^^^This, but with a baseball bat, rabid chimp and Vise-Grips. The Top 5% get a visit. Screw the list. I’ve got another one…
I’m pretty sure that, on any phone call (landlines, at least), the receiving party’s phone company knows the true phone number of the caller (at least in the U.S.), even if that number is not shown on the receiver’s caller-ID display. There is some *xx code I can dial (forget exactly what it is) that will return the call, even if I don’t know what the phone number is.
So there is apparently a non-spoofable protocol for transmitting a caller’s phone number, even though that is not the number used for caller-ID. This can be used as a basis for call filtering.
Legal robo-callers (e.g., pollsters, reverse-911, etc.) can perfectly well register their phone numbers with a nationwide verified whitelist. Individual call screening devices, in customers’ homes, can download that periodically. If a way can be found to detect all robo-calls, then the caller’s true phone number (even if it is never made known to the recipient) can be verified against the downloaded national whitelist, and blocked if not there.
Individual customers, of course, should still be able to set up all their own private whitelists and blacklists as well, and have some options for how to deal with callers not found on either list. (My choice would be, those go direct to voice mail. As I review them, I should then be able to add any one to my white- or blacklist.)
ANY strategy for doing any kind of call screening must necessarily depend on a reliable caller-ID protocol. Why the existing caller-ID protocols were ever designed in the first place to be spoofable is a major mystery.
Probably because making an unspoofable information exchange is really hard. Throw in a desire to work with all sorts of legacy equipment, and it’s probably functionally impossible.
Plus, there are people who legitimately have a need to keep their incoming number a secret. Doctors, for example, returning a call on their cell phones, shouldn’t have to reveal their numbers to patients. You can certainly design a system that allows this sort of thing and still authenticates callers, but it’s much harder than just requiring that all calls have valid caller id.
Note that we haven’t really solved this problem in any communication medium. All communication media include spam. You can filter them out to some extent and pass laws to help, but there’s no magic bullet technology for identification and authentication that will solve all problems in one fell swoop.
Well, I said earlier that a spam eradication program just isn’t complete if it doesn’t include flamethrowers.
You’re probably thinking of *69, but it returns the call to whatever the CID shows, which can be bogus or not shown. In these cases, it fails.
I don’t know if there is a non-maskable number transmitted, but if there is, it is not available to the public.
That system already exists. It was touted by my carrier some years ago for a small fee. I decided not to use it because it would probably lose me business from some people who didn’t understand or want the hassle.
If there isn’t, there should be. Of course, the phone customer can choose whether to have his number displayed or not, but the phone company should always know the caller’s true number. The caller ID has two fields: The first field should contain a phone number, added to the data stream by the caller’s phone company. The second field should contain the caller’s name or whatever, which the caller can override.
There should be no data path from the caller’s phone to the caller’s phone company that goes into the first field. That should be set by the phone company. Why is that hard to do?
No, it isn’t. This is information they have to know to be able to connect you. Somewhere in the system has to know what line the call is coming in on, otherwise you couldn’t talk back to it.
Yeah, the equipment probably wasn’t designed to keep track of this information throughout the entire infrastructure, but that’s a matter of adding an extra stream of information that keeps track of that from when it’s first discovered. The only difference between that and Caller ID is that the caller ID trusts the equipment from the home, while this equipment would have to be done internally inside the company.
The same thing is why we don’t have to worry about special equipment for home users. Everything should be handled by the company, just like it is now, and just like spam is handled in other places.
Sure, spam is not a solved problem, but I’m sure that we’d love to just have the same ratio of spam to useful calls as we do spam to useful emails.
You need the white list, handled at the company, where you register your number to allow you to make a robocall. You need an infrastructure to allow users to report improper calls from registered lines, just like how spam filtering works. Too many complaints, and you get reviewed.
To handle people calling from other lines than the one they would want you to call back on (like the doctor situation mentioned above), you just need to set up a way to authorize one number to spoof another, with permission from both parties. In the doctor example, that would mean that the number appears to be from the hospital or doctor’s office.
A spam folder would have to be introduced, probably with the least likely to be spam put on top. Consumer devices could be changed to interface with this, perhaps using voice-to-text for quick access, like the iPhone does. There has to be a monitor on the system.
The main problem is detecting robocalls. Sure, it’s easy now, as no one is really trying to hide the fact that they are a robocall. It’s just a matter of detecting the obvious sounds of a recording. But the technology will increase, so the only thing I can see working is recording calls from one end, and using heuristics to see if it’s the exact same audio. But then there’d be a rush to figure out a way to randomly modify the audio while presenting the same information. (Sure, it hasn’t happened on YouTube yet, but that’s because pirates don’t have money backing them.) Like all tech solutions, it’s going to be a sort of arms race. Fortunately, that’s pretty good for the economy, right?
The point is, though, that it will at least be better than it is now.
Spam is largely identified by examining the content of the message, not the origin. That doesn’t really work for a live telephone call, which can only be authenticated, not rejected for content, if you want to keep it real-time. If my phone rings for a spam call and I answer it, that’s already most of the inconvenience.
I agree with the rest of your points that this is a solvable problem. But it’s big and difficult and requires a whole lot of different parties to work together, and probably makes some existing equipment not work any more.
This is the only thing I can see working. The fix will have to involve the telephone companies.
Again, why would the telephone companies want to get involved – they make money from those phone calls you want to prevent.
- Designate Jennifer from Account Services as a terrorist.
- Drones.
- ???
- Profit!
They will only do it if forced I’m sure. Can the FTC or FCC compel them?
Give people a private cause of action for any robocall or violation of the do not call list for a mandatory $5000 per call. The government cooperates fully in tracing the source of the call, getting warrants, and finding the people responsible.
When it is proven, the citizen gets $2500 and the government gets $2500.
First thing that’s gotta happen, as mentioned several times above: Need to have a Caller-ID protocol that cannot be spoofed.
ETA: THEN it will be possible to have those totally ruinous fines for violators. We’ll all be glad when THAT happens!
I feel okay about callers being able to block their caller-Id from being seen by the callee. Callers should have the option of displaying their correct number or none but nothing else. (The second line of Caller-ID, with the caller’s name, can be user-controlled.)
The callee will have the option to block any incoming calls that don’t display caller ID, or direct such calls directly to voice-mail, or offer some challenge to filter out robo-calls (“Please press 47 now to complete your call” – there the 47 is two randomly chosen digits, different each time.)
The phone companies need to have a mechanism to record all caller-ID’s of all calls, whether the number is displayed to the callee or not. Callee’s must be able to lodge a complaint at the Do-Not-Call complaint site even when they do not know the caller-ID number. This is a MAJOR failing currently – there’s no way to do this! A way must be made available for this to happen.
Phone answering machines, on the receiver’s end, should have sophisticated filtering options. Incoming calls are often identified only with “Unknown Caller” or “Undisclosed Caller” or “Out of Area Call” or a phrase chosen by the caller. I’m getting a lot with phrases like “Card Services” or “CC LLC” or “Service Employee” or other weird shit. Answering systems should be configurable to filter on selected words in this field.
Filtering on both the phone number (if given) and the name phrase should allow wild cards too. I should be able to block all calls from “874-326-???” or “Card Serv*” for example.
It’s not necessary to block every single last robo-caller. I’d be happy with a system that could block most of them most of the time. It’s important to have some kind of reliable white-list system, though, so the important robo-calls can always get through (like reverse 911 or robo-calls from my pharmacy that my Rx is ready, for example). There should be national standard “Caller-ID” or at the very least a national standard pseudo-area-code for reverse 911 and similar, so answering machines can be pre-programmed to permit those.
Not a high enough fine. Needs to be at least $10,000 per call, and written so that no piece of the violator’s assets are immune to siezure and sale to satisfy the fine. Corporations aren’t immune either. All stockholders are liable.
The current problem is the companies only set up for a short time, make a bunch of calls, and reorganize under a different name and location. So there is no one to fine.
This would seem to violate several hundred years of settled law. The whole point of incorporation is to shelter the stockholders’/owners’ personal assets from corporate debt.
So be it. Any and all weapons are available to fight the plague of telemarketers. Anyone who knowingly invests in such a company must pay. Sterilization if necessary.
I also advocate nuclear strikes against malware writers.
In some cases, the law is a ass.
STOP THE PRESSES!
Today in Yahoo News: British man sues telemarketers for wasting his time
Keeps track of the minutes. Sends bill to telemarketer for time, 19.5 minutes @ 10 pounds/minute = 195 pounds. Telemarketer ignores bill, of course. Sues telemarketer in small claims court, wins.
How did he ever find out enough about the telemarketer to do that? Article says he’s going to do this with more telemarketers.
Article includes link to his web site Say No To Cold Calls. Also contains his little video about it.
ETA: From his web site: Looks like it isn’t exactly telemarketers (not quite sure) but maybe people he is able to identify by playing along with them long enough. That wouldn’t work for robo-calls of course. And all the cold calls I ever get, even if from live people, they are very careful never to identify themselves. How does that work in Britain? Also, he records the calls. Maybe that’s legal in Britain?