Mississippi Makes Caller ID Spoofing Illegal

marklyon writes "HB 872, recently signed into law by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, makes Caller ID spoofing illegal. The law covers alterations to the caller's name, telephone number, or name and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call or otherwise presented to the network. The law applies to PSTN, wireless and VoIP calls. Penalties for each violation can be up to $1,000 and one year in jail. Blocking of caller identification information is still permitted."

Comments

Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea.

[clone53421]

There shouldn’t need to be a law for this, though. Telcos should enforce it on their own.

It is about time

[InsaneProcessor]

This should be a federal law.

Re:It is about time

[spire3661]

Why? There is nothing inherently evil about spoofing caller ID. Existing laws already cover fraud, etc. If i want to present you with a fake number, Ishould be able to.

Re:It is about time

[vlm]

Why? There is nothing inherently evil about spoofing caller ID.

Should be, from the point of view of wasting time. All we'll end up with is about 40 states banning it, and given that LD is so cheap as to be borderline free, all the crooks will base themselves in the remaining 10 states. No actual effect other than a bunch of wasted time.

Like the state usury laws forcing all the crooked CCs to DE or CT where-ever it was.

If they tried it at the federal level, then being a stupid idea, it could be promptly shot down, making the world simpler for everyone.

Re:It is about time

[DutchUncle]

Truth in Labeling: one of the few simple and valid places for government involvement. Don't censor, don't restrict, don't control, just insist on ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL labeling so those with allergies can avoid their problems. (I include intellectual and emotional allergies just like physical ones.)

If anything, the question should be why this needs a new law instead of being considered just like any other kind of forgery or fraud.

For the sticklers - having different outbound and inbound numbers (like call centers do for outbound vs. incoming switchboard) is not spoofing if the same entity owns both numbers, any more than having multiple agents answering the phone is spoofing the company identity.

Re:It is about time

[EdIII]

If they tried it at the federal level, then being a stupid idea, it could be promptly shot down, making the world simpler for everyone.

It's a wonderful idea. If done at the federal level, then your quite valid concerns would be eliminated.

Did you read the law? It's not half bad at all:

(d) "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.

This act does not apply to:

                    (a) The blocking of caller identification information.

                    (b) Any law enforcement agency of the federal, state, county or municipal government.

                    (c) Any intelligence or security agency of the federal government.

                    (d) A telecommunications, broadband or voice-over-Internet service provider that is acting solely as an intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between the caller and the recipient

There are a ton of posts here already about how most of the Caller ID usage is not actually spoofing at all, but legitimate behavior, and that anti-spoofing laws would be stupid and get in the way. Well this law actually takes that into account and specifically allows such legitimate behavior.

As this law is written I don't see any problems or concerns with it. If it were enacted at a federal level it would give 'spoofers' (telemarketers and debt collection agencies) real cause to be afraid and move their operations outside of the U.S. By that, I mean they would have to move all of their servers outside of the U.S and would not be able to use any VOIP provider in the U.S to make calls with spoofed information anymore.

If you want simple the only thing you need to require by law is a whitelist of phone numbers that can be used as Caller ID on any account and that the whitelist only be populated with phone numbers with proper documentation (authorizing documents and bills). Have heavy fines and prison terms for any knowingly submitting false information to get a number on a white list.

You do that and you won't see any 2 or 3 digit numbers anymore on your Caller ID and telemarketers and debt collection agencies will get their asses handed to them when they try to provide false documentation to get a real 10 digit phone number added to their white list that they do not own.

Re:It is about time

[fm6]

Excuse me? Do you consider it "evil or bad" when a telemarketer ignores the fact that you're on the Do Not Call List and interrupts your dinner? This is illegal, but if you don't know who called, you don't know who to file a complaint against.

Re:It is about time

[UnderCoverPenguin]

If anything, the question should be why this needs a new law instead of being considered just like any other kind of forgery or fraud.

My guess, some lawyer managed to persuade a judge that spoofing caller ID did not rise to the level of fraud. To my thinking, a better remedy would have been some kind of "petty fraud" law rather than this single purpose law.

Huh?

[Pojut]

...you mean this wasn't already illegal? Strange.

Re:Huh?

[bondsbw]

...you mean this wasn't already illegal? Strange.

I hope you didn't give out your SSN to that caller claiming to be the IRS.

Wait, what?

[Afforess]

If I spoofed my caller ID, how would they ever know without wiretapping me, or doing something else illegal? How would anyone ever get caught? This law seems unenforceable.

Re:Wait, what?

[jack2000]

It's an all digital system, they WILL know.

Re:Wait, what?

[BradleyUffner]

Phone rings: caller ID says Joe .
Pick up phone: "Hello Mr , I'm from X Company, and we want you to have one of our fine credit cards."
Call and report X Company.

Re:Wait, what?

[BradleyUffner]

hmm.. slashdot ate some of the comment text there... guess i should have read the preview more closely.

Should read:
Phone rings: caller ID says Joe (your last name).
Pick up phone: "Hello Mr (your last name), I'm from X Company, and we want you to have one of our fine credit cards."
Call and report X Company.

Re:Wait, what?

[Afforess]

If they knew beforehand, why would anyone spoof? I don't follow your logic here.

Re:Wait, what?

[Lunix Nutcase]

It's actually quite simple. Telemarketers have been known to do this. It's quite obvious to get caught because the people you call who see you doing the spoofing will report you to the proper authorities. It's also easy enough for the telco to find out that you are doing this. The problem is that they haven't been stopping people from doing it hence why they had to come in and pass this law.

Re:Wait, what?

[jmcharry]

There is a subtle difference between caller ID and ANI. ANI is used by the telco billing system and cannot be spoofed because it identifies the access line. CID can sometimes be spoofed by inserting bad data on a PRI line. Some telcos, however, check it.

Re:Wait, what?

[EdelFactor19]

what if his name is Joe though?

Re:Wait, what?

[jellomizer]

Spoofing the caller ID doesn't mean you are untrackible. But it does mean the person who answers the phone gets the wrong impression who is calling.

For example if you work from XYZ company and you call out their Caller ID may get the main line number while your number is "Spoofed" as it is a legit use for it. That is why they don't stop it.

However if you spoof your own line with just fake information then the person will need to dig and get the information back. Usually being to much effort to be worth it.

But now with a bigger fine if someone spoofed a caller ID to Horass then you can double wammy them back. A slap on the hand and a year in jail.

Re:Wait, what?

[BobMcD]

Then he'd be even more likely to answer it. Likely thinking 'did I leave my damn cell phone somewhere??'

Re:Wait, what?

[John Hasler]

Because, of course, no one would ever lie about being X Company.

Re:Wait, what?

[Chris Mattern]

Because while it's trivial for the phone company to know, it's NOT trivial for you to know. Ordinary citizens don't get access to ANI, and probably shouldn't get access to ANI. So they can't tell that the Caller ID they're seeing on their phone is lying to them. There's lots of good reasons while phone calls might need to be anonymous (which they can't be if the callee has access to ANI). There is, however, no good reason why a phone call should fraudulently misrepresent itself.

Re:Wait, what?

[EdIII]

Caller ID 'spoofing' happens all the time. I do it thousands of times a day. There is a difference between the Caller ID and the ANI like the other poster was saying. The ANI allows the telephone companies to always know exactly who is calling. A lot more difficult to spoof that.

For example, I have a few telephone numbers with a VOIP provider (DIDS). I can make calls out on that line but specify on each individual call the Caller ID number that I want to be shown to the caller.

Why?

Customer A is making outbound calls through me and I want for his phone calls the Caller ID to be 555-1212.

Customer B is making outbound calls through me and I want for her phone calls the Caller ID to be 555-1010.

Customer C has 25 different phone numbers, and wants their outbound Caller ID to be dependent on who they are calling.

These are all legitimate uses of Caller ID. Normally, the customer owns all of those DIDs and is using it for inbound calls as well, although that is not always the case. There are outbound only (termination) VOIP services where you can specify your Caller ID and don't have any numbers with them at all.

What this really boils down to is setting the Caller ID number on a line to be a number that you:

A) Do not own.
B) Do not service by contract.

A & B need to have heavy fines and imprisonment where it can be proven that you knowingly did such an act. The challenge is that it is hard to make a VOIP provider responsible for such acts when there are so many legitimate uses to do so.

Personally, what I would like to see is a law that requires authorizing documents and proof for every single phone number that you would be submitting as the Caller ID for a call. Instead it is a free for all right now. I have received calls from the number 3,5,8,13,1500 & 666 in the last month on my cellphone. I admit I have made some 'test' calls to friends and my own cell phone with 666.

There really should be a whitelist of numbers allowed as Caller ID on each account instead.

As an example, a VOIP provider would require a signed document from you, and a copy of your most recent cell phone or land line bill proving you have the right to set 555-1212 as a Caller ID. Obviously there is an exception when it is the VOIP provider that sold you the phone number in the first place or had it ported to them from a previous service.

Now if you were to do that...... it would be a heck of lot easier to prosecute the end user as well and possibly fine the VOIP provider.

P.S - The Caller ID name is separate from the phone number and cannot be spoofed as easily.

Re:Wait, what?

[sjames]

If you are a private individual playing a joke on a friend, they probably won't ever know. If you're a business annoying thousands of people and some percentage complain, the necessary records can be obtained from the phone company.

The real question is, will they bother? I doubt it. There's a lot more cred to be had busting some kid for a 1/4 oz than for busting a caller ID spoofer.

Re:Wait, what?

[BradleyUffner]

That's where phone company records come in.

Telemarketers?

[Rantastic]

It would be great if this could somehow be used against telemarketers. I guess it will depend on the specific details of how the law is written. Not to mention that its difficult to track down the company that called when they are faking their outbound number.

Re:Telemarketers?

[Belial6]

That depends. If this is considered Wire Fraud, then the authorities can just get the phone data from the phone company via a warrant. Of course, it seems that any company doing spoofing now is already committing wire fraud.

VOIP

[jack2000]

I'd like to see how they work this one out with Skype and other VOIP providers.

Re:VOIP

[idontgno]

I don't use VOIP, so I don't know... but do you have a POTS phone number for someone to call you? Then that's what your outbound CNID should reflect. If someone can't return a call to you at the number shown in the caller ID, it's a spoofed caller ID.

Re:VOIP

[h4rr4r]

Legit call centers do this all the time. Do you think they have a line for each agent? Do you think that the agent is always there?

No, they display their phone number that accepts customer calls.

Re:VOIP

[LBt1st]

I haven't used Skype in a year or two but it was possible to have outbound service but no inbound number (if that's all you wanted to pay for). I'm sure there are other situations as well where an inbound number doesn't exist.

Re:VOIP

[AndrewNeo]

On the same note, spoofing to a number and name you legally own shouldn't be illegal, but that's sort of irrelevant.

Re:VOIP

[AndrewNeo]

Any time I've used Skype Out it's always shown up as 000-000-0000 or 012-345-6789.

Re:VOIP

[gontech]

I wondered about that, too. It seems like they thought about it in the bill:

"False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.

Re:VOIP

[omnichad]

Especially when I use my VoIP line to spoof my cell phone caller ID. That way, the return call gets to me wherever I am. That shouldn't be illegal.

Re:VOIP

[gregmac]

I do use VoIP, and I "spoof" in two specific situations:

Since I got a cell phone through my work, I had my old cell phone number (which I'd had for like 7 years, and it spells my name) ported to VoIP (I keep both numbers and have separate personal/work numbers, and only carry one device). Now when you call it, it simultaneously rings the phone in my home office, and my cell. When it calls my cell, it "spoofs" the outbound call to appear as though it's coming from whoever ACTUALLY called my number, so on my cell phone the caller id shows the true caller, and not as if someone at my house is calling.

The other time I use it is as a secondary VoIP service. I only have one inbound number (DID) for my "house" number, which is tied to a specific provider. I have another provider that is setup as a secondary service, in the case I try to make a call and the first is unreachable, or rejects my call for any reason. I don't have a DID with that provider, only outgoing service. So when I place calls from that line, I "spoof" my house DID number, so it doesn't show up as blocked or some random CLID.

Unfortunately, I don't see how they can distinguish these two uses from actual malicious spoofing, but I'm not in Mississippi (or the US for that matter) so this doesn't apply to me now.

Re:VOIP

[jeff4747]

And that isn't spoofing, as defined in this law.

Spoofing would be if the call center listed 000-000-0000 as their number. Or your phone number.

Re:VOIP

[demonlapin]

Under this law, it's not illegal to do that. Read the bill; it's very short.

Re:VOIP

[cheier]

I can agree and disagree with you to some extent. I disagree to the point that I use CID spoofing using Skype.

Why? I use my cell phone for business all of the time, and about 95% of the time I'm using my cell phone for business, I'm at my computer. I will generally opt to use Skype at 2.4 cents per minute instead of my cell phone at stupid long distance rates, but I want to make sure that clients know it is me calling. I have Skype spoof my cell phone CID so that when I call someone regardless if it is by phone or Skype, they know it is me, and I can get away with significantly cheaper long distance rates. Especially when I'm roaming outside of the country.

Squeal like a pig!

[t33jster]

This seems like an ineffective use of legislation at first glance, but the next time somebody does the "your auto warranty is about to expire" trick, the first thing I'll ask is whether they logged any calls to Mississippi. If so, send their skinny little butts there for some quality time with the general prison population where they can think about what they've done.

I don't really even care about the fine. Throw them in the can with Bubba for a year per call to MS, and justice will have been done.

Better yet.

[digitalmonkey2k1]

They could just force ANI and drop CID, so it's not an issue.

Re:Better yet.

[h4rr4r]

The politicians that made this law do not know that, nor did they bother to research it.

Re:Better yet.

[nwf]

They could just force ANI and drop CID, so it's not an issue.

Except one can spoof ANI as well. On purely digital networks, you have to tell the system what number you are calling from, since it wouldn't otherwise know. Some carriers enforce a rule that your outgoing CID and ANI must be a number which you own, but not all do. If you have multiple carriers, they really can't do this effectively, since they don't know what numbers you terminate.

Plus toll free numbers aren't really on the same level as regular ones, since they are ALL redirected via the SMS 800 system to do all sorts of things, including routing based on time of day and originating location. They can also be forwarded to a "local" number or numbers, but they don't have to. Basically, all you could enforce from this law is to make sure people don't set CID to a number which is obviously not theirs, but finding who they really are is hard. I've called by phone company wanting to get call log info and they claim they don't even save it for other than outgoing long distance calls.

Re:Better yet.

[h4rr4r]

The real problem is the POTS system. It needs to die. Everyone gets a voip phone and we use DNS to assign numbers. Nice and simple. No spoofing IPs if you want to be able to hear what the other party is saying.

Re:Better yet.

[Locke2005]

Agreed. I believe that's why the phone company makes it so hard to get an ISDN line, because ISDN relies on the caller's equipment to accurately send the CID. A CID is so easy to spoof that they are worthless. An ANI is much harder to spoof.

Re:Better yet.

[raju1kabir]

Everyone gets a voip phone and we use DNS to assign numbers. Nice and simple. No spoofing IPs if you want to be able to hear what the other party is saying.

And completely useless caller ID from the 80% of callers who have dynamic IPs. "You have a new call from 218.111.13.197 (111.218.in-addr.arpa.static.tm.net.my). Answer or Reject?"

Re:Better yet.

[raju1kabir]

That doesn't even have the tiniest bit to do with why the phone company makes it hard to get an ISDN line.

Re:Better yet.

[sjames]

On purely digital networks, you have to tell the system what number you are calling from, since it wouldn't otherwise know.

If they ACTUALLY don't know, how do they bill you?

More correctly, the retrofitted kludge doesn't otherwise know, but the billing system does.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[h4rr4r]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
More stupid politicians makings laws about things they do not understand.

I bet they did not even know the difference between CLID and ANI.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[spun]

How would enforcing a rule such as this enable telcos to make more money? I imagine that some of their larger customers are spoofers. And telcos are corporations. All corporations are inherently sociopathic, lacking in empathy, remorse, guilt, or any sense of right and wrong outside of "more money is right, less money is wrong."

If someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to.

In other news...

[Rantastic]

...all telemarketing firms in Mississippi are relocating to other states.

Re:In other news...

[clone53421]

Wouldn’t help: calling into Mississippi using spoofed caller ID data would be commission of a crime in Mississippi and they could be prosecuted no matter from where they were based.

They’d have to stop calling Mississippi, or stop spoofing their caller ID on those calls anyway.

Re:In other news...

[h4rr4r]

And who is going to extradite over this?

Route the calls to a PSTN gateway to another country. Then you will not even know where they really called from.

Re:In other news...

[jeff4747]

And who is going to extradite over this?

Any DA in Mississippi who would like a nice, positive story in the paper around election time.

Re:In other news...

[h4rr4r]

He might try, but an extradition order no one will enforce is not very useful.

Re:In other news...

[clone53421]

Mkay, I’m gonna self-reply and take that back. Without reading the bill (I haven’t), I don’t know whether calling into Mississippi with a spoofed caller ID would be a crime.

Re:In other news...

[jeff4747]

Extradition orders are _always_ enforced. Because the other state wants their orders enforced.

Nothing reforms a man like prison rape!

[spun]

In fact, let's just do away with prisons and sentence people to serve time in automated rape machines. Who cares about cruel or unusual punishment, these guys are spoofing telephone numbers!

Re:Nothing reforms a man like prison rape!

[sjames]

It's OK, they're corporations, they'll just get fined.

Simple solution

[h4rr4r]

Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country. All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.

Re:Simple solution

[Bloopie]

Or they'll stay in Mississippi and *gasp* display their real company name in their Caller ID!

If a company is so slimy that it would move out of state just to avoid displaying their real name on phone calls, well . . . that's pretty slimy.

I guess that's most telemarketers, but still.

Re:Simple solution

[amorsen]

Why would they do that? They can still block caller ID and they can still show any number they own. Why would they want to show someone else's phone number, and why should we let them?

Re:Simple solution

[h4rr4r]

They call for another company. If I am bob from "Bob's telemarketing and general annoyances" and I call for AT&T, whose number do I display? AT&T would prefer that I give theirs, and I would too as I do not take calls in. As I am not that scammy I only call current AT&T customers about new options. What number do I display?

Re:Simple solution

[Bloopie]

Well, that is a problem. Still, most customers, including me, are going to be somewhat irritated that a third-party company is calling them in the first place. Maybe it's OK if they're doing something that doesn't need much knowledge of (in your example) AT&T, like a customer satisfaction survey. But if they're trying to sell me an AT&T product, shouldn't I be talking to AT&T instead of someone else? In that case I want to know it's "Bob's telemarketing and general annoyances."

Re:Simple solution

[mishehu]

Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country. All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.

Funny, I could understand the Bangalore tech support staff better than I could the Mississippi telemarketing staff. *grin*

Re:Simple solution

[h4rr4r]

AT&T has not done it's own calling in probably 20+ years. No big company does.

Guess what, that dell order you made involved people who do not work for dell directly.

Re:Simple solution

[Bloopie]

Guess what, that dell order you made involved people who do not work for dell directly.

Yes, believe me, I'm familiar with that. That's why talking to Dell can sometimes be an unpleasant experience.

Re:Simple solution

[demonlapin]

I live in Mississippi; have my whole life. I have a noticeable if not particularly strong Southern accent. And Mississippians still ask me - on a weekly basis - where I'm originally from.

Nobody would locate a general-purpose call center here.

As for how it will work, the answer is simple: they are going to go after in-state scammers. Once you start crossing state lines, the feds get interested in your frauds.

Re:Simple solution

[Eil]

Yeah, won't someone please think of the poor spammers?

Collection Company's

[ironicsky]

This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time. I wonder how it will affect call centers since call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of.

Re:Collection Company's

[Tihstae]

You people trying to use common sense and thinking about the details are ridiculous. Lawmakers are too busy taking money our of our pockets to worry about these details and that money will be used to enforce this law which will require more of your money. See, all clear now.

Re:Collection Company's

[Attila Dimedici]

Ah, but if they have written the law correctly (I haven't RTA and since these are politicians I think it is a longshot) you would be able to go to court and get the state court to nullify your debt based on the criminal action of the debt collector. A law written in such a manner would go a long way to stopping the practice (and I am pretty sure it would stand up, I know that several states have laws that if you record a telephone conversation without the other person's knowledge you can be fined several thousand dollars, even if you are calling from another state).

Re:Collection Company's

[MobyDisk]

Someone would have to sue them for it. Since most customers probably _want_ to know that, rather than the name of the call center, it seems unlikely that anyone would pursue a case based on that.

Re:Collection Company's

[natehoy]

You really need to read the law: "however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information."

Re:Collection Company's

[natehoy]

To clarify, I was responding to the call center bit.

The collection agency bit is easy. They will continue spoofing numbers, but the people in Mississippi will simply lose their jobs when the collection agency moves to another state where their practices are legal. If this becomes a federal law, then the call will come from India, China, or any of a number of countries where the law does not apply. Or they'll just start blocking caller ID entirely.

Re:Collection Company's

[amorsen]

You could at least read the bill before panicking.

"however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information."

Re:Collection Company's

[int69h]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if they leave the state, anyone that calls a resident of that state and spoofs caller ID is in violation of the law. All they would have to do is extradite the offenders to the state and try them.

Re:Collection Company's

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time.

I think that impersonation as a means to collect a debt was made illegal over a decade ago, check the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the details.

Re:Collection Company's

[noidentity]

Hello, this is the Extraneous Apostrophe Collection Company. We're here to collect one extraneous apostrophe from ironicsky. Are you him?

Re:Collection Company's

[Duhavid]

So, no law that attempts a good thing that corporation might not like should be put on the books?

They have their fingers on your throat, don't struggle, they will squeeze harder.

It's true, what you say, but also, so very very sad.

What happened to liberty?

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Lunix Nutcase]

Telcos should enforce it on their own.

Yeah and corporations should do all sorts of things they don't do. Which is why the government has to step in to make them do it.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[spun]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
More stupid politicians makings laws about things they do not understand.

I bet they did not even know the difference between CLID and ANI.

Everyone should know the difference between the CLID and the ANI. The CLID is in the front and the ANI is in the back.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[clone53421]

How would enforcing a rule such as this enable telcos to make more money?

It pollutes the feature? At what point is it no longer worth getting caller ID, because the numbers are not reliable enough to be worth paying to have it...

But yeah, you have a point. The telcos really don’t have much incentive to prevent spoofing when their larger customers are doing it.

However, here’s my take, and why it still doesn’t need to be illegal IMHO. The companies who spoof are generally doing stuff that should be illegal anyway, right? That’s why they want to hide their identity. So as I see it, if we could crack down on them for those actions, spoofing wouldn’t be the big-business issue it currently is. Then, the primary spoofers would just be pranksters, and the telcos would have good reason to prevent it again.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[Rantastic]

I think not, as the law is pretty clear about requiring

...THE INTENT TO DECEIVE, DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD;

and since your Google Voice number is still a number belonging to you, I doubt it would be a crime to use it as your caller id.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[Lunix Nutcase]

So everyone calling Mississippi is at risk of being prosecuted?

No. If you aren't spoofing your information then you have no risk at all of being prosecuted. This law is about people like telemarketers who are having their caller ID information changed so that they can get around things like call blockers.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Javagator]

All corporations are inherently sociopathic, lacking in empathy, remorse, guilt...

A corporation pays my salary, so they can't be all bad.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[clone53421]

That’s so old-fashioned, though...

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[h4rr4r]

Legit call centers do this all the time. Do you think they have a line for each agent? Do you think that the agent is always there?

No, they display the phone number that accepts customer calls.

The folks who show a false number altogether are criminals who are not going to follow this new law either.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[asdf7890]

All corporations are inherently sociopathic, lacking in empathy, remorse, guilt...

A corporation pays my salary, so they can't be all bad.

They only pay you because slavery is illegal. Doing the right thing because you have no choice doesn't count when good karma is being totted up.

Prank Calls

[electricprof]

Now I can't spoof my identity as Bea O'Problem or Amanda Hugginkiss ...

Re:Prank Calls

[2obvious4u]

One of the guys in my office does this with his google voice account. He calls our boss with it during meetings. It is hilarious.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[amorsen]

I really don't see your point. Whatever you show to other people when calling should be numbers you own. Why should the law be concerned with how that is actually implemented?

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[clone53421]

I think the key here is twofold:

When you call someone, does the name in the caller ID it say it’s you?

If they return the call to the number it displayed, will they reach you?

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[h4rr4r]

Then make that the law. But there is a need for dialed out number to not be the displayed one for many legitimate and obvious reasons.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[QuantumRiff]

How? Seriously, how the hell would they enforce it? Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time! Look when an agent at your bank calls you from their call center. Does their phone number show up? Nope, its the 800 number, that you can call back the company on. Isn't that the same as spoofing? I mean, technically, its the exact same steps in the PBX to do it maliciously or not.

Then, you might have one call center in one region have a nice fat pipe coming in from ATT, a second call center handled by Verizon, but your 800 number is handled by sprint over in California. So how would ATT or verizon enforce the "spoofing rule" without having any knowledge or control over your 800 number?

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[amorsen]

Why should they know? They're just mandating that the number you show when you dial someone is a number you own. A perfectly sensible rule and one which has been enforced by gentleman's agreements in other countries. Obviously gentleman's agreements aren't enough in Mississippi, and so they had to make a law.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[tibman]

Preventing spoofing in the first place makes it easier to track down illegal actions, right?

I think that if it was easy and common to spoof IP addresses, the internet would be even more of a cesspool.

I think elimnating spam had to do with positive identification of the sender? Seems like it has gone down over the past few years. I would guess most servers/relays drop email that cannot be properly tracked to the origin, they could do something similar with phonecalls.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[Sarkoon]

I have a personal Asterisk server that I've configured with a call-forwarding feature that routes incoming calls to a variety of phones so I can answer calls from the most convenient device at any time. In order to relay the incoming caller-id information, I have to set my outgoing caller-id to that of the caller so that my cell phone shows me the caller's caller-id and not my server's caller-id.

I do not intend to decieve, default or mislead, but my server is making calls (to my own phones) with other people's caller-id all the time.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[natehoy]

You own the Google Voice number, and it is a number that can be called to reach you. It's your number, not someone else's. Therefore, using it as a return number is not entering "false" information.

From the actual law as passed:

SECTION 2. As used in this act:
[...]
(d) "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.

Google could easily be considered an "authorized agent" and they are putting in the telephone number they have issued to you. Plus your Google Voice number does not misrepresent your identity. So there are two outs in that provision that make Google Voice calls legit.

SECTION 4. This act does not apply to:
[...]
(d) A telecommunications, broadband or voice-over-Internet service provider that is acting solely as an intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between the caller and the recipient.

This probably covers things like calling cards, where your call comes from some bizarr-o phone number your recipient has never heard of. But it could easily apply to Google Voice. Even if they used a random phone number from a list of numbers they own, they would not be in violation, as long as they didn't put someone else's name or a phone number actually belonging to someone else in there. If you got a call from "UNKNOWN" at "1-800-GOOGLE1" and it was forwarded by Google, that's valid. If you got a call from "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" "1-800-TAX-U-ASS" then that would be fraudulent.

Also, from a technical perspective, you are not calling the recipient from your cell phone. The Google Voice app sends a signal to Google saying "the next call from this number should be forwarded to phone number (the number you asked it to dial) for account (you)". Then it initiates a call to one of its access numbers, which uses your caller ID to figure out which Google Voice number to use on the outbound caller ID and who to call. Technically, you are calling Google from your phone, and they are calling the recipient per your request, and presenting valid information about you to the recipient of the call.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[oldspewey]

Small question but ... what happens when all the people you know implement your philosophy? How do call somebody back when they have a policy of never picking up the phone?

Corporations are sociopaths

[Weaselmancer]

If they decided it would be worth more money for them to grind you up and feed you to pigs, they would.

Right now you are bringing in more money than they are paying you. Hence your employment. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't be there. And if the penalty for murder was less steep, the odds of getting caught smaller, and if there was a pig food shortage - you'd be screwed.

Read up on the tobacco industry for current examples of what I'm talking about. They kill about half a million people in the United States every year, and all for profit. Money.

It should come as no surprise when a company does something less evil than that for money. The bar is set pretty high. So allowing people to spoof caller ID for cash? Mere child's play.

OP was exactly right about corporations being sociopaths. It's probably one of the most insightful things I've ever seen on /.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[anomnomnomymous]

They kill about half a million people in the United States every year, and all for profit. Money.

Erm, they kill? As far as I know it's still people's own responsibility to smoke. It's not as if we're living at the start of the 1900's, where the effects of smoking weren't known.
Do you also hold carmanufacturers responsible for the deaths of cars each year?

Note: I'm a smoker myself. Fully aware of the risk, but still enjoying my daily cigarette. If I'd be getting cancer, I wouldn't blame the tobacco manufacturers, but my own stupid habit...

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[__aasqbs9791]

...Right now you are bringing in more money than they are paying you. Hence your employment. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't be there. And if the penalty for murder was less steep, the odds of getting caught smaller, and if there was a pig food shortage - you'd be screwed...

Don't forget nepotism. He might actually be hurting the company with his presence for all you know. ;^)

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[Javagator]

He might actually be hurting the company with his presence for all you know

Right. I feel like I'm making out like a bandit.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[Kreigaffe]

Why, it's not insightful *at all*.

Corporations are just a concept. Like a government. Or a gang. It's all the same, it's all people. People are quite able to be sociopathic, evil bastards all on their own. Don't blame the corporation, a corporation never does a damnedable thing -- it's the people running the show (or "running" the show) that do things. Blame where blame is due.

And your tripe about the tobacco industry is garbage. Clearly you must support the 7-figure judgement against McDonald's because some fat woman spilled hot coffee on her lap (because she removed the lid while holding the cup between her legs while driving) -- they're burning people every year! EVIL CORPORATION! Oh, except, no. That's fucking stupid. You're fucking stupid. Go away.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[mirix]

Why, it's not insightful *at all*.

Corporations are just a concept. Like a government. Or a gang. It's all the same, it's all people. People are quite able to be sociopathic, evil bastards all on their own.

Unfortunately you can't put a corporation in prison when they break the rules. Which is why they tend to have much less of a conscience, versus natural persons.

Not to mention that large organizations make passing blame / guilt quite easy, so the humans pulling the strings manage to sleep at night.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[Weaselmancer]

If they didn't engineer cigarettes to be as addictive as possible with additives and adjuncts, I'd agree with you. But we both know there is an entire industry aimed at making cigarettes as addictive as possible to take away your right to choose.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever tried to quit? Most smokers I know have tried once or twice. What was that like?

Still feel like you're 100% in control of your decision to smoke? If you're not, who is?

The tobacco industry is. And since they're calling the shots to some degree, they hold some degree of the responsibility. As I see it - yes. They do in fact kill people. With malice and forethought, 100%.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[deniable]

Clearly you must support the 7-figure judgement against McDonald's because some fat woman spilled hot coffee on her lap (because she removed the lid while holding the cup between her legs while driving)

Your post would carry more weight if you cited a real case, not one you made up.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[timeOday]

it's the people running the show (or "running" the show) that do things. Blame where blame is due.

How ironic, since the point of a corporation is to shield those exact people from liability for their actions. So much for putting blame where it's due.

(I'm not saying that's entirely bad; I don't want to be sued for everything I own because I buy into an index fund that owns some Toyota stock and somebody sues them.)

But corporations are created by laws that give people strong incentives to act in certain ways. If some of those behaviors are harmful, of course the laws should be questioned.

Re:Corporations are sociopaths

[ravenshrike]

True, he's talking about the dumb old bat who managed to do that while parked in the passenger seat. The really funny part is I had an Outdoor Ed teacher who always said that cotton kills.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[spun]

Really? You think laws are a bad idea? What method would you use to ensure that people's freedoms aren't infringed upon? As laws in a free democracy amount to nothing more than contracts between individuals, it seems as though you don't agree with the whole concept of contracts.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[iammani]

You are not actually spoofing your caller ID. It is just that Google is calling you and the other person and conferencing you both. This can no way be construed as caller ID spoofing.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[spun]

I hate to rain on your wishful thinking, but if what you say actually worked in reality, there should be at least one telco that already prohibits caller ID spoofing. Is there?

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[oldspewey]

The difference between ANI and CLID is that CLID is what gets displayed to people when their phone rings. That is where this issue begins and ends. If I go to the bank and take out a loan using stolen identity, it is illegal because the stolen identity is what I am displaying to the bank. The fact I might be carrying other, legitimate pieces of ID in my pocket is irrelevant, because I am trying to pass off false credentials as my own during the business transaction in question.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[EdelFactor19]

IANAL but i feel like if I am not originating the call in Mississippi I don't see how I am bound by their laws. The state I make the call from allows it, I am not required to know their state laws, I don't set foot in their state, I don't operate a business in their state. I don't know enough about this to know whats involved in spoofing; but I know enough to know that unless they can prove that you willfully did something, and also that you did so under their jurisdiction I don't see how they can do anything.

As stated this seems like moronic, idiotic, technologically inept old politicians reacting to some knee jerk 'my sister got done scammed by them there telemarketers' and passing a law they know nothing about, have no way to enforce, and which targets the wrong group.

If you don't like caller id then stop paying for it. I don't think i have a single phone that uses it anyhow. Most people's cell phones don't actually do caller-id. They merely cross-reference the number from your contacts list. The last time I had a landline the caller-id wasn't smart enough to even do that; and merely stated names of places where calls were thought to have come from.... So i really dont care at all.

All in all, glad to see where these guys are wasting state money on. With real problems going on they are wasting time and taxpayer money on caller-id spoofing. Really? It's that high up on your agenda?

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[amorsen]

Then read the damn bill instead of shooting down straw men.

Why bother spoofing?

[Locke2005]

Why bother spoofing the caller ID when you can just block caller ID altogether? I'd just ignore "Unknown Caller" calls, except for the fact that my daughter's school makes emergency phone calls to parents with caller ID blocked... sigh. I point out to them every year that this is a problem, but they are too cheap to fix it. (Obviously they are using trunk lines from each school through the district headquarters, so if they displayed the number for the outgoing line, calling it back wouldn't put you in touch with the same person that called you. Also, they are too cheap to just use the main number for the district as a caller ID like every business in the country, 'cause then they would have to hire a receptionist to figure out who you actually wanted to contact.)

Re:Why bother spoofing?

[clone53421]

my daughter's school makes emergency phone calls to parents with caller ID blocked

Don’t answer.

Better yet, answer and say “you’re hearing this message because you’re a fucking asshole who called me with their caller ID blocked” and then hang up on them.

Name by Caller, 800 numbers are all faked.

[sampas]

Anon is correct. CallerID between telco does not support name. All you enter on your side is the number. The telco charges for the number-to-name entry, so if the name is incorrect, it's incorrect in the telco's database. Also, every time you see an 800 number in caller ID entry, it's false. You can't dial out on 800 lines. Whoever it is calling with 800 on their caller ID is actually calling from some other circuit.

Re:Name by Caller, 800 numbers are all faked.

[raju1kabir]

Also, every time you see an 800 number in caller ID entry, it's false. You can't dial out on 800 lines. Whoever it is calling with 800 on their caller ID is actually calling from some other circuit.

In the era of VoIP, that statement has become largely meaningless.

Re:Name by Caller, 800 numbers are all faked.

[Dredd13]

CallerID between telco does not support name.

And I'll call bullshit on this, because I get caller name information, from people on the other side of the country, all the friggin' time. And it's not people who are "in my phone" or crap like that. Because my desk phone is a simple, basic, PHONE, without a lot of bells and whistles.

That's not to say it's UNIVERSALLY transported between carriers, but blanket statements like this one are just factually inaccurate.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Nadaka]

It is obviously good... I am somewhat surprised to see this from my home state.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[spun]

Of course there is a difference between 'should do' and 'must do.' We are a free democracy, and we have a system for determining which 'should dos' become 'must dos.' I never said that every 'should' should be made into law. I'm saying every law is something that people 'should' do, but won't, without consequences.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[BobMcD]

How does anyone ever enforce anything? You punish those you catch doing it wrong, of course.

Further if the displayed number is one of your own, I don't see this as 'spoofing' at all. Read the law, I guess and see if they agree.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[mishehu]

"Most people's cell phones don't actually do caller-id. They merely cross-reference the number from your contacts list."

Hate to be pedantic here, but I do work in telecommunications. Pretty much every cellphone on the US market supports Caller ID Number, but not the Caller ID Name. If they didn't support Caller ID Number, then there would be no way to cross-reference the number to a name in your contact list.

Another side note is that Caller ID Name is not something supported in all locations or all countries - even other industrialized nations.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They only pay you because open slavery is illegal.

Here, fixed that for you.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[h4rr4r]

Ignorant I guess. I am a sysadmin and have nothing to do with telemarketing other than I worked for a call center during college.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Scrameustache]

There shouldn’t need to be a law for this, though. Telcos should enforce it on their own.

Score:4, Insightful

If I hadn't just spent my last mod point, you'd just now be at +5 Funny. Telcos, acting right without the law forcing them... good one!

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Think about it. That's not spoofing, that's giving an alternate callback number for the same entity. Spoofing a callback is saying you're someone else; like, say, a car "warrantee" company using a little old ladies number as their callback. Again, your bank agent is not spoofing by giving his own company's 1-800 number. I'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them. How the heck do you think calls are routed currently?

Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good. I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[royallthefourth]

Actually, that's not true. Slaves cost money; if they die, you gotta buy a whole new one!

When you have an employee, it doesn't matter what happens to him. You've only paid for his labor, not his life. It's easy to hire a new one and only has a minimal training time overhead.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[spun]

If I wanted to convey what you believe I meant, I would have written "In every case where someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to."

What I wrote is simply true in a literal sense. I don't really see how it is controversial. "We believe you should do this" is the ultimate justification for every law on the books.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Qzukk]

If a telco customer can't rely on the telco for providing the proper information that the customer is paying for, then they will lose the customer to a telco who will.

Uh, you do realize that it's not the answerer's telco that's spoofing the caller ID right? If a caller on AT&T spoofs his caller ID and I'm on Verizon, is Verizon supposed to use their psychic powers to figure out the correct ID?

If people actually followed your logic, Verizon would intentionally spoof the caller ID of every call from its network to a competitor in hopes that everyone drops their competing phone companies. Of course, AT&T would do the same to calls to Verizon, and so on. This is an improvement?

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[demonlapin]

If you're not in Mississippi, you can still commit a crime there, but they may have some difficulty enforcing the law against you.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[asdf7890]

I'm sure a good slave works out much better value for money in the long run...

Re:My cell number still has the previous owners na

[jeff4747]

Despite repeated attempts to get my cell phone company to change the name that shows up when I call someone, it still shows that person's name. So in this case, who would be breaking the law?

Well, you could read the law.

I know, this is Slashdot, we're all supposed to jump to conclusions based on the title of the submission, and not even read the summary. But anway...

The answer is nobody would be breaking the law. The law is written so that it requires intent to deceive. You actually want the correct name, so you're not deceiving. The cell phone company is just being incompetent, and again shouldn't be prosecuted.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[royallthefourth]

That's possible, but I don't have the feeling that many people have any particular job over the long haul these days.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm sure a good slave works out much better value for money in the long run...

If slavery were more cost-effective than paid employees, then slavery would still be legal....

"Real" POTS number isn't actually definable.

[billstewart]

One of my coworkers uses Skype to call me when he's not in the office. I can recognize his calls, because they're from "0000123456" :-) He doesn't *have* an inbound Skype number, as far as I know. There are other VOIP systems that use addresses like username@domain to set up user-to-user connections, and don't use numbers at all.

And what's the "real" number for a PBX? Is it the number for the trunk group, or the individual line on the trunk, or the Direct In-Dial (DID) number for the operator, or the phone itself? If you're telling me "the phone itself", old PBXs often didn't have DID capability, and new ones only do if you buy the numbers from a telco. If I call my car dealer, I get the main phone, and the operator connects me to Parts or pages Fred from the sales lot to pick up a phone; if one of them calls me, the call's coming from the dealer's number, not some separate number for Parts. And often companies will have FX numbers, that let you call a local number in your exchange, even though their actual office is somewhere else, or toll-free numbers that go to inbound call centers which may not have outbound-calling service. And telemarketers often have PBXs that only need to do outbound calls, and the trunk has a billing number that's not related to an actual phone.

The 911 problem is related to this as well - it makes a number of assumptions about the relationship of physical locations, people, phones, phone numbers, buildings, and fire departments, which may have made sense back when everybody bought analog wired phones from their telco, and has a signaling system that's based on those assumptions, and a funding model that's based on those assumptions and 911 network implementations, and tries to require that newer systems like VOIP, PBXs, etc. implement that signaling interface even though it doesn't reflect the underlying network, and doesn't have any money to upgrade its own signaling to reflect current reality.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[dissy]

There shouldn't need to be a law for this, though. Telcos should enforce it on their own.

Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.

If I had to guess, that would be pretty much all corporations with 25 or more phones, since using T1 channels becomes cost effective at that point.

I suppose the largest corporations aren't breaking that law, assuming each and every last handset in the company has an external phone number and DID tied to it. But just ONE internal only phone line, and they are in violation of this law every time someone lifts it and hits 9, as the phone number is 'spoofed' to the main company number.

Where I work for example, we have about 60 DIDs (outside phone numbers) yet over 100 phone extensions.
The internal 40 can make outside calls, but the phone system will spoof in our main reception phone number, so if someone actually called the number on caller ID, they will still get to us (And through the receptionist, to the extension they wanted to reach)

Pretty much every phone switch has the ability to not assign an external phone number, so any caller ID data will be spoofed. The only other option is to send the private or unavailable codes, which brings all the undesirable non-answering of calls such things typically bring.

Think of this feature as a form of NAT for phone lines.
In fact, for the short time the California law was in place that made IP spoofing illegal, everyone in the state using NAT was breaking the law. (Though to be totally fair, Cali also outlawed possession of water for a week or two as well...)

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[e9th]

I do exactly that. I specifically asked my provider whether that would violate any portion of their TOS/AUP and was told it was acceptable.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Timothy Brownawell]

If slavery were more cost-effective than paid employees, then slavery would still be legal....

If it were less cost-effective, why would it need to be illegal? The slave owners would have had to stop on their own or go out of business.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Think of this feature as a form of NAT for phone lines.

It's more like the "From:" or "Reply-To:" headers of an email message: it indicates where you want follow-ups to go to.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[jbolden]

However, here’s my take, and why it still doesn’t need to be illegal IMHO. The companies who spoof are generally doing stuff that should be illegal anyway, right?

No they aren't. For example my company spoofs so that patients who hit *87 or return the call go to a number where their calls will get handled rather than some internal number that might just be an outgoing only line.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[swillden]

If they return the call to the number it displayed, will they reach you?

Depends on how I have it configured. I can send their call anywhere, or I can block it, in which case they'll hear the "number has been disconnected or is out of service" message.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[jbolden]

I'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them

Well you would be wrong there. The ways calls are routed is very complex and no one has total knowledge of what they are passing. The PSTN is just not structured with that sort of identification information.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[qazwart]

The problem isn't from Telcos. You can't spoof caller ID from a regular land line phone. This is for PBXs and 3rd party VOIP services where spoofing goes on all the time. In fact, I bet the local phone and cable companies are behind this bill since it causes problems for their customers.

Debt collectors are known to spoof caller IDs. For example, they'll spoof their number to that of a family member or employer. And, we recently had a spat of spoofed IDs a few months ago when that company in Missouri was selling extended auto warranties. In that case, they spoofed the number to hide their identity, so people couldn't complain.

FCC regulations already prohibit spoofing caller ID, but there really isn't any federal law which makes the regulations almost impossible to enforce.

There is a major problem with the bill. The bill only applies to people calling from Mississippi. The bill should have made it illegal to call a person or business in Mississippi using a spoofed caller ID.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.

RTFL. It's very short. Quoting it:

2(d) "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.

and also:

3(1) A person may not enter or cause to be entered false information into a telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of a call.
(2) A person may not place a call knowing that false information was entered into the telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of the call.

So it's "with intent". I don't see anything wrong with the law as it stands.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[raju1kabir]

The companies who spoof are generally doing stuff that should be illegal anyway, right?

I "spoof". I purchase my incoming and outgoing service separately and from different vendors. I use different caller ID identification based on whom I am calling (one number for personal calls, another for business calls). They are both numbers that belong to me but there is no particular connection between that number and the "line" I am using to place the call.

I also forward calls from certain people to my mobile phone when I am not at my desk. In that case I am effectively placing a call to my mobile number, spoofing the CID to be that of the original caller, so I can see whether I want to answer it.

I would be very sad if I could no longer do these things, as they make my life a lot easier.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[raju1kabir]

Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good. I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I effectively do this many times a day, to no nefarious end.

When a call comes to my office number and I don't pick it up, my phone system dials my mobile phone, spoofing the number so as to pretend to be the original caller, so I can see on my screen whether I want to answer it.

Re:My cell number still has the previous owners na

[zero_out]

Well, you could read the law.

I know, this is Slashdot, we're all supposed to jump to conclusions based on the title of the submission, and not even read the summary. But anway...

The answer is nobody would be breaking the law. The law is written so that it requires intent to deceive. You actually want the correct name, so you're not deceiving. The cell phone company is just being incompetent, and again shouldn't be prosecuted.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions...

Actually, I can't read the law, because both sites are blocked by my employer's firewall. /. is whitelisted, as are CNN, Wikipedia, and other popular, largely respected sites, but not the two linked in the summary.

Anyway, thanks for answering my (sincere) question, even if your reply was a bit presumptuous and rude. I wish that this law applied to incompetent phone companies too, because that seems to be the only way I can get this thing changed.

Re:Blocked

[zero_out]

Someone mod this person as Funny. It looks like someone is having a field day in these discussions, modding everyone down as Troll / Redundant for no good reason.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

So how would this apply (if it does) to Google Voice? (and no, GV is not VoIP!) For example, I use GV on my Droid. I used to be on AT&T and I was able to move to Verizon with no "porting fee" or any of that crap because I use GV and had already gotten everyone to dial that number. My physical cell number is not given out. When I make a call, it uses GV and gives out that number. Seems like it must be "spoofing" at some point (although if I use the web page instead of the app it doesn't spoof because it calls both parties). I'd hate to see such a valuable and useful tool be hamstrung by a law intended to stop phone spammers.

All spoofing isn't bad

[Whuffo]

There are everyday situations where having the caller ID number be other than the actual phone number is a good thing. Most companies do this - they'll have dozens or hundreds of phone lines and all of them show the "master" number for the company as their caller ID.

Or for VOIP users like me - my phone lines show the POTS number you should call to reach me, not the "hidden" number of the VOIP line. In both of these situations (and probably others) "spoofing" makes the caller ID information more useful. The option to configure the outgoing caller ID information is built into almost all telephone switching equipment for just this reason.

The misuse of this ability is the problem, not the ability itself. Laws like this one are likely to cause more harm than good; the current situation where some bad guys spoof their caller ID information isn't totally bad - they almost always choose obviously incorrect numbers. That makes it easy for me to just look at the phone and if it's a call from 000-000-0000 then it's not going to be answered.

If the government actually took violations of the "do not call" list seriously - and if various stores (on and off line) didn't sell your name and phone number to anyone with the price - then these problems would be greatly minimized. The telephone company has the actual phone numbers for every phone call - that data is accurate and not the same as the caller ID information. Maybe even the phone company could block calls with invalid caller ID information? There are things that could be done that would really be useful.

But this kind of political grandstanding where they want to tinker with a system that they don't understand - this is stupid. But that's nothing new these days...

Re:All spoofing isn't bad

[DutchUncle]

What you're describing is not spoofing. If the same entity owns both numbers, then putting a "return address" different from the actual "shipping address" is no different from putting a company's office address on mail shipped direct from a warehouse. It's connected to the same people, so it's not fraudulent.

Re:All spoofing isn't bad

[AZURERAZOR]

I think not, as the law is pretty clear about requiring ...THE INTENT TO DECEIVE, DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD;

and since your Google Voice number is still a number belonging to you, I doubt it would be a crime to use it as your caller id.
--
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.

This would nicely eliminate any of the positive spooking incidents from violating the law.

Intent to deceive is required and would not qualify under the circumstances you mention.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

If it were less cost-effective, why would it need to be illegal? The slave owners would have had to stop on their own or go out of business.

Slaves require a large up-front investment. If you already own slaves, then you'll lose money switching away from slaves to free employees.

Note, by the way, that slavery wasn't outlawed because of cost questions. It was those damn Christians and their morality!

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[paeanblack]

All corporations are inherently sociopathic, lacking in empathy, remorse, guilt...

A corporation pays my salary, so they can't be all bad.

Assigning any type of pathos to a corporation is silly. They have no emotions. I could just as usefully wonder if my desklamp is bored.

Claiming that a company lacks empathy is like claiming that democracy lacks a rosemary-garlic flavor. Lacking the capacity for emotions doesn't make something inherently evil or bad, it's simply a trait shared by essentially everything that is not human.

Would a locomotive be evil for crushing anything that gets in its way? We have a tendency to think that way about powerful corporations, when instead, we should be concerned about where we place the tracks (the laws).

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[AK Marc]

Note, by the way, that slavery wasn't outlawed because of cost questions. It was those damn Christians and their morality!

The Bible endorses slavery, and the "red" south was the area with slaves, and the "blue" north didn't have them and worked to get rid of them.

And slavery could never be abolished today. They talk about issuing more taxi licenses in New York or Anchorage or other places with fixed numbers of licenses, and the cabbies get into an uproar. The Anchorage lawyers said the city should just pony up for buying every license out at market rates if they try to issue a new one, as they will be sued on a takings basis. Not that they took anything, but that they made something someone bought less valuable. Abolishing slaves today would require the government buy each and every slave. Doing it back then was such an issue not because they were cheap, but they were a sunk cost, and abolishing slavery would destroy their capital. The north instantly deleting that much capital plunged the south into the backward hick area it still remains today (at least in some areas).

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[AK Marc]

Claiming that a company lacks empathy is like claiming that democracy lacks a rosemary-garlic flavor. Lacking the capacity for emotions doesn't make something inherently evil or bad, it's simply a trait shared by essentially everything that is not human.

You are right, which proves you wrong. A corporation doesn't "feel" anything, including ethics, morals, pathos, empathy, responsibility, etc. However, the law has set them up as "legal persons." So a corporation is a legal person that doesn't feel those things. You say that aren't a person and shouldn't be treated as such for comparisons of emotion, however the law defines them to be people and they get to act like people. So you are arguing for them being amoral profit-driven sociopaths. You claim an exception because they aren't human, but the law does assign them person status, so the exemption may be philosophical, but the law trumps that in practice.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[AK Marc]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I effectively do this many times a day, to no nefarious end.

Someone else quoted the law here, "when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information."

You are not spoofing. You are passing along the information when forwarding the call. The technical "spoofing" meaning (which is undefined, probably closest to "inserting any information not matching the ANI of the line originating the call") is what you seem to be using. That's unrelated to the "spoofing" used in the law. That's why you think it's bad, because you don't understand it. Read it, then let us know. They don't say you can't "spoof" in the sense of sending what you want as caller ID. They say you can't send false information with the intention of deceiving others. Sending "Chuck" instead of "Charles" down my line is not the spoofing discussed in the law. Sending the originating caller ID when forwarding a call to your cell is not the spoofing discussed in the law. And I'd even argue that sending the original information when forwarding a call isn't "pretending to be someone else" in the sense that the OP stated.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[AK Marc]

Regulation that has no concept of the subject it is regulating is worse than no regulation.

Posters with no concept of what they are commenting on is worse than no post. The law lets you set your caller ID to *anything* you want, including blocked, as long as what you set it to isn't misrepresenting who you are or are calling on behalf of. So if you are a contractor for IBM and working from home (whether that home be in Indiana or India) you are perfectly allowed to have IBM's main 800 number sent as your caller ID. You are calling as an agent of them, so you aren't lying. Giving false names and numbers to confuse and trick is the only thing made illegal by this.

If you think otherwise, please quote the part of the law that is in question.

Re:They only pay you because slavery is illegal.

[Arker]

They only pay you because slavery is illegal.

And slavery is only illegal because free labour works harder and costs less (over the long term.)

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[spun]

No, "it protects people's freedom's" is WHY "we think you should do this."

Hehe. Are we really just down to arguing semantics in a show of Internet chest-puffery at his point?

Maybe. But maybe I have a point.

Where do laws, rights, and freedoms come from? We can derive all sorts of fancy philosophical constructs that provide justifications and reasons for all sorts of laws, rights and freedoms. But why do we need these justifications? Because we need to get people to agree with us.

It may be an ugly truth, but there are no 'natural rights.' Without society, there is only power. With society, there are only agreements: contracts, where people give something and gain something.

So the cold hard fact is that the only reason "don't kill people" is NOT on an equal footing as a law with "go to church on Sunday or else" is because more people think agreeing not to kill each other is more important than agreeing to go to church every Sunday.

We don't have to look far for contra-examples, either. "Don't kill people" goes out the window in war, doesn't it? Every society thinks it is just fine to kill people for in certain situations. And some think everyone should go to church, by law.

If you think these societies are wrong headed about these issues, you need to change their minds, and they need to change their agreements. Freedom only comes from agreements, where something of value to each individual is offered and received.

Justification of law by the protection of freedom is a good argument. As long as you realize that everyone has a different definition of 'freedom,' and that every freedom involves a trade, a freedom lost for a freedom gained.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[fermion]

A person may not enter or cause to be entered false information into a telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of a call.

The bill includes intent. Unless one is trying to deceive or defraud your customer, there is no violation.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[rubi]

If someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to.

Unless you live where I do, then you make the law and those not doing what they are supposed to do (and the new law mandates) still don't do it and just say the law does not apply to them for whichever bizarre reason comes to their mind in that moment.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[lordsid]

That's not spoofing, it's trunking.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[clone53421]

For example my company spoofs so that patients who hit *87 or return the call go to a number where their calls will get handled rather than some internal number that might just be an outgoing only line.

That’s a different situation, and I’m not even sure it’s considered “spoofing” or done in the same way.

If the caller ID says who you are (your name) and gives a number at which you can be reached, that’s acceptable – if you are a representative of a certain company, the caller ID can show the company name & line, not your personal extension. That’s not fraudulent and therefore not illegal according to this law.

In any case, the telco knows you’re doing it... and yes, the telco knows the fraudster spoofers are doing it too. They just can claim immunity if they don’t know about the (other) illegal actions of their customers... even when they probably know full well what’s going on.

Making the spoofing illegal is a way to pin the telcos and force them to reveal who the fraudsters are, but I’d prefer a solution without adding new things to the list of stuff that’s illegal.

Re:They only pay you because slavery is illegal.

[clone53421]

Free as in speech, or free as in beer?

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[clone53421]

How? Seriously, how the hell would they enforce it?

They know it’s happening. They know when it happens.

Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time!

The list of companies doing it is finite, and once a company has been whitelisted for spoofing (i.e. they’re using a number they own, to route calls back to a central company switchboard), they’d only need to be re-investigated if complaints started arising.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[clone53421]

Then I’m pretty sure it would be illegal.

If they could reach you by calling the number, it would be okay.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Greg_D]

There is no right to anonymity in this country. This is not a free speech issue. This is a douchebag issue.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[Brad Mace]

Well, they did overreact on the punishment. Fine them, sure. But a year in prison for spoofing caller id? Really guys? The cost to taxpayers for that is worse than the harm of letting them spoof.

Is the FCC ok with this?

[schwit1]

I was under the impression that congress gave exclusive authority to regulate the communications industry to the FCC.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[bondsbw]

The GV number is still a real telephone number, just connected through Google's servers. So no, this law wouldn't apply.

This law prevents putting anything you want as the number. For example, spammer from area code 999 calls the number 555-555-1234. The caller ID says 555-555-9876, so the person answers thinking it is a local number when it is not.

Another example of abuse, someone calls with the caller ID number of your ISP. They ask for username/password or credit card info to "fix" a problem with your account.

You're trolling

[Weaselmancer]

You're trolling, but I'll bite anyways.

The McDonalds case is 100% on the money.

Read this if you are able then get back to me. Don't know about you, but if you offered me a few hundred thousand with the caveat that I'd have to undergo genital debriding - I'd pass.

Now read this and tell me if you think smoking is simply a personal choice. The tobacco industry has teams of chemists and scientists working to make cigarettes as addictive as possible - to take away your right to choose.

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Re:You're trolling

[Kreigaffe]

No, I've read the McDonald's shit, and I've read the anti-smoking shit. Neither of it is any more compelling than Reefer Madness.

"Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C)"

That, right there, is a load of shit. That's cold coffee. Check the next cup you buy from.. well, ANYWHERE. It will be hotter than 140. It'll be more like 180. Ideal temp is 155-175 or thereabouts. Coffee's served a bit warmer, so as it sits there it reaches the best temp and to counteract cooling from the creamer people dump into it (which is a sin against coffee but that's another rant).

Essentially, the whole case was based on a lie -- that being that the coffee served by McDonald's was unreasonably and unsafely hot. Truth of the matter is ALL COFFEE IS UNREASONABLY AND UNSAFELY HOT, IT WAS JUST FUCKING BOILING WATER A FEW MINUTES AGO. I feel bad for the old lady, but come on. She should have known better than to act in such a reckless manner. You don't sue a store because you bought a lighter and burnt yourself on it.

The smoking shit is just that -- shit. God knows it's a fucking crime for any industry to ever try and improve their product in any way. Nosir, anything that isn't the nastiest, harshest, shittiest cigarette is TOO GOOD FOR ALL THEM EBIL SMOKERZ. amirite? Did you even read that link? They're not trying to make cigarettes as addictive as possible, they're trying to make better cigarettes. Nicotine's addictive. NEWS AT 11! So is caffeine, where's all the clamoring for rope and a sturdy tree limb when Starbucks releases their latest sugar-and-caffeine-bombinacup? Admit it -- you think these things they're doing are terrible because you think cigarettes are terrible. That's unfair. Cigarettes are terrible? That's a fine opinion to have, and smoking is bad for you, but it IS a choice to start smoking AND to continue (it's just hard to quit) -- and, it's a LEGAL choice. Where it any other industry that was doing the things listed in the BBC article, with any other product, we would applaud them for progress, even if we don't personally have any contact or fondness for their product. Happens all the time here, Apple or MS comes out with something, people hate it but they don't hate that the industry as a whole is moving forward -- and this is demonized when it's done by the tobacco industry? That makes no sense. Hell, it doesn't even make sense to bitch at beer companies for releasing more delicious beers -- I mean GOSH, IT MIGHT TEMPT KIDS TO DRINK! I don't even fucking understand how that argument flies in the first place, I suppose it's just the magic evilness of the tobacco industry that makes it so.

You lack any sort of perspective. Of any kind. You're parroting evil things because you've been told they're evil and that's bad. Truth is, that lady should NOT have received a DIME, and cigarette companies are merely a favored whipping boy because they don't have any allies to come to their side and point out the unfair treatment.

Re:You're trolling

[Weaselmancer]

Well if you won't give up smoking or coffee, might I suggest you at least give decaf a shot?

G'nite numbnuts. Shine on you crazy diamond.

Re:You're trolling

[clone53421]

Bullshit.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Oh, and before you claim she was just in it for the money?

Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

And just to put the final nail in the coffin,

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

You’re are full of shit.

Re:You're trolling

[clone53421]

*you are, or you’re... not both.

Re:You're trolling

[Kreigaffe]

When you can't argue rationally, attack personally.

It's ok, I *revel* in it. G'nite moonbat.

Re:You're trolling

[Kreigaffe]

Not full of shit in the least.
The refusal of McDonald's to settle out of court is a non issue. I did not say that Liebeck was only in it for the money, I said she was at fault for her own injuries and not McDonald's. If McDonald's is not at fault, they have no cause to settle out of court. Clearly they believed they would win their case -- coffee being a hot beverage, and hot beverages being unsafe, and her performing an unsafe procedure with said unsafe beverage, how the hell could you hold McDonald's liable for that? The coffee was served hot. Coffee is hot. The container was not defective. Slam dunk, right? Weeelll.

It's not surprising in the least that the particular McDonald's in question lowered the temp on their coffee. They were pretty much required to -- after that case, if the coffee remained the same temp that was just declared unsafely hot and lost them a big hunk of cash, they would just be setting themselves up for another big loss of cash.

[quote]If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.[/quote]

source: http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

national coffee association. i bet they know a thing or two about coffee. i bet it lines up pretty damned smack-dab on with what i said. i bet i already knew that i know more about coffee than you do, but i bet i enjoy pointing it out anyway.

coffee in MY home is NOT served at 135-140 degrees. that's lukewarm coffee. now, if you take a good hot coffee, and add milk or creamer from your refrigerator, it'll probably drop that low.. but frankly (as I believe I said) that's a sin against good coffee.

Go to a local starbucks and buy a cup of coffee. Measure the temperature. Shit's HOT. I don't buy coffee from them because it's TOO hot. It's kept at the proper temp to make their mixed coffee drinks an appropriate temp, but not intended to be consumed black. Has anyone sued them for severe burns? Have any consumer protection agencies gone after them? No? Huh. I guess coffee's just fucking hot and you've gotta make sure not to burn yourself on it.

Trust me, I do feel bad for that old woman, but it's not McDonald's fault. I don't care what some jury found, you grab 12 people off the street and odds are good all 12 of them are non-reasoning imbeciles who reach judgements only through knee-jerk emotionality.

Fact is coffee is hot, and it's best served hot. I'm not saying that the contention that 180-190 is too hot to drink is incorrect -- it, in fact, IS correct -- but when you account for the shit people add to coffee, it becomes an ideal temperature. Coffee that's never too cold. At worst, you set it down for a few minutes and let it cool, if you're drinking it black. Coffee that's too hot is drinkable soon, but coffee that's too cool is never drinkable.

End of the day, that coffee would not have hurt her if she had not acted recklessly. Hold a non-rigid cup between your knees? Seriously? Go sue a car manufacturer because you got up over 100mph too fast and wrecked. I made an accurate car analogy, I win.

Re:You're trolling

[clone53421]

That wasn’t a personal attack, it was free medical advice.

(This statement has not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration. This advice is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Be sure to check with your health care practitioner before taking any dietary supplement.)

Re:You're trolling

[clone53421]

Clearly they believed they would win their case

Of course they did. Remind me again... how’d that work out for them?

End of the day, that coffee would not have hurt her if she had not acted recklessly. Hold a non-rigid cup between your knees? Seriously?

Hand someone a flimsy cup* full of acid that causes full-depth skin burns in 2-5 seconds and see if you don’t get found at fault for gross negligence and recklessness. Just because it’s coffee it’s okay? Either serve it at a temperature that won’t cause severe burns or serve it in a container that is suitable for its extremely hazardous properties.

*lid known to come off easily causing accidental spillage of the contents

Re:You're trolling

[Kreigaffe]

I agree! If the cup was defective, McDonald's would have been at fault!

Except in the case with Leibeck, the cup was NOT defective. It was a fine cup, with a tightly secured lid. There was no contention made that the cup was at fault -- Leibeck was at fault. She removed the lid, and while doing so was squeezing the cup between her legs (I presume, as anything about the case will state that she was holding the cup between her legs). Now, squeeze a cup between your knees. While wearing sweatpants. That's not entirely a safe and sturdy place to hold on to a cup of hot liquid.

What it all boils down to is her lawyer claimed that the coffee McDonald's served was unreasonably and unsafely hot, and that coffee from other vendors is never served that hot. That's just an outright lie, and that -- and ONLY that -- is the case in a nutshell. That's the only factor that matters. And it's a lie. That's why this case still pisses me right off. McDonald's lawyers I would hope were fired for incompetence. The contention that the coffee was unusually hot is easily disprovable. Unsafe? Well, yes, coffee is unsafe. That's the nature of coffee. If you go to one of those restaurants where they cook the food at your table and you smack the cooking surface with your hand, the restaurant is not liable -- things that are hot are hot, if you don't know that it's your own dumb fault.

I dunno if you've ever bought coffee from McDonald's or anywhere else, but the cups are all non-rigid. Mostly rigid, yes, but if you squeeze them they will collapse. They're usually either a thick paper or thin foam. If there's a lid attached, it provides strength that prevents the cup from being bent into an oval shape. This is all completely obvious and self-evident to any thinking human. The container itself is completely safe under any and all normal usage. What Leibeck did was not normal. McDonald's was not -- is not! -- at fault for her injuries, regardless of what some asinine jury found.

Re:You're trolling

[clone53421]

You make 3 observations/claims here...

if you squeeze them [with no lid] they will collapse

[the lid] provides strength that prevents the cup from being bent into an oval shape ... The container itself is completely safe under any and all normal usage.

What Leibeck did was not normal.

The first point I will concede to you.

The second you would have to demonstrate. I believe that accidentally squeezing a flimsy cup too hard is quite likely to pop the lid off without even intending to.

The third is utter rubbish. If you put cream or sugar in the coffee, you have to take the lid off. I don’t care if you do think it’s a sacrilege to coffee to add cream and sugar to it; many if not most people do. It is without any question “normal” for people to intentionally take the lid off their coffee.

The container is not, by any stretch of the imagination, completely safe under any and all usage. In fact, I can’t conceive of a container that would be, unless they added the cream and sugar for the customer so that the customer would not have to open the container and risk spilling its scalding-hot contents. However, the obvious solution is to serve coffee at a safe, drinkable temperature, coffee snobs be damned. Coffee snobs don’t buy coffee from McDonalds anyway.

Keeping coffee that hot for any great length of time ruins it anyway. If it wasn’t just brewed, the coffee will be burnt.

Re:You're trolling

[Weaselmancer]

It's ok, I *revel* in it.

I know you do. It's called trolling - you didn't invent it.

Re:They only pay you because slavery is illegal.

[deniable]

Free as in sex, or so I'm told.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[Dredd13]

I think you mean "CNID" (Calling Number Identification).

I have no idea what "CLID" is, but it's not a telco term, to the best of my knowledge.

Stern

[corychristison]

Well there goes Richard and Sal's day jobs...

(if anyone get's the reference, sturdy Bababooey to you all!)

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[LandGator]

> The problem isn't from Telcos. You can't spoof caller ID from a regular land line phone Wrong. I can buy a card with 100 minutes of spoofing for my landline at the local Buy 'n Fly for $20.

Not a well-informed post

[LandGator]

> Ordinary citizens don't get access to ANI Well, why not? All you need is to buy a toll-free number service with same-day online billing detail, and every caller is shown with their true ANI data. Then, only give out the toll free number. Yeah, spendy. So's privacy, these days.

Re:CLID name not specified by caller

[tkjtkj]

hahahahahaha!! hohoho.. that is soo funny ... good one!

telemarketing jobs

[circletimessquare]

consists of interrupting people in the privacy of their homes, and trying to convince them to buy crap they don't need, and doing your damnedest to keep them from hanging up

telemarketing jobs should not exist, period. they are harassment, especially in regards to the elderly. even if half the population is unemployed: fuck telemarketers, burn the entire industry to the ground

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[clone53421]

Yes, but unfortunately, since spoofing is okay, the telcos can claim immunity as they don’t know about the fraud.

This law would make spoofing no longer acceptable, at which point the telco would have to investigate and make sure that there wasn’t fraud involved, vs. now, when they can simply claim they know of no fraud and ignore the spoofing.

I still don’t like it. Force the telcos to cooperate when you’re enforcing the other laws; don’t make new ones...

Re: shouldn't need a law...

[clone53421]

the telco believes whatever the equipment connected to it tells them. How would you propose to fix this?

They’re billing someone. They know who placed the call.

It's like me making a law against opening an unlocked door. If you don't want the door opened, first at least lock it with a real lock.

It’s already illegal to open an unlocked door if you do so with an intent to steal stuff... if the door was open as well as unlocked you can’t get “breaking” and entering, I think, but opening a door is considered breaking in.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[clone53421]

Old-fashioned answering machines were nice. They answered the phone, let you hear the caller leave their message, and if you wanted to pick up the phone and interrupt, you could.

This is just a fluff bill.

[DaysSinceTheDoor]

First off this bill is just fluff, all of the things it outlaws are already illegal under federal laws. Second off this sort of legislation worthless as most of the companies committing this sort of fraud are located in other countries. They operate with a VoIP connection and will call with one carrier for a while till the FTC or some state attorney general gets fed up and gets their VoIP connection shut down. The company then turns around and in less than an hour has another VoIP connection through a different carrier. There is basically nothing that can be done to stop them so long as VoIP carriers allow them to send out random caller id.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[jbolden]

Yes exactly. But I commenting on why people might want to give the wrong phone number.

Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?

[Duhavid]

Here is a solution: Don't file suit against yourself.

But even if you should, I think the fact that you were not attempting to deceive or mislead will get you off the hook. ( pun intended ).

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Also, the information being entered in the above examples is technically not false.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[UnderCoverPenguin]

In some cases, anonymity is essential to the ability to speak freely. Used properly, for example, it prevents coercion in elections and allows workers to report problems without fear of unwarranted retribution.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[shiftless]

UP TO a year in prison. I imagine that would be reserved for the worst offenders.

Good Idea. Wish California Had This.

[Blackjack Joe]

Today I got an obvious spam call that was spoofed. Caller-id stated "Name Unavailable" and the phone number was "000-000-7774". Of course, there's no 000 area code. I didn't answer and whoever it was didn't leave a message. I'm on the do-not-call list, so I can't report this caller as violating that either due to the spoofing. I also have the feature from my phone company that doesn't allow calls that have caller-id blocked to ring my phone, but it doesn't consider an invalid phone number as being a blocked number.

I've been considering contacting my phone-service provider about enhancing that feature to at least stop these obviously false phone numbers.

Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Bible endorses slavery, and the "red" south was the area with slaves, and the "blue" north didn't have them and worked to get rid of them.

Noting, of course, that the "red" south was dominated by Democrats at that time. And the "blue" north was dominated by Republicans.

Note that South Carolina seceded from the Union because a Republican President was elected for the first time.

Note also that the Bible's endorsement of slavery (in the Old Testament, which isn't actually considered binding on Christians) doesn't at all change the fact that the Abolitionists were a largely Christian group, both in the USA and Europe.