Slashdot Mirror


FTC Gets 744 New Ideas On How To Hang Up On Robocallers

coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission today said the submission period for its Robocall Challenge had ended and it got 744 new ideas for ways to shut down the annoying automated callers. The FTC noted that the vast majority of telephone calls that deliver a prerecorded message trying to sell something to the recipient are illegal. The FTC regulates these calls under the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Challenge was issued to developing technical or functional solutions and proofs of concepts that can block illegal robocalls which, despite the agency's best efforts, seem to be increasing."

281 comments

  1. Google Voice call screening by Plum · · Score: 1

    Until something better presents itself.

    1. Re:Google Voice call screening by penix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is the law. There are so many loopholes in it you could drive a Mac truck through them. For example, the whole "if we did business with you before we can contact you again" part. There is no definition of "doing business" and it can include things like they sent you snail-mail spam. It also exempts the most annoying which are the political robocalls. In short, the law itself is contributing to the problem.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:Google Voice call screening by NevarMore · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are so many loopholes in it you could drive a Mac truck through them.

      Is Apple making wheeled vehicles now?

    3. Re:Google Voice call screening by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is the law. There are so many loopholes in it...

      Actually, if you look in the summary, that's exactly not what the FTC found. All of the loopholes are legal ways for companies to call you that are still not desired by the recipient. But the majority of robocalls, it says, are illegal. Meaning they're not driving through loopholes, they're just ignoring the law.

    4. Re:Google Voice call screening by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      Or how they disguise their sales pitch as a "survey" to use THAT loophole.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    5. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, a snail mail advert is not enough to trigger the "relationship" required by the law.
      While the political calls are exempt, telling the politicos NOT to call again usually works. (This does mean that you have to wait and talk with a human.)

      My father would wait until the end and talk with a human. He would act interested and spend 15 to 20 minutes talking with them. (Part of his job was repetitive tasks and he would do this while on the phone.) After getting the humans all hyped up over an "impending" sale, he would ask, "I can pay for this with food stamps, right?". He would be disconnected and never receive a call again from that robo-human.

    6. Re:Google Voice call screening by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Better yet, agree to the sale.
      Then once they get you one the phone with the person who takes your credit card info, hang up. This will result in a cost to the call center and the agent who called you will get reprimanded for the failed conversion.

    7. Re:Google Voice call screening by Githaron · · Score: 1

      The problem is an Apple Mac truck would be really small, thin, and made of aluminum. I don't know who would want to drive that death trap. At least all the corners would be rounded.

    8. Re:Google Voice call screening by InterGuru · · Score: 1

      Even better, string them along and give them a fake credit card number (The first 4 digits must be from a real number). When that fails, give them another fake number. When that fails express surprise that they keep calling back in spite of giving fake numbers on previous calls.

    9. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wouldn’t worry about the Apple Mac Truck being a death trap; after all they are all very well engineered devices.

      It's the other things that worry me; such as add-ons like the "Standard fuel pump to iGas adapter", "sloped driveway parking adapter", and the fact that I could only get gas, wiper blades, air freshener and other iTruck items from the approved iTruckStore. But then again ... they really do make the best adapters; and the door is on the bottom!! *mind blown*

      -- sent from my S3 --

    10. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The law is working 100% as intended.

    11. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find most annoying is that charities have picked up on this. They now go through a third party to contact. The third party is the one who has done business with you so then they can contact you about anything else. I've stopped giving to any charity that uses a third party to solicit donations.

    12. Re:Google Voice call screening by ancientt · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that there have been so many replies to this suggestion and all of them are ignoring it. Google Voice does indeed rock. I have an interface where I can schedule how I'm going to respond or which phones I'll take calls on. There is an anti-spam caller option which is very effective. I can set my default to have callers announce who they are before I take the call. I can block callers I don't want to talk to, or send calls to voicemail and listen in and pick up if they turn out to be offering something I legitimately want to talk with them about. I can record calls immediately and it stores voicemails and texts virtually forever.

      Google voice pretty much does EXACTLY what needs to be done to completely eliminate unwanted callers. The only way I can think of to make it better is for every phone company to adopt a similar system. Ideally, I'd like to see the personal phone number become one that can ONLY be called by government agencies or your phone service provider and all other calls be required to go through a person's public phone number that works like Google Voice.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    13. Re:Google Voice call screening by nadaou · · Score: 4, Funny

      what we need now is an overzealous federal prosecutor looking to make an name for themselves and perhaps perform some act of societal penance.

      won't anybody help?

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    14. Re:Google Voice call screening by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Even better. Go along and get all the information for the company and make sure you tell them that you will only order by calling the rep back because of phishing attempts (after all, they called you). After you get all the info, report them to the Do Not Call list (donotcall.gov). It only takes 1 minute. I assure you that companies do get the $11,000 fines. I have seen two companies that I worked at get the fines. I implemented DNC checking at one of them after they got their first bill for $88,000 a couple months after the DNC list came out (after they ignored me when I told them about it originally).

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:Google Voice call screening by gauauu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Better yet, agree to the sale.
      Then once they get you one the phone with the person who takes your credit card info, hang up. This will result in a cost to the call center and the agent who called you will get reprimanded for the failed conversion.

      I tried this. Unfortunately, the fact that I actually wanted to talk to somebody got me bumped to some sort of "possible target" list, where I get called probably 5 times as frequently now. Before starting your strategy, I got called maybe once every few weeks. It bumped up to once or twice a day after I actually talked to somebody. *sigh*

    16. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that it's a _Mack_ truck, not a "Mac" truck. Apple doesn't build trucks. Heck, they don't even build servers any more.
      Mack Trucks (now part of Volvo) does build trucks and has since 1900.

    17. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what we need now is an overzealous federal prosecutor looking to make an name for themselves and perhaps perform some act of societal penance.

      won't anybody help?

      Ask Ortiz?

    18. Re:Google Voice call screening by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      I find it interesting that there have been so many replies to this suggestion and all of them are ignoring it. Google Voice does indeed rock.

      Why yes, I was so pleased when my ISP outsourced their email services and handed two years of archived email, and all future email, over to a company whose business is gathering and selling data about people. I will immediately switch my telephone service over to the same company, because perhaps there is something about me that they don't know yet.

    19. Re:Google Voice call screening by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And Apple fans would also claim that Steve Jobs invented the wheel.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the law. There are so many loopholes in it...

      Actually, if you look in the summary, that's exactly not what the FTC found. All of the loopholes are legal ways for companies to call you that are still not desired by the recipient. But the majority of robocalls, it says, are illegal. Meaning they're not driving through loopholes, they're just ignoring the law.

      There are no loopholes - the FTC is simply not doing its job. When I tell a political campaign to stop calling me and they call me anyway, they are illegal.

      100% of the robocalls that I get are unwanted, and 100% of them that call me after I told them to stop calling are illegal. I don't care that a minority of them are in a legal grey area because they are third-party political origanizations or companies doing "nonprofit surveys" on whether I think my furnaces need cleaning - I don't want ANY of them. I tell them to stop calling me, they call me anyway (so they are now illegal, regardless of who they are), and I want the FTC to do its fucking job and go after all of them.

    21. Re:Google Voice call screening by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Excellent. That means they are too busy to call me.

      Everybody else do it too. You won't regret it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of work to set all of that up. I use Google voice as well. As my phone is ringing, if it is not a number a recognize, it goes to VM. I glance at the voice mail to text conversion I get in my inbox and delete as required.

    23. Re:Google Voice call screening by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I'm more worried about the early models that had only one pedal...

    24. Re:Google Voice call screening by Githaron · · Score: 4, Funny

      They would just claim it is a square with rounded corners.

    25. Re:Google Voice call screening by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      If you ask Siri or the Maps App how to get to cyberspace, you'll get an answer . Just don't try to use it for navigation.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    26. Re:Google Voice call screening by mike449 · · Score: 1

      Ask to be transferred to their legal department. That will put you on their REAL Do Not Call list.

    27. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did one better: I was getting endless calls for air duct cleaning services. I told them to stop calling, but it made no difference. Next time, I arranged the visit by the cleaner. When he arrived, I told him I wanted the calls to stop and, no, I was not going to pay him to clean my ducts. He left and the calls stopped.

    28. Re:Google Voice call screening by Valcrus · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But my fix for that is I have a "junkmail" contact on my cell phone. It sends them right to voicemail. Now I get no calls on my phone from these people because it always goes to vmail and they always hang up. After a few months of that I don't even show missed calls anymore.

    29. Re:Google Voice call screening by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      I understand your point; this is the reason I don't use Gmail for anything real (or real important). We moved our landline of 20 years over to GV about a year ago because

      1) Most of the calls to that line (~90%) were spam

      2) Since most of the spam calls were from doing business with corporations (mortgage, CC's, Kroger card, etc.), we wanted to keep the line as the "spam line"

      3) Most of the calls we cared about came to our cells

      I first had to move our landline to a prepaid cell contract, then I moved that to GV.

      Now, when the odd call comes through that's not spam and is forwarded to my cell, I tell them to call the cell directly. Whenever we fill out a form (new car), we use the old landline number. Works out well, and Google doesn't get to harvest too much meaningful data.

    30. Re:Google Voice call screening by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I should have started out with "Just the Anti-Spam feature really solves the problem, but there are lots of other optional things that I've learned to appreciate."

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    31. Re:Google Voice call screening by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      *snort*

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    32. Re:Google Voice call screening by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      yes, but only with 1 wheel, and you steer it with a tiny trackball.

    33. Re:Google Voice call screening by EDA+Wizard · · Score: 2

      I did the same thing with a home alarm service company. I arranged for an install at the address of my local police department. They didn't call me back.

    34. Re:Google Voice call screening by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago a local company was calling to "do a survey" about who may want their carpets cleaned. It wasn't a robo-call; it was a live human being. I told them over and over not to call me, but they persisted. The last time they called I gave the lady such a hard time that she put her boss on the phone. He was quite upset with me and said they were allowed to do surveys without consulting the Do Not Call list. I told him that I knew where his business was and that if he called again, I was going to show up one day and "do a survey" of who wanted to be shot that day. I said it wasn't a threat; I was just curious and would really want to find out who would be willing to be shot. Never heard from them again.

    35. Re:Google Voice call screening by profplump · · Score: 1

      The idea that cell phones still have public addresses and no firewall seems insane to me. Of course that's why I went to VoIP with a toll-free number and screening/time-of-day/etc.controls years ago.

    36. Re:Google Voice call screening by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Not to mention all the well-documented flaws Apple vehicles would have (http://members.tripod.com/shadab_shaikh/carsa.html)

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    37. Re:Google Voice call screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hi, I'm here to clean your ducts."

      [cure bad porn music]

    38. Re:Google Voice call screening by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      If you are using android smart phone, or even an iphone I assume these apps also exist for iphones, you can get a callfilter app. I have one called, oddly enough, callfilter. If the call number is on the black list it simply picks the phone up and then hangs up. The phone doesn't ring and they never go to my voice mail.

      My routine is this. You call. The first time if I or my phone doesn't reconize your number I silence it and let it go to voice mail. If you don't leave voice mail then depending on the mood I'm in one of two things will happen. Most likely I will assume that if you where to lazy to leave me voice mail then its not worth my time to talk to you. On to the black list you go. I could take the time to google your number and see if you are important enough to call you back. I'll probably not bother and just toss you on the black list anyway.

      If you leave voice mail, I might listen and if I deem it important enough I'll call you back. If not I will probably black list you.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    39. Re:Google Voice call screening by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I've driven a vehicle with only one pedal.

      It was adapted for a disabled driver with no foot control - the brake and accelerator pedals (it was an automatic - the first I ever saw or drove) were hooked up through push-me/pull-you cables to a hand grip so that you pulled it towards you to accelerate and pushed it away to brake. So, if you braked hard and were thrown forward, you'd brake even harder.

      Felt weird, but it worked. No weirder than using left foot to change gear and right hand for clutch control.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe just actually investigate consumer complaints.

    1. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by The+Moof · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is probably the best suggestion. If you ever have reported robocalls, you know that they refuse to investigate the complaint unless you appeal the initial "nothing to see here, move along citizen" cookie cutter response.

    2. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      They do investigate consumer complaints, which is why one of the major companies running the "Rachel from Cardholder Services" scam got caught.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I think we just found a use for Camp X-Ray over in Gitmo....

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Motherfucker! You tell me this now?

      I reported a spate of them a while back. When every single one of them came back with one of those responses, I just cursed the FCC and trashed the whole issue. I didn't even realize I could appeal!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Start a fund, collect millions of dollars, fly the FTC head to Jamaica for a round of "golf" and "dinner", slip 'em an "donation" of cash and ask to end robocalls. Done.

    6. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by PRMan · · Score: 1

      donotcall.gov may work better. Where did you guys report it?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by gauauu · · Score: 2

      They do investigate consumer complaints, which is why one of the major companies running the "Rachel from Cardholder Services" scam got caught.

      What I don't understand is how, after she was supposedly caught (twice!), I still keep getting calls from that scam.

    8. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think do not call is part of the problem. The law-abiding folks obey it (but use loopholes when possible). The rest don't. It prevents a real technical solution from coming to market by being "kind of ok since it is free", but it doesn't fix the problem. And that's regardless of whether reporting to donotcall.gov makes any difference at all.

      So we are paying through taxes for a non-working solution and asking for technical solutions when we could be taxing a working technical solution instead.

    9. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      I meant in general. Probably they cannot look into every single complaint but they can certainly do something about more than a couple. The problem is not exactly going away with their current level of action.

    10. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      745th idea? Require all telecoms to implement a *Code, say *86 perhaps, that would redirect CID information (if not the call itself) to a database maintained by each carrier and automatically synced with an FTC master database of all instances recorded by all carriers.

      That way, the FTC could amass an overview and investigate the actions it requires of each carrier.

      Personally I got so tired of calling AT&T and their lack of concern of response that I gave them up. Sure they give you the option of paying for a 'service' that will allow you to block specific numbers yourself, but why should I have to pay to block illegally placed calls they charge for at both ends? There's no incentive for the carriers to police this situation in any way, shape or form when they can charge the criminal once and victim twice.

      The game is rigged from start to accounts receivable.

    11. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      It was 4-5 years ago, but I reported it wherever ftc.gov told me to (it was an online form).

    12. Re:Actually USE all your wiretapping crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose Rachel from card services :
      1) Downloaded some riaa songs
      2) Download some mpaa movies
      3) Downloaded academic journals from JSTOR

      I bet she would be facing $50,000,000 + 50 years.

  3. Hi, this is Rachel from Cardholder Services... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are currently no problems with your account...

    (Was 'summary execution' one of the options? Because that's still too good for some of the more egregious offenders...)

    1. Re:Hi, this is Rachel from Cardholder Services... by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, when I hang on long enough past recorded "Rachel" to get to live "Rachel", and ask her nicely to put me on their do-not-call list, she rudely and peremptorily hangs up!

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    2. Re:Hi, this is Rachel from Cardholder Services... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They stopped calling me, otherwise I would play dumb, and go along with it, and right before they got the stuff they were after...

      Oh crap I have to go, house is on fire! Can I get a number to call you back?

      If I get it, BOOM. $16,000 courtesy of an FCC fine...

    3. Re:Hi, this is Rachel from Cardholder Services... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These SOBs call my cell phone all the time using a robocaller device.
      So I have adopted this strategy.

      I created a contact on my androud phone with the information as follows:

      First Name: Scammer
      Middle Initial: T
      Last Name: Scammer

      I then created a MP3 ring tone that is nothing but 3 seconds of silence and assigned it to the contact via custome ringtone and turned off vibrate for the contact.
      When I get a call from them and hear the recorded message I hang up and add the new number to this contact.
      I have received so many calls on my phone I have never answered because they go to my "silent contact".

      The Scammers can go pound sand.

    4. Re:Hi, this is Rachel from Cardholder Services... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer a real blacklist. Actually, I'd prefer a greylist, where if a number that isn't recognized calls me they get a recorded message saying to please hang up and call back. Combine that with a blacklist and a whitelist and you have a workable system...until it gets popular enough that the scammers autorecognize the greylist message.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. Too bad... by docmordin · · Score: 1

    Too bad the FTC just can't apply for an overly broad patent and sue all of the automated callers in the Eastern District of Texas.

  5. Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This works well for land lines. The calls stop. On my cell, it hasn't been much of a problem.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Until the FAX spammers find you. Then you will start getting random calls from FAX machines at all times of day.

    2. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Better to have a modem with some obnoxious BBS software behind.

      In one way - the best way is to have an answering machine saying "Please hold - your call will be answered in a moment" but then you just don't provide more and don't hang up until later. That will keep the robocall line blocked longer.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by icebike · · Score: 1

      Just change your Answering machine announcement to this little mp3:

      http://www.soundjay.com/communication/sounds/dial-up-modem-01.mp3

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I was in law school, I worked at the legal clinic. They had a fax machine that got all sorts of spam. So, I followed all the proper techniques for opting out. Didn't stop the spam. So, I sued all of the companies for statutory damages. Winning a couple of those stopped the spam real quick.

      I still remember a phone conversation I had with one of the lawyers. He was talking about how I shouldn't waste everyone's time and money by suing his client. And I said they shouldn't waste everyone's time and money by spamming them and using up their resources. The funny thing is, the FRCP 11 and 37 sanctions imposed by the court caused by the out of state firm playing fast and lose ended up being more than the damage award. They really shouldn't have messed with the largest law firm in the state, especially when everyone works for the fun of it.

    5. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In one way - the best way is to have an answering machine saying "Please hold - your call will be answered in a moment" but then you just don't provide more and don't hang up until later. That will keep the robocall line blocked longer.

      Nope. The predictive dialer that is in front of the robocall will simply hang up when it detects the message. You'll be blocking your own line longer, but not the scammer's.

    6. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my cell, it hasn't been much of a problem.

      It's a growing problem since more and more people aren't using land lines anymore. Why certain mobile apps exist for call blocking and FTC complaint filing. Such as Privacystar for Android.

    7. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      Also I was told if you put those three tones you get when dialing an out of service number before your message on your answering machine, the robo systems will discard your number for being out of service. After a while it should help stop the madness.

    8. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by 3dr · · Score: 1

      As if a "solution" for unwanted mobile calls could be solved by an *android* app pushed by *anonymous coward*. Forgive me if I remain a bit skeptical.

    9. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is, I used to know what each of those tones and beeps and noises were there for. It was handy to diagnose problems, then; now, I can't recall it in the slightest.

    10. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Or a Fax modem. However,you will get Fax spams once in a while. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    11. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't need to be a real fax machine. A computer simulation would work perfectly. And if you never expect to receive a fax, you can junk the received messages automatically every night.

      OTOH, if you have any friends that might want to call you, that's a really unpleasant thing to do to them. So you'd better marry that app to a whitelist that skips the FAX signal.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Leave a fax machine plugged in during the day. by minvaren · · Score: 1

      Used to work great back in the day. Modern robo-callers are mainly using SIP with some PRI thrown in, and they ignore the audible tones in favor of either protocol's response codes instead.

      --
      Big! Strong! Wow! Tada-O!
  6. Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    Why not get rid of robocalling altogether? These are not the days where it was difficult to get the word out to the public for fundraising or other reasons. The reason that robocalls are increasingly made up of scammer activities is that legitimate uses of the technology have gone elsewhere, to email or other online methods which are far cheaper and which leverage existing multipurpose infrastructure...and which, unlike telephone-based communications, also provides for more robust metrics regarding responses.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Why not get rid of robocalling altogether?

      In what sense? Make it illegal entirely? As TFS says, they're focusing on people who are already robocalling illegally. Making it illegal probably won't stem that much.

      Or are you suggesting somehow implementing a CAPTCHA in the telephone system?

    2. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Wrong first question.

      Why not get rid of the telephone network?

      Go entirely IP based.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by ancientt · · Score: 1

      If all robocalling were made illegal and phone companies were compelled to provide a reporting option that was useable to law enforcement, then you might have a point.

      However, there are a couple robocall uses that are legal that I appreciate. A local school uses it to notify parents of unusual situations, like going on lock down or closing for inclement weather. I believe some cities use robocalling to warn residents of tornado dangers.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    4. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Wrong first question.

      Why not get rid of the telephone network?

      Go entirely IP based.

      Yeah, that will solve this problem, after all it worked so well for unwanted CompuServe messages.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why not get rid of the telephone network? Go entirely IP based.

      In other words, get rid of a relatively reliable redundant communications medium.

      As I asked the woman who helpfully "reviewed my account" to try to save me money, while I was calling to report the complete failure of my Comcast TV and network service, who told me that she could save me money if I switched to a "triple play bundle" (i.e. made Comcast my phone company, too): "So, you're suggesting to someone who is calling to report a complete outage of cable service that he switch his phone service to cable, so he can't call in to report a cable system failure?"

      Every time my packet radio transmits, some of the cable TV channels go into "we've temporarily lost connection" mode. I think there is also a momentary network hiccup at the same time, but not long enough to cause disconnects. That's because a little RF has gotten into the digital cable and it shuts down. A little RF getting into my telephone service does almost nothing. The worst problem I ever had with RF was when there was a 10,000 W AM station two blocks away, and I could hear the station in the background on just one of my phones. The rest of the phones still worked fine. If I use the wrong splitter on my cable, I lose some of the higher frequency channels completely -- they just stop working. The digital signal doesn't degrade gracefully. If I pick up two phones at the same time, the volume goes down a bit but I can still make calls. Analog degrades in a way that still works, mostly.

      "All your eggs in one basket" is a good thing to avoid, especially when that basket is relatively fragile and fails whenever the signal isn't just perfect enough.

    6. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      You still connect to the phone system via wires?

      Even developing countries are going wireless for phone service. Covers a larger area for less, also less to mess up. Also, comcast is known as one of the worst networks out there.

      The only good thing about a phone hooked up to copper is that they still work in a power outage.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    7. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I don't know the history of CompuServe so I take it from the fact that I am on slashdot that your reply is most likely ironic, so what went wrong with unwanted CompuServe messages?

      This pulled up in a google search, but pretty sure not relevant.

      http://www.ehow.com/how_8725713_block-someone-compuserve.html

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    8. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You still connect to the phone system via wires?

      That's why they call it "landline".

      Even developing countries are going wireless for phone service.

      So? Developing countries are also paying low wages for sweatshop labor. They can't pay for better services, so they do what they can cheap.

      Covers a larger area for less,

      I don't care how large an area my home phone covers. It only has to work in my house.

      The only good thing about a phone hooked up to copper is that they still work in a power outage.

      And when the cable goes out for any reason, like a power outage somewhere else that takes out the distribution system. This sounds like a really good reason to keep it, to me. Maybe that because I deal with emergency services and preparedness on a regular basis, and know that "all my eggs in one basket" truly is dangerous.

    9. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by icebike · · Score: 1

      CompuServe had a (small) spam problem. Even when it was mostly a dialup service.

      Once email moved to the IP based internet, spam took off in a huge way.
      Doing the same with phones is not likely to fix the robocalling, its more likely to make it much much worse.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      However, there are a couple robocall uses that are legal that I appreciate. A local school uses it to notify parents of unusual situations, like going on lock down or closing for inclement weather. I believe some cities use robocalling to warn residents of tornado dangers.

      There is an emerging and expanding business in government triggered robocalls for public notifications. This is just one of the companies doing this. Sheriffs and emergency services managers love being able to push a figurative button to notify everyone in their jurisdiction of impending doom, like floods, ice storms, tornadoes, whatever. This makes most of the public quite happy that government is looking out for their safety, even if the government can't do anything to stop the impending doom. The announcement that this service was being implemented in our area also mentioned using it for Amber alerts and other such things.

      I consider it a violation of the DNC list, and the last time this system was tested in our area I was on the phone to the official in charge instructing them to remove my number from their list and don't call again. And with the company that runs the service. I told them that I had plenty of other ways of being alerted to problems, and would have no use for any Amber alert information since the chances of me finding the lost child were so infinitesimal as to be considered zero. Both said there was no way to comply with that instruction.

      The payback to the local government doing the testing was an absolute flood of calls from people who got home after work and found a test message on their answering machine, calling to find out what the danger was or why they were being called.

    11. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      The spammers are already using IP based calling, that is why there is an issue in the first place. Magic Jack is making a ton of money off the spammers.

      But with IP based calling you should be able to do black lists and white lists and other means of blocking unwanted calls.

      So the attack vector is already being utilized, we now need to apply the appropriate countermeasures.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    12. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Getting rid of the telephone network will not solve this problem. Nothing you've suggested will actually help.
      When all calls originate and terminate on IP based networks you actually drive DOWN the robocaller's cost. As long as they need a gateway to POTS somewhere there is a cost for them and a traceable demarcation point.
      Once ALL segments are IP, you are screwed.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    13. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      So? Developing countries are also paying low wages for sweatshop labor. They can't pay for better services, so they do what they can cheap.

      Land lines in general are not a better service. I've never seen a tree fall and break a wireless connection.

      I don't care how large an area my home phone covers. It only has to work in my house.

      Do you have a cell phone or do you only have a home phone?

      And when the cable goes out for any reason, like a power outage somewhere else that takes out the distribution system. This sounds like a really good reason to keep it, to me. Maybe that because I deal with emergency services and preparedness on a regular basis, and know that "all my eggs in one basket" truly is dangerous

      Just to remind you again, Comcast is considered one of the absolute worst cable companies out there. Do not base your opinion on their service. Also I am not advocating Comcasts phone service. I am advocating using a cell phone and IP based calling. If you had a reliable cable connection I would recommend one, but you have Comcast and it should be no surprise to you that they are unreliable.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    14. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 2

      The robocallers costs have already been driven down. That is why the issue exists. It isn't going to drive down their cost more since they are already using it.

      And yes, you can block calls to your IP based phone just fine depending on the service you have.

      http://www.google.com/googlevoice/whatsnew.html

      http://www.youtube.com/googlevoice

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    15. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by icebike · · Score: 2

      It isn't going to drive down their cost more since they are already using it.

      Yes it is going to drive down costs more.

      There is no way for IP based call to my POTS home landline to avoid paying something somewhere to somebody.

      POTS lines are not callable by VOIP or SIP phones without a gateway to POTS somewhere. That gateway needs a traceable origin. Nobody provides these for free, and even if they did, they are traceable, and the telephone company through which they first connect knows explicitly who they bill for these trunks.

      Most people do not have IP based phones, and those that do receive a lot of junk calls. We have them at work, and the amount of crap we get on them is astounding.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Most of your argument works for email just as well for calling.

      Would you ever use an email account that had absolutely no anti-spam capabilities?

      We have IP based phones at my work too, spam calls haven't been an issue for us.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    17. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Land lines in general are not a better service. I've never seen a tree fall and break a wireless connection.

      I've seen power failures take them out. You speak "in general", and then use one specific to prove it. Hmmm.

      Comcast is considered one of the absolute worst cable companies out there.

      Unless you are trying to tell me that there is a cable company that has TV, internet, and voice service, and the voice service will still function when the cable breaks, then my point still stands.

      I am advocating using a cell phone and IP based calling.

      The IP comes from somewhere, either cable or DSL for most folks. Running VoIP over the cell phone is kinda silly, and it still leaves your phone eggs all in one basket. If the cell tower stops working, you lose both cell phone and VoIP phone at the same time. Maybe in your "developing country" you'd have to do that because you can't get a solid landline connection, but doing something in the US because they do it that way in developing countries is a very weak argument.

    18. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Most of your argument works for email just as well for calling.

      Exactly my point. Exactly! Finally you start to understand.

      Spam email accounts for 72% of all email traffic. Its down from 90% in 2009.

        Why? Because it is essentially free. Its IP based and easily can avoid detection, and reroute around blocklists.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      And my co-workers already get harassing calls on their personal phones from Nigerians using IP based calling services such as Magic Jack. The spammers pay a monthly service charge that makes each call less than a penny, much much less than a penny. It is practically free already.

      http://www.magicjack.com/plus-v05/

      Take the magicJack Plusâ with you when you travel outside of the country and you will have free calls back to the U.S. and Canada. No matter where you are in the world you can call the U.S. and Canada for free. You can also consider buying magicJack PLUS for someone you know that lives overseas and give the gift of free calls to U.S. and Canadian Phone Numbers.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    20. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Where do you live? Remind me never to move there. Both the systems I mentioned are opt-in services.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    21. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I've seen power failures take them out. You speak "in general", and then use one specific to prove it. Hmmm.

      I'm sure I could bring up more ways that I have seen the phone system fail during my lifetime, whether it be drunks slamming into a DSLAM, phone lines getting knocked down in bad weather, or some meth head stealing copper. Shit happens to infrastructure, and the more there is then the more for it to fail.

      Unless you are trying to tell me that there is a cable company that has TV, internet, and voice service, and the voice service will still function when the cable breaks, then my point still stands.

      You can put a UPS on your cable modem and router to help with a power outage, but yes if the service you use is down it won't function, whether it be cable or POTS.

      If the cell tower stops working, you lose both cell phone and VoIP phone at the same time.

      In my experience you will only have one POTS line coming to your location, you will not have redundant POTS lines coming from different networks. But in most cases you connect to more than one tower.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    22. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You can put a UPS on your cable modem and router to help with a power outage,

      That does nothing to power the equipment out in the street owned by the cable company.

      but yes if the service you use is down it won't function, whether it be cable or POTS.

      And the cable has gone out a lot more times than POTS has. And when the cable goes, if I have VoIP then my phone goes away too.

      In my experience you will only have one POTS line coming to your location, you will not have redundant POTS lines coming from different networks.

      And if you use VoIP over cell, then when one service dies you lose both. How does not having redundant copper change that?

      But in most cases you connect to more than one tower.

      Sorry, but no. And the last time the cable went out, the cell went out at the same time. Had I needed to make an emergency call, POTS would have saved the day.

    23. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Or are you suggesting somehow implementing a CAPTCHA in the telephone system?

      The first ones would probably involve playing a SIT (IC or IO): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones#SIT_example_recordings_and_encoding_scheme_.5B2.5D
      BUT with a human voice saying "Hi, please wait a while" in between.

      --
    24. Re:Old technology, useful only for thieves... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Interesting, so what type of area do you live? Where I am the infrastructure tends to have back up power, but considering the problems you have had they apparently don't do that in your neck of the woods.

      It could just be that Comcast, which is known for not investing in their infrastructure doesn't make sure that their equipment has back up power sources, but the cell going out at the same time blows a hole in that theory. Not that I recommend getting your phone though your cable provider, no matter the cable provider.

      Sorry, but no. And the last time the cable went out, the cell went out at the same time. Had I needed to make an emergency call, POTS would have saved the day.

      Is it common in your area that if one goes out both goes out?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  7. Who's dropping the ball? by tqk · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to know why there's so much !@#$ like this going on. Spammers pollute the net with crap, and we can't find them to make them stop. Assholes build botnets to do that and worse, and we can't find them to make them stop. Robocallers annoy millions of people daily wasting their cell minutes, and ...

    This's the 21st Century. Why is any of this still happening? Why can't/don't the telcos police their damned networks?

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Who's dropping the ball? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The feds and ISP's are too busy busting kids for downloading movies in their dorm rooms.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:Who's dropping the ball? by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to know why there's so much !@#$ like this going on.

      Its called step 3: profit.

    3. Re:Who's dropping the ball? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      There's more than one country involved.

      Canada isn't terribly concerned when robocallers are calling US phone numbers. Mostly because the US isn't terribly concerned when robocallers are calling Canadian phone numbers.

    4. Re:Who's dropping the ball? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      Why can't/don't the telcos police their damned networks?

      Because they qualify for Common Carrier status and will not jeopardize there legal indemnification.

  8. Block calls with spoofed ID ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somewhere along the line, it must be technically possible to identify that the number isn't coming from where it claims to be.

    Most of the obvious fraudulent crap is all using fake caller IDs and they're calling another country.

    If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.

    Unfortunately, these guys lobby hard enough that they make sure nobody could pass anything which cut into their business -- because they feel it's their legitimate right to call us.

    It's gotten to the point where even the ones with legal exemptions like charities and political parties usually get an earful of profanity.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by emho24 · · Score: 0

      If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.

      This. +1 pseudo mod point.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    2. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think the best case would be to get rid of POTS.

      The fact that the end point does not know who is actually calling is a major flaw.

    3. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want political parties or charities calling me either. The fastest way to get on my "do not give money to ever" list is to call me.

      Seriously, why does "Save the Puppies" and "Elect My Candidate" get to be except from the Do Not Call Registry? Just because you think your puppies are special? They aren't and I don't care about them. I'm sure "Buy My Awesome Vacuum" also thinks they are special and if they could just get me on the phone I would see that I really do want to buy their vacuum. Well, no I really don't. Charities and political parties are the same as salesmen. They all want me to give them money and none of them realize I don't care about them.

      If I wanted to save the puppies, I could find your address on google and mail you a check. Just like if I wanted a new vacuum. Don't call me.

    4. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The caller ID is set by the endpoint making the call. This information, along with the billed number is sent upstream. The local phone company strips the billed number when the call leaves their system. It would be trivial to send both to the far endpoint. Then re-design caller-id to capture both and display only caller ID. Someone could get the billed number by selecting the alternate number on their caller ID. You don't want to send billed ID only, because places like my work send 555-1212 for my DID and 555-0000 is my billed number. If my boss is calling, I want to be able to see whether it's 555-1214 or 555-1200, a coworker.

    5. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by unrtst · · Score: 1

      If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.

      This. +1 pseudo mod point.

      No No No. It's a non-starter. That ability doesn't exist due to the design of the phone system. The only known hop is the one immediately before you.

      Someday, hopefully, that'll all get replaced because the resulting routing due to costs (LCR) + wholesale voip + intra/inter state taxes and termination fees etc etc etc ends up being horribly inefficient. Routing over pure voip would be far more efficient as far as the routes and miles of cables and number of routers/switches/etc involved, even if it does chew up more bandwidth for the same quality.

      If you want what you're describing, you'll have to move to an entirely different system. Maybe something like 100% skype and deny all landline access to it.

      It's sad, but attacking this issue after the fact is the only possibility right now (ie. after an infringement has happened, then attack it). They can track down these people, especially because these outfits are not just going after a single recipient - they're always calling many people. They (FTC) just have to do it.

    6. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

      Somewhere along the line, it must be technically possible to identify that the number isn't coming from where it claims to be.

      I second this. Interestingly, I got a robocall today on my cell phone. Every month or two, I keep getting a call during the daytime offering me a fantastic deal on some sort of cruise they claim I have won. I have looked into it and the callers are rather infamous but what they do is they change their number every time they call. So it does no good to file a report (I have actually done this before) as the number you report is something they'll never use again and probably never really had to begin with. I began to see the problems with this in the 1990s when some free PBX software package for Linux started getting popular and one of its features was it enabled you to use any number you wanted as your identifying phone number.

    7. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by JazzLad · · Score: 0

      Maybe something like 100% skype

      Yeah, that's what we need to do, trust Microsoft to solve the problem. They eliminated viruses and malware so quickly, I'm sure they could solve this problem too ...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    8. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by bessie · · Score: 1

      Yep, I feel exactly the same way. When charities call me, I call them back and tell them to take me off their lists, and that having me on the list in the first place is an easy way to make sure that I NEVER give them anything. Not that that helps, even if I'm talking to their director, it would seem.

      As mentioned above somewhere, a lot of these charities are sharing their info with each other, and at least here in the San Francisco area, there's an organization that's a kind of charity info clearinghouse that charities/nonprofits give peoples' info to, and they then give it out to other nonprofits. The idea is supposed to make their databases more efficient (single point of data management), but it also means I've started to get calls from nonprofits I've had nothing to do with.

      I've called up and given them an earful, but they don't usually think they can do anything about it. I've also contacted the guy who runs the clearinghouse, several times, and he's never gotten back to me.

      As for political parties and campaigns - I know it's all supposed to be part of free political speech, but just 'cause I'm on the voter roles or DMV roles doesn't mean I want robocalls from candidates and action committees. I've called a few candidates' offices before, too, and they all say they scrub their databases after each campaign, and refresh it again from the votor/DMV roles each time, so they don't maintain "do not call" lists.

      I think political organizations should be bound by the same do-not-call rules as corporations (and that corporations should be even further tied down - eg. do not call unless I've opted you in, and opt-out is always the default). That'll never happen, though, since the Direct Marketer's Association seems to have a ton of power.

      Bunch of idiots, all of 'em.

    9. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that would block pretty much all outbound calls from call centers. Any call center I've ever worked with calls for multiple clients. They attach the number of the calling campaign to the caller id, not their own number, since no one ever wants to call the call center, they want to call "tech support for Acme Bearings" or whatever. The client doesn't want the number tied to the call center because they use that number on all of their advertising copy. If the number were owned by the call center, then the client couldn't switch to another one. Even corporations that don't do outbound calling like to do fancy stuff like put their main switchboard number on the caller id of the calls placed from all of their sites.

      So, in reality, most commercial calls use spoofed caller id. The whole system is based on it. It's technically trivial to put some data on a call that charges an arbitrary amount to the other parties phone bill. The only thing that keeps the whole system in check is the fear of getting caught. With systems like this, there will always be scammers.

    10. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by theskipper · · Score: 2

      Worse than that, Skype always shows the same caller id for spam calls. Which means tracking anybody down would involve entering Microsoft's terrain. If the telcos can't do what you describe then imagine the horror of adding Skype to the mix.

      With VOIP becoming more prevalent, the scams are getting more creative. For example I got a call the other day with a Skype caller id. It was Microsoft calling to inform me that my computer was infected and will shut down after 24 hours. Intrigued, I went along to see how the scam worked.

      Long story short, this was a scheme to manually infect Windows boxes with a trogan. No joke. They read off a Windows key and directed me to a logmein url to download the payload. Next was installing remote login software, so it was more than just click on the .exe infection. Even though I booted an xp image on vmworkstation, I didn't want to bother with snapshotting and actually letting them go ahead to see what the endgame was. So that was the end of it after I hung up and blacklisted Skype through my voip account. But serious brownie points to them, for both balls and ingenuity.

      Btw, they were even prepared for the "I'm on the do not call list" response..."Sir did you legally buy Windows?" (yes) "Well then we have done business before so let me help you fix the problem. First open Internet Explorer..."

    11. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      My company, and almost every single one in existence lies on its caller ID. When my people call you, it does not show the line associated with the T1. It shows a toll free number, that is technically hosted by a different phone company, that then points back to our T1. The local phone company has no idea what relationship we have with our toll free number provider.

      Now, there is a *xx number that will store the number at the central office (the full set of routing info, not just the caller ID). Not sure of it anymore, but when I worked for a school, we had to train our phone people to use it if there was ever a bomb threat. They would dial the *xx number, then call the police, and tell them they dialed the number, and the police would get a warrant, or whatever, and get the call traced.

      Why can't the FTC mandate a similar number that you use to complain about a fraudulent call. Something that gets reported back to them in almost real time. you could even ignore them till they got numbered into the thousands, and then trace them to cut down on wild goose chases.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    12. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

      If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.

      That's actually a pretty good idea, and while it would require a little bit of carrier cooperation (though not more than they already do, since toll-free numbers are still a thing) it seems like simply allowing people the option of filtering calls where ANI != CID would cut out a lot of the call spam. It wouldn't catch it all, but it would at least get the low-hanging fruit...

    13. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its legitimate for them to call us.
      I ask for their number, pretend to be interested,
      and then act dumber than a potato.

      I call them on their dime,
      and waste their time,
      and finally, say... you know...Oh look, what was that... can you hold on...

      After I got a new land line, about 3 times a day, someone would robo-call.
      After only about 20 or so calls, they slowed down a lot,
      and ... its been now about a month and NO CALLS.

      Except for one particular call:
      "Is Ronald there?
      "Yes, but He cannot come to the phone."
      "Why"
      "Because he is in the bathroom bleeding, I just broke his jaw, and your next!"

      This was their only call... 745! :)

    14. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      My voip provider offers a free feature called disposable phone numbers for exactly what you're describing. They allow you to have a temporary number from between 6 hours and 5 days for things like selling an item on Craigslist, online dating, etc where you need a number, but don't want to give out your real number.

    15. Re:Block calls with spoofed ID ... by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Maybe something like 100% skype

      Yeah, that's what we need to do, trust Microsoft to solve the problem. They eliminated viruses and malware so quickly, I'm sure they could solve this problem too ...

      I didn't say "Microsoft". When I said, "something like 100% skype", I meant something like that technology (which wasn't started at MS) but without the tie in to the PSTN (so robocallers on the existing phone network couldn't access it). Ideally, the directory service and everything about it would be open, with some way to accurately identify and locate users (possibly something based on XMPP and jabber servers). Might take forever to get everyone moved over to it. Many would be disenfranchised during the transition, unless there was a tie in to the old system... and if there was, then it won't solve the robocalling problem. Bit of a chicken-and-egg problem.

  9. Presumably one of the was Real Time Blacklisting by sam_vilain · · Score: 2

    If there was a widely publicized shortcode you could text with a number to say has been spam calling you then people could do that, and set up an ENUM–style directory which has the RBL info for use by phone companies.

    Also phone companies could text people with information about this shortcode the first time every month that a previously unknown number makes a call or sends a message (until they say STOP of course ;-))

    Might work for mobile spam, at least.

    --

  10. Robo lawsuit trolling by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've arrived at the point where I hate my land line. I'd drop it in a second but my wife thinks it's important. None of our friends or family ever call the land line, it's always trolls. I dunno.

    But I digress. I had a new one last night. My land line rings and I can't help myself, I need to see what asshole it is this time. I've been getting a lot of survey calls recently and I'm now openly hostile to them "get a real job, f-ck off". This time it's a robocall collecting names for a class action lawsuit against a medicine. "Have you ever taken whateveritscalled and experienced the following side effects? Blah Blah Blah. If so you are entitled to receive penies on the dollar while our bloodsucking ambulance chasers get rich"

    So now we have lawsuit trolling to look forward to.

    1. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by stacycakes · · Score: 1

      I always get so annoyed when a robocaller happens to get a hold of my cell phone number. I never have the time to listen to the entire recording but at the same time I feel like getting to the end and asking them to take me off the list is the only way to stop the harassment. I'll be happy when they actually figure out a way to get these to stop. Hope one of the 744 new ideas works!

    2. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that pennies on the dollar or penis on the dollar? Could make a big difference for some.

    3. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Turn the ringer off, and don't hook up an answering machine or voicemail. It's still available for an emergency, or to make local and toll-free calls (if conserving cell minutes is a concern).

    4. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by pla · · Score: 1

      I've arrived at the point where I hate my land line. I'd drop it in a second but my wife thinks it's important.

      Grow a pair and cancel it. Duh.

      "Sorry honey, but we waste way too much money on a useless, obsolete service that no one but fraudsters ever uses. In a local emergency, our cell phones have a better chance of working than the land line; and in a wide-scale emergency, you can't use the land-line from the car as we flee the coming Tsunami."

    5. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Turn the ringer off, and don't hook up an answering machine or voicemail. It's still available for an emergency, or to make local and toll-free calls (if conserving cell minutes is a concern).

      ...and for giving out as a phone number to organizations that require you to provide a phone number when buying from/donating to them online. Then they can call a phone that's never answered. (We left voicemail in place, just in case, and just delete all the hangups - presumably somebody hung up when they got the "leave a message" prompt.)

    6. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by penix1 · · Score: 2

      "Sorry honey, but we waste way too much money on a useless, obsolete service that no one but fraudsters ever uses. In a local emergency, our cell phones have a better chance of working than the land line; and in a wide-scale emergency, you can't use the land-line from the car as we flee the coming Tsunami."

      And either never get laid again or more accurately have you cell phone die on you because the power is out and will be out for days. That is assuming no cell tower damage and that the tower has a backup generator and enough gas for the whole event. Many found out both during Hurricane Sandy and the Duratio before that that cell service is very, very spotty at best in times of disaster. Major land-lines are down too but in my experience, they are far less fickle than the cell service in my area.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    7. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a spammer calls, I start talking to them in Arabic or Spanish and I pretend that I don't speak English. Bonus points if the spammer could actually converse with me in one of those two languages ;)

    8. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a lot of them may try to transfer me over to a Spanish speaker if I start talking to them in Spanish. At which time I will talk to the Spanish spammer in Arabic and pretend that's the only language I speak ;). Give them the run-around and have fun watching them try to communicate with someone who doesn't speak English. It would be funny if I could start talking to them in their native language though, Nigerian or whatever it is. Maybe I should pick up a few words, watch some Youtube videos on how to speak Nigerian, and start telling them stuff and see how they respond.

    9. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've arrived at the point where I hate my land line. I'd drop it in a second but my wife thinks it's important.

      Get her her own cell phone, you control freak.

    10. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually love the robocallers, they generally identify who they are and why they are calling me, which is $750 in my pocket each time they do it.

      It's the human callers that refuse to state who they are or what company they are calling for that piss me off. By the time I file in small claims court, get my court date, and the judge orders the phone company to turn over the records - it's usually over 90 days since the call and so the phone company claims they no longer have those records.

    11. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by corbettw · · Score: 2

      In a local emergency, our cell phones have a better chance of working than the land line

      That is patently false. Landlines have been proven to be far more resilient to local emergencies than cell phones dozens of times.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    12. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      "... which is $750 in my pocket each time they do it."

      You have my attention. Please explain.

    13. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by pla · · Score: 1

      That is patently false. Landlines have been proven to be far more resilient to local emergencies than cell phones dozens of times.

      By "local", I mean "house on fire", "gas main explosion on my block", that sort of thing. Local.

      Hurricane Sandy did not count as "local". Earthquakes don't count as local. A three million acre wildfire does not count as local. Yes, in widespread emergencies, landlines hold up better - But as I already said, they don't do you much good from your car, two states away.

      That said, really, do what you want. Go ahead and pay $50 a month for crappy home phone service. Every little "necessity" in the minds of the old and stupid adds to what we consider a living wage in this country, which makes my disposable income all the higher by not caring in the least about having a physical copper wire running through the wall and to my phone. ;)

    14. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by desdinova+216 · · Score: 0

      Uhhh "genius" you can keep a basic phone that you just have to plug into the phone jack and it will work.

    15. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not really for landlines, but I've had my cell phone die during natural disasters. And not because I didn't charge it, or because it's some smartphone that dies fast, but because the power was out for a week.

    16. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mentioned it in another post about junk faxes but all of this started with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991 but it has been amended by later laws and the case law.

    17. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And that is just what I got on all my land-lines. Imagine that a *GASP* wired phone!

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    18. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That is what I used to do. My problem is that the SO not only insists on having a land line, but also wants to know who is on the caller ID when the phone rings (heaven forbid somebody they care about has to start leaving a message before we pick up).

      I think it is a fear that somebody somewhere wants to talk to them but won't leave a message, and that would be horrible if they missed out on the conversation. The somebody is no doubt their kids being raped.

      As for me - I almost never answer the phone or even reach for it unless it is because I'm being yelled at to indicate who is on the caller ID. When I get the inevitable "but what if I were in trouble and trying to call you" question the answer is that if you're in THAT much trouble you should be calling 911 because they're going to get there way faster than I ever would and will be better equipped to handle the situation when they arrive.

      However, simply putting your foot down is just a recipe for strife. There are just some battles not worth fighting over. Maybe when they get rid of all the bundling so that I can actually save money by dropping my landline I'll worry about it more.

    19. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Those are local emergencies, those are immediate emergencies. If you can't get the terminology for emergency events correct why should anyone take your advice on what is the ideal tool for reporting emergencies?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    20. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by corbettw · · Score: 1

      ^are local^aren't local^

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    21. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I second this. Of all the many, many times we've lost power, most recently due to hurricane Sandy, we've never lost our landline. Ever. And we can't rely on purely on our cells because no tower is close enough to give good reception at our house. So yep, it's not a matter of growing a pair, it's a matter of using our brain. ;)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    22. Re:Robo lawsuit trolling by pla · · Score: 1

      Those are local emergencies, those are immediate emergencies. If you can't get the terminology for emergency events correct why should anyone take your advice on what is the ideal tool for reporting emergencies?

      I didn't intend to put forth a grand unified theory of disaster-situation communication. I merely suggested someone ditch their land line for a cell phone, if they have adequate cell coverage at home. That said, thank you for correcting my terminology. Perhaps next time I attempt to make a similar point, the thread won't get derailed by pedants arguing about how many neighboring towns/states/continents have to get wiped out by the asteroid before I stop caring about making phone calls while physically at home. ;)

      And who said anything about reporting it? In the event of an actual disaster, I don't particularly care about who gets to the smoking crater first. I just want the ability to make normal phone calls from the hotel I end up living in for a few weeks, without paying Hilton $3.50/minute for the luxury.

  11. Permission by mepex · · Score: 1

    I understood this as the FTC getting ideas that only they could read write and execute, while I could only read.

  12. Why I got rid of the land line by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    It also helps to never give out your cell # except to friends and family. I found that a lot of the businesses I was giving my phone number to were somehow passing it along to telemarketers (I could tell because sometimes I would vary my name slightly just to see).

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is why businesses get my google voice number.

    2. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Informative

      It also helps to never give out your cell # except to friends and family. I found that a lot of the businesses I was giving my phone number to were somehow passing it along to telemarketers (I could tell because sometimes I would vary my name slightly just to see).

      I ditched my land line a few years ago, but even my cell number wasn't immune. I'd still get calls from "Rachel" and her friends, not to mention "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!!!! This is your captain speaking . . ."

      Worse, by far were the debt collectors calling for people I'd never heard of -- or even not asking for anyone in particular, just wanting a return call to some number to "clear up a file on my desk". Then if I did call them back and tell them they had the wrong guy, sometimes they'd stop for a while -- at least till that junk debt collector resold the debt to another.

      It wasn't all bad. One agency had a particularly entertaining tactic: each week or so a different person would leave a message. Since it was always the same voice actor, he had to use different names with appropriate accents for each persona. My favorite was fake Scotsman Alistair McTavish.

      Curiously, it seems that while people who do owe money have certain rights when dealing with collections agencies, people who don't actually owe money don't seem to have quite the same level of protection from harassment. You'd think that harassing non-debtors would be a self-limiting thing, since you (presumably) couldn't collect anything from someone without an overdue debt, but they were oddly persistent.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Everybody gets my google voice number. I set family and friends to connect directly, but everybody else has to be announced. Don't want to tell me who you are? Straight to voicemail for you. Marketing voicemails? I'll never need to know you called again.

      Saving puppies or trying to get elected? Please feel free to leave a voicemail like every body else I don't have any desire to talk to.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    4. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      Curiously, it seems that while people who do owe money have certain rights when dealing with collections agencies, people who don't actually owe money don't seem to have quite the same level of protection from harassment.

      I once had a Comcast cable running under my backyard. It wasn't very deep, and had surfaced above the lawn for a good three foot stretch. Every time I mowed the lawn, I would either have to get around the thing, or nick it. Sadly, Comcast ignored my calls for five years, essentially since I wasn't a customer or a prospect. Every call would go nowhere because I didn't fit into their system. I finally got results when I saw a Comcast van in the neighbor's driveway and dragged the guy to my yard.

      Similarly: I had a coworker once who kept getting the newspaper delivered to their driveway every day - but they weren't paying for it. They found it to be annoying litter (go out every day and throw out the paper) and a security problem as they had to arrange a neighbor to dispose of the paper if they went on vacation. It took them about a year to stop the paper from getting delivered.

    5. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was exactly my experience as well. I got stuck with the phone number of a deadbeat lady who was delinquent on all her bills, including a mortgage, more than one car loan, and several credit cards, based on the collectors and banks that called. In each case, it took several weeks of pleading with them to stop calling and convince them that the number was no longer her number, as the address had obviously changed and my name was nowhere near hers and male. One tactic that did work was calling the companies directly, if they were named by the debt collectors. After one verification call, the banks each stopped calling when I called their local branches and complained.

      Ironically, the lady called me "by accident" one day after the calls stopped. I suspect she had continued to give out the number and wondered why it wasn't giving results anymore. I told her off. I probably should have called the banks with her number, but I am not that mean.

    6. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have mailed them a letter with proof of mailing. When they didn't do anything it would have taken me about a month before I hit it on "accident."

    7. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My reaction too. But I think the mail service you want is called Proof of Delivery.

    8. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can give both Rachel my number, and Captain Picard

    9. Re:Why I got rid of the land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I would have done both. One to show that you mailed it when you said you did and the other says they got it. That can make a difference in my state. For example, when you send something to your landlord as official notice, they require proof of mailing. The reason is that the clock for them to take action starts then, even if they don't actually get it (mail from landlord to tenant works the same way). However, some clocks start with the actually delivery. That is why when you send something official, you put on all the options you can think of.

  13. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every week I get several calls telling me "this is your last chance to lower my interest rates" or "related to the stimulus" or something. Caller ID is useless, all spoofed. The message says "Press 2 to discontinue these messages" - works for a day, maybe. Press 1 and get to a live person (eventually). If I ask any questions, like "who are you" or tell them to stop calling, they hang up. A day or two later, they're back.

    What I need is an app with automated responses to their canned question so my machine can waste their human's time...and lots of it.

    Google: "Roy M. Cox and FTC" - If it isn't his operation, its a twin.

    1. Re:Finally! by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      Astrix VOIP PBX with the call block function. They dont change the caller ID much so you just block the calling party and you are good for several months. Setting the block message to play the "Number has been disconnected or is no longer in service" message helps as many of them remove the number when getting that message.

    2. Re:Finally! by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      You can easily do this with a voice-enabled modem and getty on linux. I used to use my box for a PBX-maze to throw off everyone but family. The 256 "extensions" and options would piss off everyone except those who knew what buttons to push in order to actually reach me. Everything else was piped to /dev/null so I never had to hear any of it.

      --
      C|N>K
  14. The list didn't include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Executions. Make it a capital crime.

  15. Easy solution by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Follow the money trail. Once you know what company is getting the money, find out who owns the company.

    Once you find out who owns the company, you shoot them.

    Problem solved.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes you "follow the money" retards who have watched too many hollywood conspiracy movies and think that's how real life works ... unfortunately for your simplistic paranoid armchair solution, in real life simply identifying who is making robocalls is a problem

      additionally getting effective laws passed to combat other sorts of (semi-legal) spam calls is stymied by lobbies who have to disclose nothing ... unlike the movies it's not as simple as bringing up the "hack in" screen and pressing "OK" ... and even if it were getting the information legally is necessary if you want to do anything with it

      but i'm sure the free market will solve everything

      idiots

    2. Re:Easy solution by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, if there's money to be made, there's going to be someone there to make it. So shut down the current company doing it, and another one will step right in. The only real way to make it go away forever is to make it unprofitable.

    3. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes you "follow the money" retards who have watched too many hollywood conspiracy movies and think that's how real life works ... unfortunately for your simplistic paranoid armchair solution, in real life simply identifying who is making robocalls is a problem

      additionally getting effective laws passed to combat other sorts of (semi-legal) spam calls is stymied by lobbies who have to disclose nothing ... unlike the movies it's not as simple as bringing up the "hack in" screen and pressing "OK" ... and even if it were getting the information legally is necessary if you want to do anything with it

      but i'm sure the free market will solve everything

      idiots

      Well, you do have to wait for the "Uploading Virus" counter to reach 100%.......

    4. Re:Easy solution by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Someone is connecting these calls right?
      Someone is paying a bill to make them, seems like you could figure that out.

      The fact that POTS lets you fake a number is a big problem with it. The fact that the endpoints have no knowledge is another.

    5. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think that is why the recommended punishment was to shoot them.

    6. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaik POTS doesn't care about your number, and if these originate offshore then you're almost entirely SOL ... for everything else, a few shell companies and accounting tricks and it's probably not hard to hide who owns what

      even if it's easy and you (the FCC) wants to know/prosecute, they need funding, and a legal way to get the information they're after, which probably requires political capital (to get funding), laws that make a warrant applicable, legal proof someone was making the call (probably hard), and enough lawyers and time to pursue prosecution ... and how many of these companies are there?

      make funding a little thin or apply a little political pressure in the FCC foodchain and none of this is going to happen, even if they know who is doing it

      that's why all these "follow the money" hollywood antics are so idiotic

    7. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, a use for drone strikes!

    8. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would just send robocop.

    9. Re:Easy solution by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But it does work. The FCC should tell everyone to say "yes" and pay them for whatever they are selling. Then see where the money goes. The bank, the card processor, the address for the checks to be mailed in, they all lead to someone profiting from the illegal calls. If you say yes, they have to tell you how to pay. That's easily traceable and what people mean when they say to follow the money. I can identify the person calling when I say "yes" and they take my payment. They always take traceable money (cards, checks), so they are traceable that way.

    10. Re:Easy solution by PRMan · · Score: 2

      You just gave me a great idea that may not be one of the 744. Fake credit card numbers that report the cashing entity as a spammer. When they cash the card, the convict themselves. Nobody but the FCC knows which cards are real or fake.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:Easy solution by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Fake credit card numbers that report the cashing entity as a spammer. When they cash the card, the convict themselves. Nobody but the FCC knows which cards are real or fake.

      Uhhh, then how do YOU know the fake number to tell someone who is a spammer, if only the FCC knows the fake numbers?

    12. Re:Easy solution by tool462 · · Score: 1

      And if they turn out to be overseas, so much the better. We won't have that pesky due-process getting in the way.

    13. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC should tell everyone to say "yes" and pay them for whatever they are selling. Then see where the money goes. [...] That's easily traceable [..]

      um first off this is primarily about illegal robocalls, you know, where there isn't someone to talk to, just an advertisement or whatever .. we're not talking phone scams here

      second even if this was some sort of sale, it doesn't work like that .. this is not the fucking movies, and you can't magically see whose account money goes to .. first you'd need a warrant (requiring evidence, lawyers, money, etc) to get information on where the money went at the first hop, but that would require the transaction be illegal, not just the phone call .. and even then if all the stars aligned as soon as it goes offshore (likely if it's an actual illegal scam) you're SOL

      so live in your fantasy fairy-land of magical hacking buttons and money traces and infinite zoom/enhance but that's not how things work outside of your mom's basement

    14. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Robocop doesn't shoot unarmed civilians. What you want to send is ED-209.

    15. Re:Easy solution by happylight · · Score: 1

      And what do you do when the money goes to an oversea bank that wouldn't tell you where the money goes next?

    16. Re:Easy solution by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The robocalls received by FCC employees is probably a pretty representative sample of the calls received by the population as a whole, so if the robocallers realise that their lists might contain FCC employee numbers but they don't know which numbers they are, they might decide it isn't worth a prison sentence.

    17. Re:Easy solution by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      And why can't I block all international calls? I can block outbound, I want to block inbound international calls.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    18. Re:Easy solution by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The robocalls received by FCC employees is probably a pretty representative sample of the calls received by the population as a whole,

      Oh, you didn't mean the FCC as an organization, you meant "every FCC employee". That's significantly different, and very much more likely to leak.

      they might decide it isn't worth a prison sentence.

      They're already committing identity theft or financial fraud which could subject them to a prison sentence, so I don't know why you think they'd be scared to try using an FCC fake credit card number. It isn't illegal for them to try debiting one, since they don't know it is fake, so where is the prison sentence coming from anyway?

      You think it will be easier for the FCC to track a scammer who tries charging to a fake credit card number compared to one that tries charging to a real one? You think that using a fake number will mean the FCC has jurisdiction over the country that the scammer is operating from?

    19. Re:Easy solution by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      I've never gotten a robocall that was illegal where I couldn't get a human. They either take a message or let you press a number to get a person who wants to take your money.

      second even if this was some sort of sale, it doesn't work like that .. this is not the fucking movies, and you can't magically see whose account money goes to ..

      Funny. I've gotten a check back, and not only did I have the account number written on the back of the account it was deposited in, I also had the branch name and address. So I know where he banks. Getting a subpoena is trivial for the FCC at that point to get the home address for the account holder, or seize the money in the account.

      and I've done chargebacks on a credit card before. The processing company knew exactly where that money was to take it back from.

      first you'd need a warrant (requiring evidence, lawyers, money, etc) to get information on where the money went at the first hop, but that would require the transaction be illegal, not just the phone call ..

      Oh, I see the problem, you are dumb as a rock. The transaction can be legal and still be tapped without issue. The identity is being determined. That's common. Subpoenas are issued all the time for John Doe for unrelated items that will help them determine the identity to charge for the unrelated crime.

    20. Re:Easy solution by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. And there are almost no overseas banks that don't talk to the feds anymore, Swiss, Cayman, or otherwise.

    21. Re:Easy solution by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Setting up a honey trap wouldn't be difficult. It's a cell phone sitting in an FBI office somewhere. They don't give the number out. If the phone rings, the guy on the other end is either a wrong number or an asshole.

      Hell, I bet the FBI's regular office phones probably get this kind of shit all the time.

  16. Asterisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I solve this problem by having asterisk prescreen all incoming calls. An IVR prompt requires you to press a combination of numbers before it actually rings any phones. A white and black list for caller ID data are used to bypass or simply play line disconnected tones and hang up.

    It's the only reason I still have a POTS line. I never give out my cell.

    1. Re:Asterisk by Miser · · Score: 1

      I second the mentioning of Asterisk.

      I use the FreePBX distro at home, used an old PIII machine I had laying around, one FXO/FXS card later and I have a nice whitelist that will ring my extension or my wife's SIP desk phone. Anybody else not on the whitelist gets an IVR asking to dial the proper extension, and then when that doesn't happen, goes to general voicemail. Works wonderfully and the phone never rings. When it does, we get nervous because it's someone important!

      I also use the whitelist as a blacklist to blackhole, disconnect tones, hold music forever, busy, etc folks that I like to toy with.

      Plus, if someone faxes me, it PDF's it automatically and emails it to me. I've been wanting to upgrade but it's working so well I don't want to fix what isn't broke!!

      Cheers,

      Miser

    2. Re:Asterisk by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      So there are two of us who have found the same solution.

      A+, it has been working for me for a couple of years now.

    3. Re:Asterisk by Unixnoteunuchs · · Score: 1

      I solve this problem by having asterisk prescreen all incoming calls. An IVR prompt requires you to press a combination of numbers before it actually rings any phones. A white and black list for caller ID data are used to bypass or simply play line disconnected tones and hang up.

      It's the only reason I still have a POTS line. I never give out my cell.

      This seems like such a sensible solution. Is there no hardware/firmware combination for the naive user so that they can program a single POTS line to require callers to dial in programmed access digits before they are cut through to the user's home telephone system?

  17. No Enforcement by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    Any law that is not enforced is meaningless. And that's the big problem here. If I get one of these calls that is clearly violating the law, then what? There is no one I can can contact who will immediately take action and prosecute the person who is breaking the law. It would take an enormous amount of resources to really clean up this problem, and so nothing is done. And the people making these calls know that.

    1. Re:No Enforcement by PRMan · · Score: 1

      donotcall.gov. I can assure you that companies get the fines. I worked for a couple of them.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:No Enforcement by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Then clearly the fines aren't having the intended effect. I get a call, once a week or more, for "senior citizens". Too bad I'm not a senior nor will I be for some time. I've pressed the 5 to remove me from the list, shoot, last time I just put it on speakerphone as I was driving down the highway with my radio turned up. Luckily, I have unlimited minutes so therefore I no longer care - if someone else called me I can just hang up and switch calls.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  18. call rejection by fermion · · Score: 1
    Phone companies should be required to provide Anonymous call rejection and toll free call rejection. This would solve the problem. The subscriber should have the option to divert these calls to voicemail or reject them outright.

    The only issue here is that phone companies refuse to enact these simple and common sense solutions. They either refuse to allow the subscriber to manage call, as is true for most cell phones, or they charge for it. Really this is a business model issue, not something the end user can deal with. The FTC just has to put forth regulations.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:call rejection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phone companies should be required to provide Anonymous call rejection and toll free call rejection. This would solve the problem. The subscriber should have the option to divert these calls to voicemail or reject them outright.

      The only issue here is that phone companies refuse to enact these simple and common sense solutions. They either refuse to allow the subscriber to manage call, as is true for most cell phones, or they charge for it. Really this is a business model issue, not something the end user can deal with. The FTC just has to put forth regulations.

      Vonage offers both Anonymous and toll free rejection or diverting them to voicemail.
      For free.

    2. Re:call rejection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really want to end that shit in a jiff? Pass a law that lets consumers off the hook for cell phone airtime that originates from callers they do not authorize to call them. If there was zero liability for fraud phone calls like there is for fraudulent credit card charges, the telcos would have systems in place to catch the scammers robbing them of revenue. As long as the scammers are generating revenue, the telco has zero motivation to do anything about it.

  19. It's not really an FTC problem by SSpade · · Score: 1

    The FTC aren't in a position to really handle robocalls and SMS spam, other than acting as a last resort legal hammer for egregious cases.

    The telcos, on the other hand, could *trivially* stop the vast majority of it if they had any interest in doing so. But they don't have any interest in that - they get paid by the various crooks doing this sort of thing. And it doesn't cost them any customers - what are the customers going to do, move to a different US telco that's just as bad?

    1. Re:It's not really an FTC problem by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why as a last resort for only the egregious cases?
      Any case they should prosecute as fiercely as possible.

    2. Re:It's not really an FTC problem by SSpade · · Score: 1

      Because bringing a lawsuit is ridiculously expensive and time consuming. Spending months-to-years of time and lawyers salaries to go after a small spammer just isn't worthwhile. The telcos involved, however, can just shut them down without much difficulty or cost - if they choose to do so.

  20. I actually submitted a proposal by indraneil · · Score: 2

    Our submission is at: http://robocall.challenge.gov/submissions/13007-save-me-time
    I found that most suggestions fell into the following buckets

    *Things the Govt can do*
    - FTC needs to ensure caller ID cant be spoofed
    - FBI needs to hunt down the racketeers and bust them
    - FTC needs to mandate (likely by fiat) that the telephone companies make the robocallers pay the full cost for the call

    *Things you can do*
    - Use an audio capcha system
    - Provide a system to black list known and irritating callers
    - A few people discussed how Google voice might solve the problem.

    I did not expect to see that many people going through the submission process which tells me that the pain point is real.
    However, I think people are mostly converging on how they intend to block the calls and the winner will get decided on how good your execution measures up to every one else.
    What FTC finally does implement based on the contest is another matter.

  21. just pass a law by bbeesley · · Score: 2

    Can't Congress just pass a law prohibiting this like they are doing with guns and murder?

    1. Re:just pass a law by edibobb · · Score: 1

      They already have. But law enforcement refuses to enforce it, citing "lack of resources", i.e., "we want more money."

    2. Re:just pass a law by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Whooooosh

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    3. Re:just pass a law by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      There's also a large jurisdiction problem.

      US law enforcement can't arrest people in Canada, despite the fact that the US and Canada share the same phone system.

      (Btw, the Canadians are upset by the robocalls coming from the US)

    4. Re:just pass a law by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an ideal target for some jurisdictional agreements.

      Canada provides evidence x,y,z to US authorities to prosecute US spammers, the US provides evidence w,x,y to Canada to do the same(evidence list slightly different due to differing legal systems).

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  22. Meh by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

    Examples listed are all variations on a theme. All technical solutions, which are always known to fall to technical attacks (Payment? Use stolen credit card. Whitelist? Implausible if you're running a home business.)

    The only way to stop robocall telemarketing is to cut off the source of income, or make it too expensive to obtain income. Always try to get a live agent (robocalls ask you to press 1), delay tactics to keep people talking as long as possible, providing fake/stolen credit card info, and the like.

  23. I just hang up by mark-t · · Score: 0

    If I'm called by an automated dialler from a party I have no involvement with, then the damage is already done. I hang up as soon as I realize it's a recording, which is usually only a second or two after I say "hello".

    They've already wasted my time by calling me... and with an automated call, I'm not wasting anyone's time by trying to stay on the line and see how quickly I can get the salesperson off of their script (which is a very entertaining activity, by the way, and one that I highly recommend, although you really need to have some good ideas before you start, or else be very good at improv).

    1. Re:I just hang up by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      they have a finite number of lines they can robocall at any one time, so staying on the line does save someone else from a call at that moment, but it doesn't take much of their resources.

    2. Re:I just hang up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, put them on hold.

      No, you're not wasting the time of a telemarketer if it's a recorded call, but you are tying up one of their phone lines, delaying their next target and reducing the number of people who get called after you.

      So be kind to your neighbors, and keep the machine on the line as long as possible.

  24. They're not untracable. by edibobb · · Score: 1

    If Homeland Security, et.al., can eavesdrop on any phone call in the U.S. at will, they can certainly track illegal Robocallers. Do they just refuse to do anything that could be considered productive?

    1. Re:They're not untracable. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      They do track the calls. To Canada.

      That "different country" thing makes it a tad awkward to enforce US law upon the robocallers.

      And since the robocallers are nothing if not fair, the Canadians are upset about robocalls coming from the US.

    2. Re:They're not untracable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight. Last I heard, Canada and the USA shared a common language. What's the reason for not having a talk to see if a deal can be made.

      Enforce each others laws if the robo-callers cross borders. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. What's so hard about that?

  25. Change your country to one where laws are enforced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or make *yours* do the same. I expect this is US-centric again.

    Write your congressmen. Protest. Don't let them into the bitches of business... wait, you DID let them happen? Then get up and protest. Write letters. Start campaigns. Be loud. You are the freaking Land of the Free and Brave, the inventors of Democracy, yes? Then act like it, get a few million citizens together, rally the media, and in 12 months that crap is over.

    Don't let your government kill another brown person in some faraway country before you quit getting robocalls.

  26. Cant stop the Robocaller by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

    I am constantly getting robocalls from "Card Services" at the phone number 775-410-1104. I haven't ever owned a credit card. I've tried my best to try and get information so that I can do something about it, but they hang up as soon as they think you are on to them. You can't call the number back. Is there anyway to nail this entity?

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Call "Magic Jack" and report the number to them (seems to be in their pool), or call the police? (wait, no, they don't do shit until after you fall for a scam). They try to get your card number and expiration date "just for verification".

      Protip: Caller ID can also be spoofed. NEVER give any information to anyone who calls you, unless you know them personally. Even if it says that it's your bank on the caller ID. Just tell them that you have no way of knowing if they are who they say they are, and that you'll call back the bank via a number that you have for them.

    2. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Just accept the offer, get the credit card, then run it up to its limit and don't pay anything back.

      You'll need to fake a SS#. Don't use the same one each time. Use your address but a different name, and keep a burner phone around to use to confirm you received the card. Give them that number.

      I've done this for years, I have a steady "income" now of about $78,000 a year thanks to these credit card "offers". One day they'll catch on and stop calling me.

    3. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by davidannis · · Score: 1

      No, but you can waste their time every time that they call. The reason that they robocall is that it is cheap. Just string them along so that they have to pay a person for the time to talk to you. Ask which cards they will take. Ask if you can roll in your home loan. Ask them to wait while you look up your balances. After a while they get wise and hang up on you. If enough people waste their time eventually they will go broke. Needless to say never actually give them an account number.

    4. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by gQuigs · · Score: 1

      I mean the article is about how they aren't doing a great job right now.... but you can still report it here:
      https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

    5. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You are too aggressive in getting identification from them. Just say "yes" and eventually they'll give you a way to contact them to pay (unless they put it on your phone bill). Give them a credit card and do a chargeback. Put it on your phone bill, but dispute it with your phone company (most will block 3rd party billing if you ask, not sure if they are required to). But get to that and you'll have as much information about them as they have on you. Then you can give it all to the FCC who claims to take this stuff seriously, and you'll never see anything else ever again. The FCC wants "someone" to do "something" about it, but doesn't want to actually do anything themselves, nor has the power to command anyone else to do anything useful.

    6. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by Goldenhawk · · Score: 2

      Never ever EVER give them a yes answer. That puts your phone number on a list they sell of valid targets. Made that mistake with "Rachel", trying to get real info from them for the FTC. I am still paying for it, even after they shut her down.

      See, the mere fact that you answered the phone and pressed 1 makes your phone number itself valuable, at least in bulk with all the others. You can bet that "Rachel" has probably made more money selling lists of answered numbers than on the services being marketed.

      --
      --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    7. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1
      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liar

    9. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by Almost-Retired · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and I have turned that name & number in to the DNC web site until my fingers are bleeding, fat damned lot of good its done. Now the wife is answering them playing like she is hard of hearing and going into hillbilly vernacular as soon as a human comes on the line. They hang up quickly but they keep calling backIt just encourages the bastards.

      We have one of those call centers here. They made the mistake of doing a local call campaign, so I wrote it all down, and had smoke coming out of both ears when I walked into the office. Some red headed bitchj came to the counter & claimed it wasn't them, so I quoted the callerid I had written down, then quoted the number in the phone book for them. She reached under the counter as if to retrieve a weapon but found herself looking at my carry piece faster. I said, slowly and quietly, once, that if that number ever showed up on my callerid again, that I did know where there was about 50 sticks of very old Nobels, and that I knew how to use it. She took me serious. Took my phone number and purged it from the database.

      That was nearly 20 years ago.

      I was serious in case anybody cares.

      Anything that raises their CODB gets my approval. Point is, its my telephone, and I pay the bill for it, so I should have control over what its used for. That part simply is not open for discussion. But I think Card services has changed their name, we are now being harassed at least daily by an outfit called SERVERS TDM, at 1-213-344-4839. Make of that what you will. What we really need is the home address of the owner of the scam.

    10. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Just got another call from "Card Services" (I'm not answering these, just silencing it then googling the number), but this time the number is different. I wonder if posting the number here got that number shut down? Either way, the new number is 251-725-1770

      It is definitely the same place

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    11. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and I have turned that name & number in to the DNC web site until my fingers are bleeding, fat damned lot of good its done. Now the wife is answering them playing like she is hard of hearing and going into hillbilly vernacular as soon as a human comes on the line. They hang up quickly but they keep calling backIt just encourages the bastards.

      We have one of those call centers here. They made the mistake of doing a local call campaign, so I wrote it all down, and had smoke coming out of both ears when I walked into the office. Some red headed bitchj came to the counter & claimed it wasn't them, so I quoted the callerid I had written down, then quoted the number in the phone book for them. She reached under the counter as if to retrieve a weapon but found herself looking at my carry piece faster. I said, slowly and quietly, once, that if that number ever showed up on my callerid again, that I did know where there was about 50 sticks of very old Nobels, and that I knew how to use it. She took me serious. Took my phone number and purged it from the database.

      That was nearly 20 years ago.

      I was serious in case anybody cares.

      Anything that raises their CODB gets my approval. Point is, its my telephone, and I pay the bill for it, so I should have control over what its used for. That part simply is not open for discussion. But I think Card services has changed their name, we are now being harassed at least daily by an outfit called SERVERS TDM, at 1-213-344-4839. Make of that what you will. What we really need is the home address of the owner of the scam.

      Parent is epitome of shitthatdidnthappen.txt

    12. Re:Cant stop the Robocaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MagicJack, like the $20 USB dongle that provides a year's worth of unlimited phone service and new number?

      Man, that'll stop them... whatever could they do to get around that? It's not as if they could just buy a new one...

  27. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The have had decades to help us resolve the issue, but haven't. Clearly the FCC is not on our side. We have come up with our own solution.

    1. Unplug all phones from land line if you have Internet over it, and completely remove land line if not.

    2. Use a white list on your cell phone. If anybody calls that you do not, just BLOCK the number, and delete any message left without listening to it. If you listen to it, the person that left it will be able to tell if you received it or not. Give them NO INFORMATION.

    Do those two things and most problems are solved. Some will argue that they need to be able to get ahold of you. I say, they should have done a better job of protecting your personal information, and following the spirit of the law.

    1. Re:BS by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Robocallers are generating numbers at random, now. They just want to call everyone. They are not basing this on collected personal information, anymore. Just crank out the calls and play the recording.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  28. Smartphone auto-screener by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Why aren't there any smartphone auto-screening apps available? Maybe they'd need a rooted phone to operate, but basically, they could intercept phone calls and let numbers on a whitelist through, auto-hang-up on blacklist numbers, and send greylist numbers to a skill-testing screening question asking them to enter, for example, the sum of 8 and 10 using touch tone digits, to prove that they are actual people. Auto-dialers wouldn't do this and thus, wouldn't bother you. The skill test could be more sophisticated or could even use voice recognition. The calls that don't get through never bother you, except showing up in screener statistics when you want to look at them.

    1. Re:Smartphone auto-screener by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      I thought of something like this yesterday. It'd be nice to have a button that you could press during a call that would play your own recording. :)

      But you're right, for any incoming calls that are not in my contacts list, query the number against a central database to see what it is.

      I wonder if an app can integrate with the phone call portion somehow...?

  29. Summary execution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And if they are outside of the US, we have drones.

  30. Just Whistle by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Just like there was a "Captain Crunch" guy that could whistle at certain tones, why cant a group of "trusted parties" have
    a special audio signaler that sends a signal -back- to the originator of the call. This signal could be heard by the phone
    companies and they would know what circuit has the mad dial-er on it.

    Just an idea.

  31. Re:Presumably one of the was Real Time Blacklistin by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    So, *86?

  32. Loud whistle by smartin · · Score: 1

    Somewhere there is a story about someone that actually got charged with blowing a loud whistle into the ear of a telemarketer. I think this was before it was actually illegal for them to call. Now that it is, it is really tempting to do. And no, I don't care about the poor underpaid schmuck on the other end of the line, they deserve what they get.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:Loud whistle by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Somewhere there is a story about someone that actually got charged with blowing a loud whistle into the ear of a telemarketer. I think this was before it was actually illegal for them to call. Now that it is, it is really tempting to do. And no, I don't care about the poor underpaid schmuck on the other end of the line, they deserve what they get.

      A telephone won't replicate a noise so loudly it will damage your hearing.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:Loud whistle by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120522-42685.html

      What makes you think that the headset equipment *can't* make loud noises?

    3. Re:Loud whistle by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120522-42685.html

      What makes you think that the headset equipment *can't* make loud noises?

      I didn't say it can't. I said it won't.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  33. Re:Chris Pirillo a.k.a Lockergnome tactics :) by icebike · · Score: 1

    It takes a bit of effort, but works great.

    Says right there on the youtube:

    Please don't watch this video. Don't send it to your friends to watch, either? Don't even leave a comment. It's just a sad waste of time.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  34. Easy by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Tell the govt, police to start doing their jobs. What are we paying them for?

    The one thing which really scares crooks is a decent chance of facing serious jail time. I'd imagine that in the US, the significant chance of getting raped in county/medium security prisons too, is a good deterrent -- so you want to put them in county jail with the gangbangers and meth heads, not the minimum security holiday farm. As the Chinese say, "kill the chicken to warn the monkeys".

    Once some of the big players see what they're up against, it puts the fear of God into all the other little crooks and chancers.

    1. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine that in the US, the significant chance of getting raped in county/medium security prisons too, is a good deterrent -- so you want to put them in county jail with the gangbangers and meth heads, not the minimum security holiday farm.

      So you are totally on board with subjecting telemarketers to rape? This is a US-only phenomen, where some people gleefuly consider forced sodomy to be an expected part of the prison sentence
       

      You are part of the problem. Rape is bad, mm'kay? Even for a telemarketer, especially since the guy who makes the call at minimum wage (rather than a guy who earns the money) will be at most risk for penalties.

  35. Why isn't the Gov. using CFAA by kawabago · · Score: 1

    Why isn't the government using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to arrest and prosecute these criminals like they did Aaron Schwartz? Schwartz didn't actually hurt anyone or do any damage but robo-calls do annoy people. They must be using some kind of computer to make the calls so the Act would apply if the government was serious about the issue.

    1. Re:Why isn't the Gov. using CFAA by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Because they aren't on US soil.

  36. Why not just get rid of the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of trying to find ways to hang up on them, just get rid of them instead. If you have an ant infestation you dont try and squash every ant, you go after where they are coming from instead. The real solution is to figure out how to make it not profitable. If telemarketers cant make money they will dissapear overnight. Just creating more laws and such wont do a thing except slow them down a tiny bit. You either need to go after them hard, or you need to make it so there is no money to be made by them.

    But the problem there is no money in getting rid of the problem. If you instead spend years coming up with ways to subvert the calls then you can continue budgeting for it thus using taxpayer money. Get rid of the problem then you lose and excuse to spend money and the FTC will never do that.

    My solution was to get rid of my home phone completely and just have a single cell phone. Sure like once a year I get a telemarketer call it but thats about it really

    1. Re:Why not just get rid of the problem? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      They will start calling cell phones. These are people that have no problem committing crimes, already.

      The real solution is the glare of light. Set things up so their truthful identity is known, verified, and made available to the target.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Why not just get rid of the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do, ever since they allowed people to port their phone numbers to alternate carriers, the exchanges have been a complete fucking mess. You can find a cellphone on just about any exchange now.

  37. Re:Change your country to one where laws are enfor by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Then get up and protest. Write letters. Start campaigns. Be loud. You are the freaking Land of the Free and Brave, the inventors of Democracy, yes? Then act like it, get a few million citizens together, rally the media, and in 12 months that crap is over.

    We tried that in 2011. We were roundly dismissed.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  38. What is really needed ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... is for the phone carriers to test the caller ID coming from their customers to validate. If the caller ID info is not associated with the customer of that trunk, then do not complete the call. Additionally, if the outgoing volume exceeds a certain amount (around 1000 per month), the business gets classified as an outbound caller, and their numbers get added to a list of publicly available numbers people can look up for free to find out the legal name of the company, their address, main contact phone number, and the legal service address. Also if that volume is exceeded, anonymous calls are not permitted (and these will not be completed, either).

    The whole idea is about truthfully knowing who is calling. That doesn't deny anyone their free speech rights (as questionable as that is for telemarketers).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:What is really needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that was my submitted idea!!!

    2. Re:What is really needed ... by rb12345 · · Score: 1

      My ideas on this would work less well, but still be reasonably effective: simply check that any non-withheld numbers are actually valid! I have seen a lot of (admittedly UK and not US) calls apparently coming from numbers that cannot possibly exist. For example you would see calls where the local part is too short, or simply see invalid area codes. If you know all the valid number formats and area codes for domestic calls, you can drop all calls that do not fit. I'd also suggest wildcard-blocking for end users, too.

      Another option would be to have the telcos automatically and freely lookup return routes for each call. If the openly announced number has no reverse route the inbound call should be null-routed. You would then have three cases: valid-but-possibly-forged domestic numbers, withheld numbers and international/not-available.

  39. Some Fall Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the so-called companies that break the law are not businesses at all. They simply conspire to break the laws and use a business license as a burglary tool.
                          Prosecute the owners of these companies for conspiracy. Do not allow the corporation mode of defense. In other words if you own it or fund it you are guilty. If you receive money from it then it is illegal. Due to the very long periods and ease of proof of conspiracy charges we could easily put a telemarketer in prison forever. We also have extradition treaties with most nations. Now that we have them by the short hairs we might just be able to get them to sign over everything in the world that they own or get from a trust fund as well as a large chunk of any future earnings from their new, legitimate job. We also need to disallow these owners from any employment that requires a business permit or ownership or control of any business for life. Life as a ditch digger may be enough to discourage others from opening phone sales businesses.

  40. PhoneTray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love phonetray. I have all my house phones on silent and let phonetray decide when to create a ring noise, silently let the call go to voicemail, hang up, or even play a recored 'We do not accept unsolicited calls'. The only downside is you have to have a computer you are willing to keep running 24/7 and have a way to have a speaker on each floor you want to hear the rings on.

    http://www.phonetray.com/

    I was so satisfied I upgraded from free to the paid version simply to support this great product even though the free version works perfectly fine.

  41. Soundboards by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

    If I get a call and I'm at a computer, I quickly load up a soundboard and answer with that. Duke Nukem being my favorite.

  42. I make it a game by minogully · · Score: 2

    For telemarketers, I make it a game of 'first person to hang up loses'. I try to keep them on the phone for as long as possible, never really committing to anything, asking for more information. Sometimes I ask for the exact information they know about me, such as my address, phone number, etc. Then I ask for that same information from them to "level the playing field". I often get a phone number from them, which I'll immediately call with my cell phone, to find out that it's a fake number. So, I call them out on it. It's all quite a lot of fun.

    But I tell ya, now that it's a game and I'm winning, I actually look forward to telemarketer calls.

    Robocalls, on the otherhand; I just hang up, there's no fun in that.

    1. Re:I make it a game by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I often get a phone number from them, which I'll immediately call with my cell phone,

      Thus creating the appearance of a business relationship with them (you called them), and giving them your cell phone number to add to their list of spammable valid phone numbers. You're not winning the game, you're handing them the football on your own 1 yard line and walking away.

    2. Re:I make it a game by minogully · · Score: 2

      Thus creating the appearance of a business relationship with them (you called them), and giving them your cell phone number to add to their list of spammable valid phone numbers. You're not winning the game, you're handing them the football on your own 1 yard line and walking away.

      As mentioned, normally I am given a fake number. Probably because I'm asking them for their home phone number, not the business phone. Only once did I get a valid phone number, in fact, and it was some random other person's number not affiliated with the telemarketers. But, just for argument's sake, let's say that they do in fact give me a business phone number, I when I call it I'm giving them my cell phone number, it seems to me that I'll be getting more telemarketer calls. This scenario actually isn't so bad for me either because, as I mentioned, I now look forward to playing the game.

      Probably unsurprisingly, since I've started up this hobby, my calls from telemarketers have drastically decreased. It's almost as if they're black listing me!

    3. Re:I make it a game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have a lot of time on your hands.

  43. Solution by Talahaski · · Score: 1

    Make all cell phones and land line phone carriers provide (without charging more) more advanced answering services such that when anybody calls a user customized recording will say "If this is a personal call press 7 or business call press 2, if this is a telemarketer press 6 or hold on to leave a message (which will automatically get deleted after 7 days if not listened too). Only if the correct response is selected will the call actually ring out to the person's phone. The correct number to press can be randomized and since the recording is customized by the owner of the phone, it would be hard for simple speech recognition to figure out the correct response. Also have features to only allow calls to go through to the phone if the phone number is recognized by the phones contact list. Otherwise all calls should go to voice mail.

  44. Isn't it obvious? Three Strikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the third strike, the entire company gets disconnected from the telefone network and is prohibited to ever reconnect. Works great for citizens and the internet too, no? I'm sure everybody would like that.

  45. Because "Rachel" isn't unique, easy to outsource by billstewart · · Score: 2

    There's a large ecosystem that provides most of the pieces - call centers that accept calls, equipment and service providers for making calls, workers willing to listen to abuse for low pay, credit card companies that will pay merchants. Long distance telephone calls cost next to nothing even before VOIP made them cheaper, and the Caller ID system wasn't designed to prevent spoofing (in fact, spoofing is a feature, because it lets your office PBX output your phone number instead of the main number for the office, etc.) You can pretty much outsource the whole scam, and do the potentially-getting-arrested parts from outside the US.

    And since "Cardholder Services" isn't already a fake scam business, there's no reason that another scammer can't take advantage of Rachel's reputation and run their own scam.

    On their last few calls, I've been offering "Rachel"'s minions opportunity to make $50,000 for ratting out their boss to the FTC. I've gotten some really amusing profanity in return.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  46. Re:Presumably one of the was Real Time Blacklistin by Maow · · Score: 1

    If there was a widely publicized shortcode you could text with a number to say has been spam calling you then people could do that, and set up an ENUM–style directory which has the RBL info for use by phone companies.

    Also phone companies could text people with information about this shortcode the first time every month that a previously unknown number makes a call or sends a message (until they say STOP of course ;-))

    Might work for mobile spam, at least.

    Unfortunately, the most-common victims of telemarketing spam are older folks, ones without computers, mobile phones, or any technical savvy to make use of even the easiest blocking technology.

    I'd thought of something similar - distributing telemarketer lists as reported by those receiving calls - as a vcard that can be imported into a contacts list and auto-blocked (at least with Android). But then realized that the targets of the calls wouldn't have a) knowledge of such a thing, b) ability to install a vcard, c) call display, d) ability to quickly scan any print-outs of the numbers (it'd be a huge list).

  47. Retargeting of evil by russotto · · Score: 1

    Just send the jackbooted thugs who are persecuting "terrorists" (with chemistry sets), "meth cookers" (with colds), and "hackers" (with wget), and the Reaper drones being used on random enemies of the state, and redirect them towards telemarketers.

  48. Companies are disposable. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Then they simply dissolve the company and form a new one. It's like $50-200 dollars and an hour's time to form a new shell company.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  49. Consumer problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had the same landline for 12 years. Well, I've moved over those 12 years, but managed to keep the number active. I use it for daytime calls (my cell plan counts daytime against me even if it's local calls), I give it to doctor's offices and important other organizations who need a better assurance to reach me, and so on. It's been useful for when cell goes down, or my internet is disrupted I do NOT get ad calls. I do NOT get survey calls. Well, maybe a few times a year, but not anything worthy of being called a nuisance. Why is that?

  50. Need another mass shooting by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

    My wife and I have been wondering just what the public reaction would be if there was another mass shooting, but this time at a boiler room, scumbag call center. Y'know, line up Rachel and the whole cardholder services crowd up against a wall and let 'er rip. At the very least, I bet it would make the gun control debates a bit more interesting.

  51. There is no one enforcing the laws we have by aklinux · · Score: 1

    Passing more laws is not going to help.

    My Android phone gives me a work-around though. I have discovered there is a way to have calls from numbers in my address book routed straight to voice-mail. Each telemarketer gets one shot at calling me, then I add that No. to my address book entry labeled 'Telemarketer' and I never hear from them again. I have never had a robo-caller leave me a voice-mail. Blocked numbers I just avoid answering.

  52. US problem by Tom · · Score: 1

    Another US problem I don't understand. Over here in Germany, it's not a problem and never has been. The only calls of this kind I sometimes get are for surveys, and by "sometimes" I mean on the order of one or two a year.

    So, just an idea, maybe look at what you guys do differently from everyone else in the world and then, just this once, drop the "not invented here" blinders and do what works?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  53. My method is labor intensive, but it works well by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    In a nut shell, I make them regret they even considered calling me. Generally speaking, I get them to run from the cube sobbing, never to return to work again. Ideally, they quit their job right then and there. Been close to that, and I've deffo scored the sobbing and a coupla "unscheduled breaks" from the cube. One of these days, I will get one to quit right then and there.

    Throughout that mess, I remind them about that recording for quality and I ask them whether or not they really want to face the ribbing they will get when the call gets checked. "Jesus, look at what happened to Ron last Tuesday! Holy fuck! What a lamer!" Or whatever...

    There are a few rules to this.

    1. You have to keep the call time high. It takes some time to break through their script and understand them well enough to impact them personally.

    2. Every single word is double edged torture, laced to the max with empathetic expressions of wonder and disgust over how they can even consider doing that work, while at the same time establishing a rapport on some common ground basis they can identify with. This really gets to them.

    3. Use profanity very lightly, if at all, and always use it in context that can be taken to be colorful, passionate expression, not anything they can take personally. Demean the work, the company, everything, but make sure it's one citizen to another trapped in a hopeless machine kind of way.

    4. Use their name frequently, and if you suspect it's fake, work 'em for the real deal, then continue.

    I've stopped most of them on the first call. Once or twice I've come up on the dialer within a short time frame. Typical responses are, "Oh fuck, it's you!" to which I start in as if nothing ever happened, happy to be speaking with them again, and where did we leave off?

    The best is when they lose it big! Usually, it's some rant, or really sorry story, involving crying, yelling, frustration, you name it. And I listen intently, looking for just the right response to send them over the edge hard.

    Call me, you might lose one of ur doodz.

    Fuck, if I know the answer to this mess, but I do know how to raise the cost and I've got some great audio archived.... Hey Brandon from Vonage! Yeah, it's me. You know who I am, and are you still working there after our last two calls? Jesus dude, I told you how to get hold of me. Quit that shit and I'll do my best to hook you up. Just let me know.

  54. wtf its easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most diallers have "detect Autovoice" play recorded announcement instead of send to agent to hock BS you don't need functionality built in.

    License it from Bell. Phone detects autovoice, plays GFY message to robocaller.?

    How hard was that?

  55. Drones! , A new use for. by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't this be a new use for all of the drones being used by all the branches of the military and the cia and the local police forces?
    .
    Couldn't the geniuses at AT&T, a branch of the NSA, put together a system that would :
    -- pinpoint the true location of the spam caller,
    -- allocate a vote tally system and tabulate how many people have reported that particular spam location (not just number on Caller ID, but number as in billed-to-number, and the physical location of the system making the call)
    -- keep some sort of time-adjusted average and when it passes the magic threshold value...
    -- send out the GPS coordinates of that caller location for the next drone attack. I'm sure a few civilian casualties of the telemarketers sitting around them would be acceptable collateral damage, eh?
    .
    ;>)

  56. WTFSRSLY?! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    the Challenge was issued to developing technical or functional solutions

    *69? Ummm
    1. find out where they're calling from
    2. fuck them up

    The telephone network is the telephone network. It's completely impossible to make an anonymous call. Your phone number is like your IP address but more exposed. It seems pretty damn obvious to me, except of course for digital phone. Even then, there's a handful of carriers and that's it and obviously that volume of calls could trigger a very simple pattern recognition system. AT&T can hand me an itemized bill of every single number I called all month. So can Time Warner. It's their fucking network! I bet the #1 suggestion was JUST FUCKING LOOK UP UP WHO THEY ARE.

    1. Re:WTFSRSLY?! by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Lots of VoIP companies appear to let you use any callerID you want, so you totally get to spoof your IP (to keep the analogy). We need the same fix that networks have - prohibit anyone from trunking an invalid callerID, make them register it, and ALL calls need to be logged so I, as a consumer, may call my phone company, get the name of the phone company the call originated from, and file an FTC complaint (and possible lawsuit) against them.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  57. Reverse 911 by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I'd agree, except you need to keep reverse 911. It's incredibly handy for chemical spills and fires. Of course we'd like to get rid of chemical spills and uncontrolled fires altogether; but first things first...

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  58. Simple answer is to ban robocalling by jonwil · · Score: 1

    The solution to this is to ban autodialers and robocalling unless you have a legitimate valid reason (and get a license and specify that reason)
    So it would be possible for those entities that use robocalling to warn people of tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms, school closures or any other similar emergency would be able to get a license. But someone wanting to sell you internet service would not be able to get the license.

    All the other call centers (such as Comcast calling you to offer you their services or some charity wanting donations or a political party wanting votes and funding) would be able to do what they do, they would just have to do it with humans and not robots.

  59. Re:Presumably one of the was Real Time Blacklistin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use the CID to search in realtime for non local or whitelisted numbers in both http://whocallsme.com/ and http://www.listaspam.com/.

    For recognized spammers a snarky syntetic speech rejecting their call is played and the audio and call info logged.

    Still the new spammer numbers must be added manually to these sites but also get included in a local blacklist that now has over 240 entries. This method has cut the need to answer annoying spam call to 3% or even less of the 180 spam call of the past year.

    And no, they don't stop whatever you do. It cost them nothing.

  60. Cant SHOOT the Robocaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She reached under the counter as if to retrieve a weapon but found herself looking at my carry piece faster..

    Are you seriously trying to say that you went into a call center, and you thought the receptionist was pulling a gun on you? Sales calls are annoying and all, but it's important not to get too carried away.

    Guns may not kill people on their own, but trigger-happy people with guns may be part of the problem.

  61. Give'm the politics by program666 · · Score: 1

    1. Find out the personal numbers of the biggest amount of politics you can
    2. Spread these number through the biggest amount of robocallers you can
    3. Peace

  62. States are spoofing too by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    A state institution near town is plagued by staff shortages as the GOP government wants to shut it down or privatize it, driving off all the experienced staff and the new, lower-paid hires don't last as they're abused as well. They are forced to call folks at home who are off or work a different shift and beg them to come in early every day. Most staffers at least once a week are literally held hostage, not allowed to go home as there is no one to relieve them - even going over the 16 hour OSHA rule once in a while.

    Now, this publicly funded State institution is hiding their caller ID as most staffers began to ignore calls from the truthful ID. Some of the schedulers are apparently using their own cell phones just to show a different number. How this is legal is beyond me, but then again, law in the US for the mere proles no longer exists.

  63. Two programs to block telemarketers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I placed two programs on SourceForge.net that deal with this. Program jcblock blocks calls with caller IDs that match ones in a blacklist. It works for landline phones. The other, JCBloc, is an Andriod app that works similarly for a smartphone. It works for Andriod 2.2. Android blocked access to phone operations after that version. Hope this is helpful...

  64. Loopholes by nuggz · · Score: 1

    The problem is that there is no technical difference between the legal robocallers and the illegal robocallers.

    What is the technical difference between a charity calling to sell you something and a company calling to sell you something?
    Recipients of the call don't see any difference, the phone system sees no difference. The scripts are likely no different.

    1. Re:Loopholes by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Under what I suggested, only FCC licensed entities (which those using it for emergencies, disasters, evacuation orders and other genuinely important uses) would be allowed to buy, install, own and use equipment for robocalling. Charities would be allowed to continue to call people but they would be prohibited from using robocalling equipment (or autodialers) to do it.

  65. piss on POTS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    We have long had money spent (in the USA) on bringing phone lines to rural areas to serve the majority of the people. Today we should be extending the internet to all people, and then you could just use a bloody IP phone. POTS has always been great because of its battery backup, but nothing prevents the same being implemented for the last mile internet architecture, whatever that looks like. Today, IP phones are extremely inexpensive and many if not most people own a device which can function as one already, so there's no good reason to stick with POTS over internet access which I think we can all agree has greater utility. I'm not talking about guaranteeing every citizen "broadband" speeds (currently defined by government as what, 4 Mbps or better?) but at least enough to be useful for most types of communications, a number which we could argue about but which might be placed around 512 kbps if you want to support a typical household's worth of users all making high-quality voice calls at once.

    Then the problem turns back into dealing with spam :) But we have lots of filtering techniques for that. POTS phones are too dumb and adding Asterisk is not yet as inexpensive as an answering machine. A solution which made it so (and as simple) might go some distance towards solving this problem technically on the user's end, though.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  66. We need to make examples of telemarketers by nessman · · Score: 1

    I say line them all up next to a trench and put a bullet in their heads...

    We can all dream: http://i48.tinypic.com/2dc8kg1.jpg

  67. Firewall 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here: http://unvexed.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-firewall-your-phone-system.html "How to Firewall Your Phone System against Robocallers, Telemarketers and Other Pests