domestic violence victims. Eg they may need to call their abuser to talk about child support payments. They shouldn't need to reveal too much information away, particularly if it could be used to find their address (eg a phone number)
- al_borland 3y ago
  I’ve never personally been involved in this type of situation, but it seems like if the relationship is such that there is a safety issue from information potentially slipping during a phone call, maybe the court should be dealing with that communication if there is an issue with child support payments not getting made.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Wonder why my husband is 20 minutes late to drop my kid off for the weekend. Let me call up my lawyer and he'll get a date on the judge's docket next month to find out what's up.
    - al_borland 3y ago
      If he is dropping the kid off, he already knows where you live, so having him figure it out via a phone number is kind of a moot point. The example given was child support, which is financial, not visitation. I’m assuming this person would be an ex-husband, and that abuse, leading to assurance that he can’t track you down, means visitation with the kid is off the table.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Be careful what you wish for. No reason why governments might decide they want the same thing for the Internet and domain names. Requiring a license to own domains… who are we kidding, they’d do it for the tax revenue.

notyourwork 3y ago
I could easily see this jump. Reminds me how important it is to have tech literate representatives. Go vote!!
graphe 3y ago
That's why carbon taxes will be a thing regardless of climate data. Why not have another source of revenue instead of reducing it?

ramenmeal 3y ago

I think "SHAKEN/STIR" is supposed to fix this long term. I'm not sure why it's taking so long, but I believe phones will already indicate if the phone call has a verified caller id. Probably next step is to just block any non-verified caller. I'm assuming there's just a lot of migration work to happen. https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication

tkems 3y ago
I would say that money is the root of the problem. I think that most VOIP providers don't want to loose out on unencrypted traffic (both legitimate and spam). Also, why do I seem to always get spam from a few providers? And why aren't we holding them accountable?
- gregmac 3y ago
  Money is always the problem. In the carrier world, the party accepting ("terminating") the call gets paid by the party originating it. This is why there are VoIP services that will give you a free inbound-only number and why others only charge for outbound calls. If you're a carrier, it pays to terminate all calls -- spam or not -- by delivering them to your actual customer. You get paid by the originating carrier, and in a lot of cases you also get to charge your customer per-minute fees (or use up their prepaid minutes).
  - Macha 3y ago
    > This is why there are VoIP services that will give you a free inbound-only number and why others only charge for outbound calls. This is the norm for standard carriers in Europe too.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
My spam volume has fallen to close to zero recently. AT&T seems to be blocking quite a few of them.

tkems 3y ago

This was my thought too. While I do think going after this kind of scam is a good first step, I don't see overseas operators not using this any less. Most spam calls I get don't follow the do not call list, why would they follow this either? I think the FCC needs to step up and have a hard deadline for STIR/SHAKEN with fines for operators who don't comply. That is the only way, IMHO, that the VOIP operators will take it seriously.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

As long as 1% or more of voters in Pennsylvania keep voting based on whomever talked to them last; and as long as Super PACs can continue to receive unlimited anonymous money; no media channel will be legally restricted from spamming people. Phone spam is too effective politically.

Spivak 3y ago
I don't see any reason we can't ban everything but political speech given its status as extra-super-protected.
tptacek 3y ago
I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that robocalls produce material swings in elections at all, let alone 1%, a number commonly attributed to all campaign GOTV efforts put together.
- RajT88 3y ago
  Not honest ones anyways... Robocalls every election season go out to targeted communities telling them the wrong polling location. I will leave as an exercise to the reader what political slant those communities almost always have. The impact of those must be very hard to measure.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I don't think there's much evidence that these fraudulent robocalls have much of an impact, if any, either. You can tell a plausible story that they have the opposite effect (they tend to target the Black vote, and the Black vote is relatively well organized compared to other US voting blocs, and is sensitive to suppression). The people running these campaigns tend to be complete chucklefucks, so it doesn't follow from the fact that people are taking the time to do them that they actually work.
    - doctorpangloss 3y ago
      Mark Zuckerburg, Nov 11, 2016: > Personally I think the idea that fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way — I think is a pretty crazy idea. Voters make decisions based on their lived experience. Mark Zuckerburg, Sep 27, 2017 > The facts suggest the greatest role Facebook played in the 2016 election was... Campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online to get their messages out even further. That's 1000x more than any problematic ads we've found... After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it. This is too important an issue to be dismissive. But the data we have has always shown that our broader impact -- from giving people a voice to enabling candidates to communicate directly to helping millions of people vote -- played a far bigger role in this election." Mark Zuckerburg, Sep 13, 2018 > When it comes to implementing a solution [to influence campaigns opposed by both parties], certainly some investors disagree with my approach to invest so much in security. [Read the 3,300 word description of concrete actions here https://www.facebook.com/notes/737729700291613/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/737729700291613/] Do you know who the real "chucklefucks" are? The people telling Mark Zuckerburg "plausible" stories with first principle inductive reasoning about what is or is not important on Facebook. It was a huge mistake to listen to them between November 4th and November 11th, 2016, just when he issued his first erroneous comment. He controls all the data on Facebook and has the means to analyze it, so he had absolutely no reason to listen to those people at all. He should have just waited and found out what the real answer was. You're making a good faith comment. But you don't really know what evidence there is. In fact you don't know anything about it at all. You have no reason to speculate, because campaigns and phone companies have all of the data needed to answer the question, and agitating them to answer it is the right thing to do. Mistakes happen from people conflating fast answers with correct ones. Even Mark Zuckerburg does. So your answer is good because it is fast and inductive and first principles, but it is also really, really bad because it requires no reading, no analysis and no real knowledge, just fuzzy-wuzzy podcast-and-pop-sci takeaways. Sucking the air out of the room with a fast and cheap answer undermines the people trying to investigate influence campaigns. So you can be sincere and co-opted at the same time.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

That's also the issue with swatting and fake calls to 911. When investigators trace it they'll hit a VOIP provider and it becomes near impossible to take it any further.

_chu1 3y ago

It's already possible to lookup the carrier of a number, and I'd love for the ability to be listed under their location on the incoming call screen. Makes a big difference if the call is coming from T-Mobile or some company you've never heard of.

flenserboy 3y ago

It is maddening that the companies that provide the service appear to have thrown up their hands & pretend that they have no idea how they could possibly prevent spoofed numbers. Imagine if this was this easy to spoof IP #s. Perhaps it is.

rootusrootus 3y ago

> It seems like they're targeting the symptom instead of the problem. I believe this is a quickly adopted band-aid in response to the recent political scam calls that pretended to be President Biden telling voters to skip voting in the primary. It is going to be an interesting year.

ahallock 3y ago

I thought people's behavior these days was to ignore calls from numbers they don't know and let the phone screen it. I don't ever have problems with unknown numbers or SPAM calls on my Pixel

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
As in you never get spam calls, or you don't consider them a problem becausee you ignore them? Because I get 2-3 a day on my Pixel and they annoy the poop out of me, even though I don't answer them.
- ahallock 3y ago
  I have my phone set to Dot Not Disturb except for explicit contacts

cryptoegorophy 3y ago

Twilio had some strict policies introduced that I think were industry wise for USA. Basically all voip numbers had to go through thorough checks, which even our legitimate company failed (go figure). So as long as all companies like Twilio introduce those checks then spam calls should dramatically decrease. I thought it was already the case for USA?