4 ms·

Who is "they" and how do they know which calls aren't legitimate?

ranger_danger 3y ago
cryptographic signatures are going to have to start becoming necessary for all kinds of things, like even your average JPG image, otherwise nobody can tell what is "fake" or not, court evidence will start to become useless.
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  You'd have to completely redo the way telephony works. There is no way to enforce numbers or caller IDs.
  - ranger_danger 3y ago
    perhaps, but the alternative is that whatever doesn't support it, just cannot be admissable as evidence anymore.
  - luma 3y ago
    STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers and intermediate carriers. The FCC is working it's way through the system to implement this, there is in fact a way but it takes a while.
    - larvaetron 3y ago
      > STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers I'm not convinced that STIR/SHAKEN even works properly. Recently, I migrated a DID from one VOIP provider to another. I set the outbound caller ID on the new provider, and it was showing up Verified with a checkmark to mobile devices before I had even submitted the port request to the old provider.
      - nsporillo 3y ago
        Depending on your new provider, they might just see that they have a contract with you and sign the call on your behalf with B level attestation - indicating that they "know" the end user, but not that they have the right to use the number. As long as they managed to attach the identity header to the sip invite correctly, and are not considered to be a shady actor - downstream providers such as carriers probably have no reason to label it as spam. Spam labeling is typically done via analytics, outsourced to third parties like First Orion. Attest levels are not in themselves proper tools for spam detection. The real meat of stir shaken is the origid in the identity JWT claim which is an opaque identifier that can be traced back to a particular user/customer/network equipment. STIR/SHAKEN being sold as the one and only solution for spam calls was a mistake as it is only one iteration in the right direction. You have a handful of RFCs and ATIS specs that the FCC told operators to implement in a phased approach, and ultimately some gaps were uncovered in practice that reduced its effectiveness.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
aw49r59aw 3y ago
Yes. Completely redesigning how phones work is exactly what we need. This problem is only going to get worse.
- asah 3y ago
  consumers have an easier solution: they just don't answer the phone unless it's a someone they know.
  - dymk 3y ago
    This isn't a solution. I need to accept legitimate calls from numbers who've never called me before all the time.
    - SirMaster 3y ago
      Don't accept them until they start talking. IDK, my iPhone will show me the live transcription of the callers message without me answering it. And then if I want to speak to them, I can answer the call in the middle of the message being left and talk to them. Sounds cool, but this concept isn't at all new. Anyone who used answering machines did exactly this. You would listen to the message being left in real-time and pick up if you actually wanted to talk to them. If people can't be bothered to leave a message, then that's their problem.
      - dymk 3y ago
        > Don't accept them until they start talking. Not professional, not an option for some calls. > If people can't be bothered to leave a message, then that's their problem. It's actually my problem if I miss an important call. A message is great, sure, but I still missed the call.
        SirMaster 3y ago
        My phone shows a live transcription of the message being left. If I see that it's an important call, then I can pick up and answer right there mid-voicemail. That's what I was referring to. They start talking when they leave the voicemail. This is how we did it for a long time with home answering machines too. Except instead of reading a live transcription, you listened to their live recording, and could interrupt it and answer if you wanted to talk to them. It's not a new idea.

cryptographic signatures are going to have to start becoming necessary for all kinds of things, like even your average JPG image, otherwise nobody can tell what is "fake" or not, court evidence will start to become useless.

bongodongobob 3y ago
You'd have to completely redo the way telephony works. There is no way to enforce numbers or caller IDs.
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  perhaps, but the alternative is that whatever doesn't support it, just cannot be admissable as evidence anymore.
- luma 3y ago
  STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers and intermediate carriers. The FCC is working it's way through the system to implement this, there is in fact a way but it takes a while.
  - larvaetron 3y ago
    > STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers I'm not convinced that STIR/SHAKEN even works properly. Recently, I migrated a DID from one VOIP provider to another. I set the outbound caller ID on the new provider, and it was showing up Verified with a checkmark to mobile devices before I had even submitted the port request to the old provider.
    - nsporillo 3y ago
      Depending on your new provider, they might just see that they have a contract with you and sign the call on your behalf with B level attestation - indicating that they "know" the end user, but not that they have the right to use the number. As long as they managed to attach the identity header to the sip invite correctly, and are not considered to be a shady actor - downstream providers such as carriers probably have no reason to label it as spam. Spam labeling is typically done via analytics, outsourced to third parties like First Orion. Attest levels are not in themselves proper tools for spam detection. The real meat of stir shaken is the origid in the identity JWT claim which is an opaque identifier that can be traced back to a particular user/customer/network equipment. STIR/SHAKEN being sold as the one and only solution for spam calls was a mistake as it is only one iteration in the right direction. You have a handful of RFCs and ATIS specs that the FCC told operators to implement in a phased approach, and ultimately some gaps were uncovered in practice that reduced its effectiveness.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

aw49r59aw 3y ago

Yes. Completely redesigning how phones work is exactly what we need. This problem is only going to get worse.

asah 3y ago
consumers have an easier solution: they just don't answer the phone unless it's a someone they know.
- dymk 3y ago
  This isn't a solution. I need to accept legitimate calls from numbers who've never called me before all the time.
  - SirMaster 3y ago
    Don't accept them until they start talking. IDK, my iPhone will show me the live transcription of the callers message without me answering it. And then if I want to speak to them, I can answer the call in the middle of the message being left and talk to them. Sounds cool, but this concept isn't at all new. Anyone who used answering machines did exactly this. You would listen to the message being left in real-time and pick up if you actually wanted to talk to them. If people can't be bothered to leave a message, then that's their problem.
    - dymk 3y ago
      > Don't accept them until they start talking. Not professional, not an option for some calls. > If people can't be bothered to leave a message, then that's their problem. It's actually my problem if I miss an important call. A message is great, sure, but I still missed the call.
      - SirMaster 3y ago
        My phone shows a live transcription of the message being left. If I see that it's an important call, then I can pick up and answer right there mid-voicemail. That's what I was referring to. They start talking when they leave the voicemail. This is how we did it for a long time with home answering machines too. Except instead of reading a live transcription, you listened to their live recording, and could interrupt it and answer if you wanted to talk to them. It's not a new idea.