4 ms·
> Conceptually, someone US-based should have to cryptographically sign, with their license to continue participating at stake, an assertion that the source phon
by bongodongobob 1y ago
> Conceptually, someone US-based should have to cryptographically sign, with their license to continue participating at stake, an assertion that the source phone number is real.
But phone numbers aren't real. They aren't any more real than an IP address. It's arbitrary. This is how VOIP systems work. You just assign a number from your block.
- xp84 1y agoI totally get this, however they are assigned -- meaning someone is responsible for them. If you own the range 212-555-0000 through 9999 and you sign calls for spammers as coming from that range, those numbers should be revoked from your control, or you should be denied the ability to sign those outbound calls/texts so that your calls appear as likely fake. Ideally anyone who owns numbers would stop letting literally anybody do anything with their numbers (the way they do today) because they don't want to lose the numbers or to get banned from operating a PSTN-connected system. The outcome I'm going for is that if you're a spammer you can't find any US phone number owners who will let you use their numbers so you can only send "unsigned" calls that are obviously spam, or sign calls as originating from irresponsible countries, which are easily filtered out by those of us who don't have any friends in the Phillipines or whatever (I get a lot of "DMV" threat texts from +63)