Sprint Cracks Down on TTY Relay Abuses

An anonymous reader writes "Sprint thinks it has found a way to keep West African scam artists from using Sprint's deaf-relay service to defraud people." Our previous two stories have background information.

Comments

Problem looks very familiar

[RobertB-DC]

But one former MCI relay operator said blocking internet addresses will only be a temporary obstacle for abusers of the Internet-relay system. That's because the scam artists can continuously find alternative Internet-protocol addresses...

I think every popular web-based service dealt with this issue years ago, including Slashdot. I guess nobody involved in setting up the TTY relay services ever ran a message board?

"Obviously it's had the effect of cutting down these calls, but they're going to find new hosts and call back anyway... It's always going to be a cat-and-mouse game."

Or to put it in the Slash vernacular, a troll-and-moderator game.

Grodevant would prefer a system in which legitimate users register in advance to gain access to the system.

Again, Slashdot provides an example of a solution. Sometimes, you need to be anonymous. But creeps and crooks are among those who prefer anonymity. So you simply flag the calls: "You have a call from a registered TTY user" vs. "You have a call from an Anonymous Coward".

I can see why the telcos didn't put these protections in place from the beginning, though... preying on the disabled is about as low as you can get. The companies simply didn't realize that these bastards have to look up to even see "as low as you can get".

Re:Problem looks very familiar

[Allen Zadr]

I can see why the telcos didn't put these protections in place from the beginning, though...

Remember those pesky laws that guarantee confidentiality of those whom are relegated to using relay services as their only means of communication with non-TTY enabled businesses. Those laws (of course) were written for TTY/vox relay and not Internet/vox relay. That's why the blocking has to be done PRIOR to 'connect'. They'll find open proxies and come from US based addresses soon enough (no disagreement with you there).

Short term solution

[Mr_Silver]

I read that the main problem was that even when the operators knew it was a scam, their rules stated that they must finish the call.

So for an effective short term solution change these rules so that any operator who believes that it's a scam can (after some procedures have been followed) terminate the call.

I'm all for alternative solutions too, but this will make some headway into solving the issue. After the scammers know that you'll terminate the call as soon as it becomes evident then they'll look elsewhere.

Why is anonymity an issue?

[Henry Stern]

Whenever I make a telephone call, for whatever purpose, it is associated with my telephone number. Thus, I am accountable for the use of my communications equipment.

Why should it be different for people using TTY services? Provisions for anonymity only allow people to abuse the telephone system.

Re:Why is anonymity an issue?

[Tenebrious1]

Right, the parent is saying why allow such anonymous access? When a non-deaf person makes a phone call, their phone number, the number they called, the duration of the call, all that info is logged. Yet calls through TTY are not.

TTY users should have privacy in their calls, but that does not mean they should have complete anonymity to make such calls. Requiring them to register and login to TTY relay websites isn't any different from the rest of us having to give all our details to the telco to get a phone line. There's privacy in the calls, but not the fact we're making a call and to whom the call is made.

Re:Blocking IP addresses? Only a matter of time...

[cdrudge]

Maybe a deaf person wants to have phone sex. Maybe he wants to be an anonymous whistle blower but can't use just an ordinary pay phone on a street. Who knows. Just because people might not normally have a need to be anonymous doesn't mean that they always won't have a need.