Slashdot Mirror


How One Small Company Blocked 15.1 Million Robocalls Last Year

TechCurmudgeon sends this excerpt from an article at Wired: Aaron Foss won a $25,000 cash prize from the Federal Trade Commission for figuring out how eliminate all those annoying robocalls that dial into your phone from a world of sleazy marketers. ... Using a little telephone hackery, Foss found a way of blocking spammers while still allowing the emergency alert service and other legitimate entities to call in bulk. Basically, he re-routed all calls through a service that would check them against a whitelist of legitimate operations and a blacklist of spammers, and this little trick was so effective, he soon parlayed it into a modest business. Last year, his service, called Nomorobo, blocked 15.1 million robocalls.

145 comments

  1. NoScript + PBX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He stole my idea! Curse you AQUASCUM!!!!!!

    1. Re:NoScript + PBX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The service actually does some fairly cool stuff since he has lots of customers. He can see if one caller is hitting several of his users in multiple areas and if so, automatically blacklist it for all the rest unless it's explicitly whitelisted. Of course users can also report bad numbers that get through so everyone else gets the benefit of the shared blacklist, and report any legitimate calls that get blocked so they can be whitelisted. Sure, a spammer could TRY to sign up for the service and whitelist his own numbers, but it wouldn't work for long since: A. The whitelist doesn't just apply automatically, I think he (or someone working on his behalf) actually reviews whitelist submissions manually, and B. Very soon another customer would just report the scammer and get him blacklisted again, and Nomorobo would then know the false whitelist submitter must just be a scammer trying to game the system, and they've now got his numbers and some kind of contact info and the originating IP of the false complaints, etc.

      He could also heavily weight international termination and/or origin from certain services known to be easy for scammers to hide behind as potential spam, but I don't know if he does or not. That could get more tricky.

      The Achilles heel is that (at least in theory) a scammer could literally change their number for every single call, or at least every batch of calls, and potentially get through to at least few Nomorobo users each time. Thus far that doesn't seem to be happening but is a potential weakness in the system regardless.

      Barring the involvement of all the telcos and/or legislation and enforcement funding (most likely it would take all three) to force ALL calls to be identifiable, block any that aren't, and go after the offenders mercilessly, this is about the best it gets. I think we're long past the point where making anonymous phone calls serves any purpose whatsoever. Government entities could find the caller regardless if they really care to so it doesn't protect whistle-blowers, and I'd have a hard time believing that there are any legitimate privacy concerns. Basically, if you don't want the person receiving a call to know you're the one calling them, don't call them, and get over it.

    2. Re:NoScript + PBX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Achilles Heel of his product is that, certainly in the UK and most likely in other locations, you do not need to send a caller ID. Without this his product is f*cked. Often places like hospitals and doctor's surgeries will not transmit their caller ID so you cannot just block them.

  2. Click here! by Aboroth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some regular guy got $25,000 from the government with one weird trick!

    1. Re:Click here! by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some regular guy got $25,000 from the government with one weird trick!

      Robocallers hate him.

      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
    2. Re:Click here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best two comments I have ever seen. Well done sirs, well done.

  3. With a name like his by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    I sure hope his hack is free/open-source.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:With a name like his by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Whoosh*

    2. Re:With a name like his by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 3, Informative

      His last name is "Foss" ("free and open source").

      Pretty great joke, I never would have noticed the name.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    3. Re:With a name like his by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2

      I sure hope his hack is free/open-source.

      No, it would appear that Foss's software is non-f/oss.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    4. Re:With a name like his by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      no, its only proprietory OS users that like to steal

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:With a name like his by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      I sure hope his hack is free/open-source.

      He's using Twilio. Twilio is not free for him (with the amount of phone traffic he's generating). Somebody has to pay for the service, whether the customer ultimately ends up paying for it, or the service is being monetized by advertisements, or a phone company decides to pay for the service as a value-added service that they pass to their own customers. The source code itself is nothing special. The idea itself isn't even new. This guy just happened to have entered a contest/hackathon sponsored by the FTC.

      For white listing phone calls, google voice (integrated with Sprint) is actually pretty good. If you're looking to combine both white listing and shared black listing at the same time, there are many other startups that are offering that kind of service as well. With cloud services like Twilio or Voxeo, it's fairly easy for just one developer, or a small startup, to get into the telephony business.

    6. Re:With a name like his by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It first name's Aaron too - how much more deserving can you get?

    7. Re:With a name like his by Sique · · Score: 1

      If you get hold of a list of robocallers, you could put something similar up yourself with Asterisk or any other of the free phone switch software packages.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:With a name like his by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm sure the spanners think he deserves to die, a thousand times.

    9. Re:With a name like his by rot26 · · Score: 1

      He's really thrown a wrench into their operations.

      BOOYAH.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    10. Re:With a name like his by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I've got it! The service is free to users because it's paid for by ad robocalls.

      No, wait...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:With a name like his by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not pay for it from the fines paid by the robocall spammers themselves? After all, there would be no need for such services if it weren't for these low-life. They are creating the problem, let them pay to fix it.

  4. Implement locally? by Alrescha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any reason not to just do this on your phone? e.g: my phone doesn't ring unless the caller is in the address book / contact list.

    A.

    --
    ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    1. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there are plenty of reasons you might want to receive calls from someone that's not in your contact list yet.

    2. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are plenty ways to implement screening yourself, https://www.wrbishop.com/telecom/end-robocaller-solicitation-and-hangup-calls-with-asterisk/ has a from scratch way. There are many of these asterisk callscripts available, from simply always playing a no sollicitors message and needing a keypress from the caller to, white/blacklists and greylisting unknowns by having them enter a message and have you decide what to do with calls (accept once, whitelist/blacklist/ignore/terminate)

    3. Re:Implement locally? by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Yesterday I got a call with number withheld which turned out to be the hospital making an appointment for me to attend for a scan. I would not have wanted to miss that call, but they withhold their number for reasons I can understand.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Implement locally? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Because there are plenty of reasons you might want to receive calls from someone that's not in your contact list yet."

      Name 3.

      (for private persons obviously, not business)

    5. Re:Implement locally? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) A close family member's cell phone battery dies, they try to call you from a pay phone or a friend's (or stranger's) cell phone.
      2) A friend (old friend if you wish) has changed their number, and wants to reach you.
      3) Someone who has you as their Emergency contact number had a mishap, and the emergency service wants to reach you..

    6. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Businesses calling you back (e.g. customer services) from an unknown number;

      2) Government notifying you of something they consider urgent, e.g. a police or tax matter (might happen very rarely, but these are the sort of calls you regret missing), usually from an unexpected number;

      3) Me calling you, assuming I'm your friend, because I block caller ID on send as I don't enjoy callees collecting my 'phone number and spamming me later.

    7. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, all of this is fixed by going straight to voicemail rather than outright blocking.

    8. Re:Implement locally? by Alrescha · · Score: 1

      With the possible exception of #3, I think voicemail has this covered.

      A.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    9. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they withhold their number for reasons I can understand.

      No, there's no reason for them to withhold their number. Most clueful hospitals and clinics just have their outbound number set to their reception desk, meaning that anyone calling out from the facility on any extension will have their apparent number be set to their reception desk, much like how NAT works for IP.

      Unlike individuals, hospitals and clinics need to be reachable via fixed landline phone service.

    10. Re:Implement locally? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Surprises me no one has come up with a box that you put between, have a little wireless connection and a web page to manage. It could mimic the same as the android blocker app. You could back up your white and black lists. Basically it checks the call display and hang it up if it is on the black list. Your phone would never ring. You could also send logs via email if needed.

    11. Re:Implement locally? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Technically, I'm sure is totally doable. Myself I have an app called "SudioKuma Call Filter" installed, this is a blacklist for Hong Kong local junk calls. Also I am on a government do-not-call list, which blocks robocalls, but allows calls made by humans - the call filter takes care of that one. They have a blacklist of some 20k numbers, and a whitelist of some 162k numbers, so far less than what this company is dealing with. The size of that blacklist (TFA mentions 850,000 numbers, and hundreds of changes a day) may be an issue for a regular phone, particularly the database lookups may be too slow for it to work well.

      More of an issue is that most land line phones (at least the ones that I used when I still had a land line, this may have changed) do not have any significant computing power in them. They may have a small memory for some fast calls or a simple address book; nothing near the computing power of a mobile phone - which is comparable to that of desktop computers less than a decade older.

    12. Re:Implement locally? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who's ever going to listen to voice mail, knowing that the ten voice mail messages the system has waiting for you are recordings of a robocall, because thanks to the white list all robocalls are automatically sent to voicemail?

    13. Re:Implement locally? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Voicemail is not the same as picking up a call. It does not have it covered, atleast for me.

    14. Re:Implement locally? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      Sure, I get there are edge cases where you might want to get a call from an unknown caller. The circumstances on your list (for me) are rare. I'm talking maybe once every few years rare. Robocalls are obnoxious and legion. I pretty much don't even answer my landline anymore because it rings several times a day with junk calls. Registering the number on the do not call lists had zero effect. More needs to be done to punish purveyors of this service at the source.

      It would be nice if you could have your telco provider apply an aggressive spam filter by default.

    15. Re:Implement locally? by jittles · · Score: 2

      With the possible exception of #3, I think voicemail has this covered.

      A.

      That is definitely not true for #1. I ran in a marathon event and I had my cell phone with me. At the end of the event, some woman who was not feeling very well at all was desperately trying to get a hold of her boyfriend. I called him 10 times in a row from my cell phone and, after he ran into her by chance, he admitted that he ignored my calls and voicemails. I suspect his girlfriend was not happy with him after that.

    16. Re:Implement locally? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I never have to pay for incoming calls (unless I am roaming in another country) here in Europe. So there is no cost. Yet I have NEVER received a cold call on my phone.
      Not once in the probably 10 years I have the number.

      Either I am lucky, or cold calling is just not an issue in Belgium. I guess the reason is that calling me costs them money, not me. And the same price for them would happen if it were a mailbox or an actual call.

      I can not speak for my land-line, as I do not have a phone connected to it. Just an ADSL modem.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Implement locally? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      1: SMS
      2: SMS
      3: Why didn't they clear with you first?

    18. Re:Implement locally? by rot26 · · Score: 1

      Go for it. I used to have something like this, but it was cheap and didn't work that well. Maybe you can do a lot better. Or maybe you'll find out why nobody else has done it.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    19. Re:Implement locally? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      1) The payphones here dont have SMS
      2) Fair enough.
      3) I am talking about someone close enough that it is an implied contract. Your children or your significant other or your parents or someone you care deeply about.

    20. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why didn't you text him with "<insert GF's name> is sick call back asap" after the first call went to voice-mail?

    21. Re:Implement locally? by ibpooks · · Score: 1

      3: Why didn't they clear with you first?

      How would you know what number an incoming emergency call would come from whether you knew you were the emergency contact or not? If your wife is hurt at work will a call come from her cell phone, her supervisor's cell phone, desk phone, main business number, the HR office, one of hundreds of hospital numbers, etc?

    22. Re:Implement locally? by TWX · · Score: 2

      If someone is calling from a borrowed phone, then there's a timelimit on the use of that borrowed device. By the time one calls back, the person trying to reach you might not have access to the handset anymore.

      Many payphones have no receive-call feature anymore, in part to prevent drug dealers from using them to semianonymously set up their final meeting points. Can't return their call even if you try.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    23. Re:Implement locally? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      No, there's no reason for them to withhold their number.

      Medical privacy? Perhaps a patient doesn't want others to see "Midwest Cancer Services" on the caller id. Or "Planned Parenthood". Or any other possibly recognizable number/name.

    24. Re:Implement locally? by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      There is no situation I could be in where an incoming call is important enough to warrant my immediate attention. There's a guy at work whose wife is expecting a baby, I assume he's made arrangements for immediate contact. Maybe his wife should have a talk with him about working for a company that lets him work from home.

      The old asterisk voice menu system I used to run was pretty good at shutting down telemarketers and robocallers while still letting legitimate callers through. I don't think it'd be so easy to implement on an android phone, although it really should be. Maybe that phone Canonical is working on will have more open standards, but I'm not holding my breath.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    25. Re:Implement locally? by Stewie241 · · Score: 2

      It is probably the cost thing.

      In the US it generally doesn't cost either party any money once you pay the flat monthly rate for the telephone line, which can be had for pretty cheap.

      So it's a tradeoff, really - it is nice to be able to make calls across the country without thinking about the cost. On the other hand, it lowers the bar for telemarketers.

    26. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll note that your "counterexample" did not include a number. I'll reiterate: there's no reason for them to withhold their *number*.

      If you're so paranoid about having a number show up on caller ID then nothing short of using a burner cell phone will suffice. The truly paranoid patient will insist upon calling *them* for all communication, and then only from one of the three remaining payphones in their metro area, lest the phone call show up on a bill someone else might see.

      I mean, what if someone else answers your phone when the clinic calls and pretends to be you? ZOMG... I mean, they could find out *stuff*! That scenario is about as much of a threat as having a number show up.

    27. Re:Implement locally? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      2: SMS

      I don't SMS. Sorry. I don't even have a texting plan at all because I've never used it, never had a reason to use it, and all the texts I've received over the years were all spam. Maybe only a couple were legitmate, one when I was keeping a number alive via Google Voice, and another when Google or someone texted me a confirmation code (I think it may have been my carrier to confirm a purchase).

      Now, I too only answer the phone when I recognize the number. However, I admit, I have a landline as well and expect people to call that and leave a voicemail (did I mention I don't have voicemail on my phone, either?).

      And yes, I've also been caught by my own filter - I did happen to forget my phone one day and had to use a payphone. I left a message.

      I never have to pay for incoming calls (unless I am roaming in another country) here in Europe. So there is no cost. Yet I have NEVER received a cold call on my phone.
      Not once in the probably 10 years I have the number.

      That's because in Europe, the caller pays, and to help differentiate the call rates, cellphones have a different prefix so you can tell when you're going to pay.

      So of course people won't robocall a cellphone in Europe - why would you when it'll cost you 10 cents to make the call? Calling a landline is free, calling a cellphone is not. Naturally forcing people to pay will get them to not pay in the end.

      Of course, in North America that's not feasible since a phone number can be a landline or a cellphone and there's no way to tell just by looking. Especially since numbers can go between the two for number portability.

      Though, the carriers can implement caller pays by simply stating the called number is a cellphone and do they want to pay for the call.

    28. Re:Implement locally? by unrtst · · Score: 2

      The size of that blacklist (TFA mentions 850,000 numbers, and hundreds of changes a day) may be an issue for a regular phone, particularly the database lookups may be too slow for it to work well.

      There are MUCH better ways than what I'm about to suggest, but this is just to get a generic feel for the size of the dataset you're talking about...

      US phone numbers easily fit into a 64bit int.
      64bit * 850,000 = 54,400,000 bit = 6,800,000 byte = 6.5mb

      Even if you just iterated over every item, a phone could search that plenty fast enough (especially if you cache it in memory).

      This could also be implemented the same way that the RBL (realtime blacklist) anti-spam lists are managed - DNS. To improve speed when you're not online, sync the data periodically (nightly, weekly, whatever), and let DNS deal with misses by fetching them from the RBL. Lots of ways to do this.

      Anyway... the real "problem" or hard part would be in doing PBX-list operations, such as silently answering the call, then doing voice prompts, and interpretting the response from the other end (press 2 if you're a human, etc), and call handling after that point (forwarding them, ringing other lines, voice mail, etc). It all *should* be completely doable on an just about any android phone.... asterisk was out a LONG LONG time ago and handling many calls on single desktop-class machines - versus - on the cell phone, you'll only ever have to handle one call at a time (maybe 2), so there's plenty of power for that. Here's a conversation about it from a couple years ago (plenty of "sure, but I don't know you'd want to do that" naysaying): http://community.spiceworks.co...

    29. Re:Implement locally? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      I use Root Call Blocker on Android. It hacks the phone sub-system so that calls you do not want to receive do not even register on the phone system. RCB picks up the call and then hangs up. Your phone doesn't ring, and the caller get to voice mail, and no one is wiser. I have nothing to do with RCB other than a satisfied user.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    30. Re:Implement locally? by corvax · · Score: 1

      I would add robocalls from schools. whenever school is going to be cancelled or delayed the school robocalls all parents to let them know. This happens hours (8 to 10 sometimes) Before it shows up on any lists on the school websites or local news. Each time we get a robocall from the school it has been from a different number (non local)

    31. Re:Implement locally? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Thats why you clear it. Things can be arranged without issues, so long they are arranged.

    32. Re:Implement locally? by mordred99 · · Score: 2

      Actually this happens all the time. Caller ID works great for land lines, where there is no switching. However when you go through multiple services (like a sip connection, through google voice, to a cell phone) the caller ID gets lost A LOT. They are not blocking it - just the phone call is of higher priority than the caller ID session that gets passed and it is not updated once the "call" initiates the ringer on the end device. So if it gets lagged by 1/2 a second, it won't even show up on the end device. That is what "unknown" is for.

    33. Re:Implement locally? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Calling ten times is better than a single SMS? I ignore calls from unknown numbers usually. If it's important they can send me an SMS.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    34. Re:Implement locally? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      The advantage is that I can go through voice mail asynchronously.

    35. Re:Implement locally? by s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner · · Score: 1

      My smartphone is configured to send all calls straight to voicemail if they come from restricted, unavailable, or unknown numbers. This wipes out the majority of them. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to sending all numbers not in the contacts list straight to voicemail, but I haven't done so yet. In my experience, only people or companies who have a legitimate reason to speak with me will bother to leave a voicemail. Maybe a tiny minority of robocalls are configured to leave a recorded message, but all the rest automatically dump the call when they don't detect that a person has answered.

    36. Re:Implement locally? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Assuming they're calling from a cellphone.

    37. Re:Implement locally? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1
      Parent said

      I called him 10 times in a row from my cell phone

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    38. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Voice has a great transcription service included. Due to the use of the wrong browser, I don't have hangouts yet, but it's predecessor Google Talk made scanning robocalls as easy as sorting spam from the headers. Trashing 10 robocalls is not difficult anymore.

    39. Re:Implement locally? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      In this case, yes. But, in general, someone with an important call might not be calling from a cellphone, and hence not have the opportunity to send an SMS.

    40. Re:Implement locally? by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      " There's a guy at work whose wife is expecting a baby... Maybe his wife should have a talk with him about working for a company that lets him work from home. "

      #1 Are you saying he should change jobs so that he can be available for a call for the singular time that he may get a call that its time for her to give birth?

      #2 Not all jobs lend themselves to working from home. What about those people who actually have to be somewhere to get work done?

      "There is no situation I could be in where an incoming call is important enough to warrant my immediate attention."

      So, if your mom/dad/wife/child/friend had a heart attack and had moments to live, you wouldn't feel the need to try to see them? Or as a more common issue, if one of those people had a flat tire and found the spare was flat also, you wouldn't want to go help them if possible?

    41. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disabled texts on my cell because for every 1 legitimate text I got, about 15 were spam.

      And since I was paying to receive each texts... yeah, no thanks. So SMS isn't an option for me because I won't even receive it... I have several different instant messaging services if you MUST insist on writing rather than calling.

      I will pick up calls from area codes I know, but I will NEVER take a call from the area code my phone number is registered in because I don't actually know anybody in that area code, have never lived in that area code and (most likely) never will. Besides, the one time I didn't check caller ID before I picked up and it was from that area code? Robot.

      Otherwise, since I have a nasty habit of remembering numbers, if it's not in my contact list but I recognize it (or even the series), I'll risk picking it up.

    42. Re:Implement locally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Download a trouble signal tone from the net. You know the three tone signal for a non-working number. Record this to the first part of your voicemail message and then record a message. When the robo dialer calls it hears the tones and drops your number from the database. Within a month you'll stop getting calls. This is the way the telemarkerters scrub their lists by the tones for non-working numbers.

      This does work!

  5. Am I reading The Onion? by andyn · · Score: 2

    ...because that's what I just thought.

    Newsflash! Government pays entrepreneur USD 25 k for coming up with a technological solution for a legislative problem!

    1. Re:Am I reading The Onion? by houghi · · Score: 1

      He won a prize, not a contract.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Am I reading The Onion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but "entrepeneur" GOOD, "legislative" BAD!!!

    3. Re:Am I reading The Onion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Newsflash! Government pays entrepreneur USD 25 k for coming up with a technological solution for a legislative problem!

      How do you intend to legislate this problem away?

      Do you think that all robocallers are legitimate businesses and not fraudsters who don't give a damn about that law?

    4. Re:Am I reading The Onion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not a legislative problem. At least not one that is fixable with more legislation. I still get robocalls, they just do more to hide who they are to avoid complaints and government action. And even then, the penalty is a slap on the wrist generally, or they bankrupt and change names and start again.

      Here is the solution - TALK TO THEM. They went to robocalls to eliminate the bad lead cost of a person calling. They tell you if you are not interested to hang up - with further reduces THEIR costs in making a sales pitch. This is an economic problem. The solution is to make it uneconomical by answering EVERY telemarketing call and taking up their time. They make thousands of robocalls daily. If even 25 people out of those thousands answered the call and kept them going for 10-20 minutes on their pitch, it would waste 1 agents day of no calls. Given that maybe 1 on 10 people actually buy, having maybe even 2-3 of those calls could be enough to keep an agent from making a sale. Insufficient sales, no more telemarketing.

      Nothing against NoMoRobo, but it actually HELPS the telemarketers by culling out the obvious technical savvier dead leads in concert with the robodialers. The ones that get through are ones more likely to make a sale, thus providing profit, and ensuring the economic viability of continued telemarketing.

    5. Re:Am I reading The Onion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that stringing them along might hurt them [b]more[/b] than blocking (especially in the short term), my time is not free, and just like I told the other poster claiming the same thing:
      I don't buy that blocking "helps" them. Your logic is flawed in that a good con can often work on even supposedly "savvy" folks (for example when they pretend to be the bank that you actually DO have an account with, or similar, and catch you off guard), and also the supposedly "easy target" folks will ask for help from friends/family so that even they start blocking too, once the volume of useless and annoying robocalls gets high enough. In the long run, the more blocked calls, the less it pays to try to scam folks overall and the more calls are required to ever get through to a live victim. More call attempts is also more chances to potentially get caught.

      Just think about it. Overall, have spam filters helped spammers or hurt them at this point? One difference here is that every call is real time and has an active point of origin during the call, so it should be much easier to track down. Someone, somewhere is paying for the phone or voip service and I can't imagine that buying disposable cell phones in bulk or sharing off public WiFi to try to remain anonymous would scale very well for anything but the very smallest scammers.

      The data collected by blocking services is also helpful in both legislative, technical, and enforcement efforts. If nothing else, when the guy can show up with boxes and boxes of paper showing the true extent of the problem it makes for a much more compelling case.

      You're also trying to claim that using a service like Nomorobo is difficult and only tech-savvy folks could ever do so, but have you even looked at their web site? It's pretty clearly targeted right at the less-savvy and likely more gullible segment of the population, to such a degree that I initially ignored it and assumed it was itself some kind of service with a catch or maybe even a scam. I was confused as to why they would do this, but considering your comments above, I think they might be on the right track to market it that way. Placing emphasis on attracting more of the people most likely to be harmed by phone scams kills two birds with one stone; cutting off part of the scammers revenue scheme and protecting potential victims, all without having to waste the intended victim's time.

    6. Re: Am I reading The Onion? by phocion · · Score: 1

      So if you're right (and I think you are), then what we need are roboanswerers to combat the robocallers. They could answer, convince the robocallers that they are a real person, and then tie up the real telemarketers for as long as they can pass the Turing test.

      --
      Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
  6. "Re-route the calls" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, yet one more party that gets to peek at all your phone traffic?

    Sure, filtering robocalls is useful, but I do have questions about the way it is implemented.

    1. Re:"Re-route the calls" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, they're from the government, and they're here to klep^Whelp.

  7. I quite enjoy them by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Wait until they answer. Pretend you are from a competing company. Tell them you have everything they sell. Tell them you are a Franciscan and have taken an oath of poverty. Try to sell them something. Say yo want to buy it until right at the end when they want credit card information then say "I'll have to ask my doctor, here at the psychiatric hospital they take away all your personal belongings".

  8. I don't get this by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Why do you need to route calls through a seperate business just to do some basic black/whitelisting? That's a basic feature of anything that can forward or route calls anyway.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As usual, the service is the maintenance of the black-/whitelists. You can DIY, but then you lack the economies of scale and it's not worth it.

  9. Sounds like a lot of work by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    Very humurous (--- now medical students studying bones will find this page in their searches)

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Sounds like a lot of work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not with that spelling they won't!

  10. Let's get this straight by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The NSA has metadata (and most likely recordings) of most of the phone calls in the entire world. The FBI (and a bunch of other unnamed government agencies) can and do tap phones without court orders. Cell phones can be used to track individuals 24/7. And yet somehow between the FCC and all the phone companies no one can figure out who is making robocalls. Really?

    What's actually going on is that phone companies love robocalls because they make money on them and the FCC doesn't give a damn and/or is too "pro-business" to do anything for consumers.

    Just stop lying and pretending that this is a hard problem. It's bad enough that this crap goes on in the first place. Pretending that nothing can be done is adding insult to injury. STFU and admit that it happens on purpose and nothing will change because you like the status quo. Stop lying to us!

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Let's get this straight by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      NSA et.al. work in secret, outside the law. Formally they're covered by the law, but the problem is that this includes many secret laws giving them lots of leeway, and if the law gets in the way they'll ignore it anyway.

      The FCC and phone companies however work more in the open, and are bound by the law. One such laws says that the phone company must do their best to make all phone calls come through, no matter the content. This is typical part of being a common carrier (like the postal service): they can not discriminate against content, they have to put through the message, and also are not liable for any content of the message.

      While technically easy, it's legally not so. The phone company must put through those calls, even if they know this are robocalls and the customer doesn't like robocalls. The customer however is free to install blockers on their phone, or to have their calls rerouted through a third party which helps them filtering the calls. This is exactly how it's done now.

      Finally, you should really equate this with Internet filters. They're hated here - yet phone filters are asked for. Phone filters can also be used to block political rivals and let your own calls go through, for example. That will give your party an edge at the next elections.

    2. Re:Let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has metadata (and most likely recordings) of most of the phone calls in the entire world. The FBI (and a bunch of other unnamed government agencies) can and do tap phones without court orders. Cell phones can be used to track individuals 24/7. And yet somehow between the FCC and all the phone companies no one can figure out who is making robocalls. Really?

      Yep. Because the federal idea of how information works is strictly in a one-way direction.

    3. Re:Let's get this straight by dargaud · · Score: 1

      That. In most European countries there's no such thing as robocalls. They get their line disconnected fast.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    4. Re:Let's get this straight by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NSA et.al. work in secret, outside the law. Formally they're covered by the law, but the problem is that this includes many secret laws giving them lots of leeway,

      I disagree. No U.S. law can supersedes the Constitution. Much of what they've done violates the fourth and eighth Amendments. The problem isn't simply secret laws, it's a lawless executive branch, a pandering legislative branch, and a cowardly judicial branch.

    5. Re:Let's get this straight by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That. In most European countries there's no such thing as robocalls. They get their line disconnected fast.

      So you head on over to India, Africa, the Bahamas or the Ukraine to disconnect people's phones?

      Christ, you Europeans have this shit all figured out.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Let's get this straight by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just stop lying and pretending that this is a hard problem. It's bad enough that this crap goes on in the first place. Pretending that nothing can be done is adding insult to injury. STFU and admit that it happens on purpose and nothing will change because you like the status quo. Stop lying to us!

      People have to stop rewarding the liars with their votes if you expecting to happen at all. You will get nowhere with the continued 95% reelection rate that Congress enjoys.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has metadata (and most likely recordings) of most of the phone calls in the entire world. The FBI (and a bunch of other unnamed government agencies) can and do tap phones without court orders. . And yet somehow between the FCC and all the phone companies no one can figure out who is making robocalls. Really?

      Yes, really. Having all the data is no good without understanding it. Practically all terrorist attacks over in the west over the last 10+ years were committed by people already under surveillance. The "collect it all" approach is only good for hindsight, when you want to "rewind" events and see what has already happened. But it is shit for identifying anything in real-time much less predicting future events.

      The only lying going on is that building bigger haystacks makes finding needles easier.

    8. Re:Let's get this straight by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      While technically easy, it's legally not so. The phone company must put through those calls, even if they know this are robocalls and the customer doesn't like robocalls. The customer however is free to install blockers on their phone, or to have their calls rerouted through a third party which helps them filtering the calls.

      If the phone contracts says you are not allowed to do robocalls or local laws does not allowed they are legally allowed to block them. Also they are legally allowed to track who calls who, because they need that for billing.

    9. Re:Let's get this straight by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In that case, they would be allowed to block any robocalls originating from their network (because those customers are violating their contract); not the ones entering their network. That'd be a legal quagmire: how do they know for sure it's a robocall until it's answered and listened in to? They're not legally allowed to listen in to calls, a warrant is needed for that.

    10. Re:Let's get this straight by dargaud · · Score: 1

      It's probably too expensive for robocallers to call from outside.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    11. Re:Let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me wonder what kind of dirt they have on the judges. Maybe Roberts and Scalia are in to some freaky stuff.

    12. Re:Let's get this straight by dnavid · · Score: 1

      The NSA has metadata (and most likely recordings) of most of the phone calls in the entire world. The FBI (and a bunch of other unnamed government agencies) can and do tap phones without court orders. Cell phones can be used to track individuals 24/7. And yet somehow between the FCC and all the phone companies no one can figure out who is making robocalls. Really?

      What's actually going on is that phone companies love robocalls because they make money on them and the FCC doesn't give a damn and/or is too "pro-business" to do anything for consumers.

      Just stop lying and pretending that this is a hard problem. It's bad enough that this crap goes on in the first place. Pretending that nothing can be done is adding insult to injury. STFU and admit that it happens on purpose and nothing will change because you like the status quo. Stop lying to us!

      Who said its hard to figure out who is making robocalls? Its not difficult to figure that out. The problem is that it is not illegal to make robocalls. The concern is that some robocalls violate the law by calling people that are registered on do not call lists and do not have a valid legal reason for calling, and other robocalls are perfectly legal but the recipient doesn't want to answer them anyway. Services like nomorobo and others are intended for people who want to control the kinds of telemarketing and other robocalls they receive.

      I use nomorobo myself, and given that its a free service I don't have to maintain myself, I think it works very well. It doesn't catch and block everything, but it blocks a surprising number of them and every one it blocks is a call I don't have to answer or alternatively listen to ring the phone over and over until voicemail picks it up. It doesn't block all robocalls, but its not supposed to. When my drugstore calls to tell me my prescriptions are ready for pickup, that's a robocall but not one I want blocked. If the service just blocks the worst offenders, that's still plenty valuable just as anti-spam filters don't have to block 100% of all email spam to still be worthwhile.

    13. Re:Let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop lying and pretending that this is a hard problem. It's bad enough that this crap goes on in the first place. Pretending that nothing can be done is adding insult to injury. STFU and admit that it happens on purpose and nothing will change because you like the status quo. Stop lying to us!

      If it weren't for the lying, we would never get laid.

    14. Re:Let's get this straight by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://twothirds.us/the-oaths-...

      All federal employees have an oath to uphold the constitution. Just because you don't understand the legal reasoning behind the different programs you have heard only pieces of, doesn't mean that every person in these organizations is doing unconstitutional stuff. If you want, most of the legal opinions have now been published, so you can read exactly why the programs are legal and constitutional.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  11. That's Right! by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    And free cable too!

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  12. How about a real solution? by thogard · · Score: 2

    Why not 20 digit number where wrong numbers all answer and charge the caller? That would fix telemarketing forever.

    1. Re:How about a real solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can easily invest in mapping out the wrong numbers once. This would only work if you randomized the real phone numbers too. Good luck with that!

    2. Re:How about a real solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entering a phone number twice as long for each call would not be accepted by the public. The solution is to charge a small fee to spoof a number. Those businesses with a legit need to do so will pay it since they do not frequently make such calls. The businesses that are making bulk calls will go out of business or at least become more scarce.

    3. Re:How about a real solution? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. They know your number. People carelessly give it out all the time.

  13. It's great over here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could also move to civilized world where robocalls are forbidden.

    1. Re:It's great over here by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Something being banned or made illegal does not prevent it from happening. It just prevdnts it from happening legally. See speeding for reference.

    2. Re:It's great over here by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      not only that, but banning things is not what makes a civilized society. Freedom does, and yes, that includes the freedom to be a dick

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  14. Another option by symes · · Score: 2

    In the UK we can set preferences with the telephone preference service . But another is to set up a premium rate line and rake in the money - although it might be polite to set up another regular number for family and friends.

    1. Re:Another option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the US we have a Do Not Call list also. Telemarketers just regard it as a confirmed good number list.

  15. Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The telcos are dragging their feet and they are squarely to blame for the situation with robocalls and other unsolicited messages. They don't have to support the ability of the user to spoof. At the time the call comes into their POTS network, erase whatever spoofed header the call originator is supplying and replace it with the point-of-presence number. Once spoofing is stopped many other tools can be brought to bear to handle the situation.

    Root cause of the problem seems to be, some large corporations with large phone banks want to spoof their number. They don't care if that ability is misused by shady operators peddling junk. They are totally wrong, it is better to pay a few cents more per call to get an account with the privilege to spoof the originating number. If they reduce the number of junk calls, their potential customers might actually answer their calls. Right now the junk call menace is so high most people are refusing answer any unknown number.

    Just charge 1 cent per call to spoof the originating number, the junk call volume will go down by orders of magnitude.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least AT&T is taking it farther than that.They are helping these guys cover their tracks.They refuse to lookup ANI information for their customers for these calls and they have no excuse as to why this is(and for extra points they pretend to be dumb and not understand what ANI is).

    2. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      I don't even care if they allow spoofing or not -- Just when the number is spoofed, the receiver should get an indication that it has been spoofed, and then I can make my own decision on whether I want to receive those calls or not.

      I'd just drop any call from a spoofed number. If somebody want to talk to me, they can get a real phone.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by bswarm · · Score: 2

      AT&T lost me as a customer due to the ridiculous amount of telemarketers calling me. They wanted to charge me even more money to add call blocking or Caller ID. No thanks, got a cell phone for 1/3 the price of my landline and only family got that number, all others get my google call number.

    4. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This spoofing you speak of assumes a POTS line.

      The real world business class breaks the POTS line into trunked lines. Ever dial 9 for an outside line?

      I have two types of lines. 1 is DID (Direct Inward Dial) which is assigned a phone number (5 actually) which can receive calls but not place any calls. This is 2 VOIP lines, both with the same account number. Number assigned include DID from 2 states, 800 number, an INUM, and a local number. Dial any of the 5 and it rings in.

      Trunk lines can place calls but not receive any. What CID should go on this? My PBX can send CID for my home number, cell number, 800 number, or local business number simply by picking one of the 8 lines on a SNOM IP phone. The PBX takes the extension and assigns the CID which is sent out on which ever the next open trunk line is open. This is normal PBX operation.

        Unfortunately this normal mode for a PBX would be impossible if my trunk lines were hard coded to a CID by the phone company. Transferring to my night attendant would be impossible. Calling after hours would not be transferred and the calls would go to voice mail instead of being screened for true emergencies.

      This feature of a normal PBX with commercial lines is what is abused by spoofing.

      Instead of breaking normal PBX function, CID should have a background source IP in addition to normal CID. Then when there is abuse, the abuse report such as dial *999 after the call would flag the source trunk line for spam/robocall while ignoring the CID. This authenticated source is what is lacking in normal CID.

      Other than the updated software required by the phone company for me to "register my valid CID's" and associate them with my trunk lines, this should be able to be done.

      My DID should be able to display my Cell on another carrier than my landline such as Verizon cell on an ATT landline, an 800 number I use with my business sourced from a 3rd party, Validation should not be locked to only the block of number provided by the trunk lines. I would hate to buy my 800 and cell service from the VOIP service provider.

    6. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your setup is needlessly complicated and/or your service provider(s) is/are having a laugh at your expense.

      What would be wrong with having the 800 number show up as the caller ID*? In most organizations, the 800 number is usually associated with the business, not the local number(s) - ideally, I can dial an 800 number and be geo-routed to the nearest branch, or for businesses that don't have an 800 number, it is normal to assign 1 number as the main number/CID and all the others are connected to it sort of silently.

      However, your CID absolutely should not be able to display your cell or a number from another carrier* when you dial out - that kind of thing is what causes this problem in the first place. Personally, I would consider it akin to spoofing an IP address - we would probably agree that this isn't a good idea, why should it be a good idea with phone numbers?

      If it really means that much to you to show a different number on CID when calling from your cell, you should have to call in to your PBX first (essentially this would be akin to a VPN).

      *In this case, I'm considering 800 numbers to be "carrier neutral" and theoretically there is some validation going on when the carrier sets up your CIDs/DIDs/Trunks to display the 800 number as the caller ID to verify you actually own the 800 number in question, like the email or SMS confirmations used in 2FA. Arguably, the same kind of validation is possible for a non-800 number but that could lead to an even bigger mess if a number is dropped or changes.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    7. Re:Block spoofing. Or charge for that privilege by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd do that to spam too. Hey, they could charge a tenth of a cent per message and it would still kill the spammers.

  16. FCC currently seeking comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The FCC does give a damn and is currently seeking comments http://www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-seeks-comment-call-blocking-letter-attorneys-general on telcos blocking robo calls.

    The telcos tried blaming it on their status as common carriers ... so the FTC jumped in http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-comment-federal-communications-commission-public-notice-da-14-1700-regarding-issues/150127fcccomment.pdf with their legal opinion that common carriers are allowed to block robo calls.

    This plague is 100% on the telcos wanting the money and 0% on government.

  17. Network neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In fact, if you read the original filings from the telecoms, they specifically claim that it is the network neutrality obligations which come with common carrier status that tie their hands from blocking robo calls. They don't miss a trick in the fight for the Internet.

    1. Re:Network neutrality by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I eonder how that will trickle to ISP provided Email if the make ISPs common carriers?.

  18. If you're not sure, just follow the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why won't carriers block robocalls? Well, they have no incentive to do so because it's still significant income to them.

  19. Repurpose NSA Assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should repurpose the NSA's vast resources for a new mission of tracking down and blocking robo callers.

    Perhaps the threat of waterboarding and drone strikes by the CIA will stop them?

    1. Re:Repurpose NSA Assets by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Well, if robocalls aren't a "zone of lawlessness" I don't know what is...

  20. Ironic calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great Ad /.!

    Funny thing is I actually got a Robocall FROM NoRobocalls telling me how great they are...

    Of course in our modern world they have plausible deniability as they can claim it was not them. And why would you believe an anonymous internet poster anyway?

  21. banana phone? by portwojc · · Score: 1

    What ever happen to the raspberry pi banana phone guy? http://lifehacker.com/5981063/block-telemarketers-and-robocalls-for-good-with-the-raspberry-pi-powered-banana-phone

    I was looking forward to seeing that. I even bought the parts for it but haven't had time to build my own.

  22. What's his revenue model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to give the guy credit for coming up with a quick way to score $25k (probably $15k after taxes) from the government, but there's a problem with this American Dream story: How does his service generate revenue to continue operating? Are you sure he's not just running market analytics on *all* of your calls (you know, all of your calls that are forwarded to the free service) and selling the information to direct marketing advertisers? Next thing you know, you've been Scroogled by some guy in his basement in Long Island.

    An old adage comes to mind: If you get something free from a company and they don't have tangible products, then *you* are the product.

  23. Someone need to make this for cellphones. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    A blacklist call app that downloads daily a new blacklist number list. If a marketing call get's through, I can manually blacklist and it reports back, if 10 or more of this same number comes in from users, it's added to the global blacklist.

    It would decimate the scumbag telemarketing industry within a year.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Someone need to make this for cellphones. by Tunefix · · Score: 1

      I just store all the telemarketing numbers i a single contact on my phone. And name it "Telemarketers".
      Then when I see some telemarketeers calling me, I answer, and put the phone on mute.
      I believe someone went on for over a minute with their script before hanging up.

  24. It worked for a while by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Then the fuckers seem to have worked their way around it.

    So I just don't answer the home phone any more unless I recognize the number.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:It worked for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally ditto, although if I happen to be in the kitchen when the phone rings (and I don't recognize the number) I'll answer it and set it down in front of the radio (which is usually on). Let them listen to music/ads until they hang up, wastes their time like they were trying to waste mine.

      One weird thing l've seen lately is the caller-id spoofing which identifies me (and my phone #) as the caller ... a technical impossibility (calling myself, not the spoofing). Why the hell would I ever answer that?

    2. Re:It worked for a while by PPH · · Score: 1

      So I just don't answer the home phone any more unless I recognize the number.

      Same here. My home phone is generally used for outgoing calls like emergencies and where I want someone like a bank to recognize me (look up customer acount databased on my incoming number).

      But here's an interesting thing I noticed lately: I may make one or two calls a week from my home number. And I get very few robocalls (having kept my number out of most marketing databases). But these robocalls all seem to come in within a few seconds of my having hung up from a legitimate call. I'm wondering if my phone company isn't offering some sort of service to these robots to signal when I'm near my phone, having just made or taken another call.

      If the phone company is in the pocket of the telemarketers and actively assisting them, we are going to have a difficult time getting around their number spoofing and other trickery.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  25. this just helps the robocallers by fleabay · · Score: 0

    if someone goes out of their way to block robocallers, then they are likely not to be taken in by their schemes in the first place. now that the robocallers are becoming hidden from the skeptical, they can continue to harass the easy targets without as much notice.

    1. Re:this just helps the robocallers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy it. Your logic is flawed in that a good con can often work on even supposedly "savvy" folks (for example when they pretend to be the bank that you actually DO have an account with, or similar, and also the "easy target" folks ask for help from friends/family and start blocking too once the volume of useless and annoying robocalls gets high enough. In the long run, the more blocked calls, the less it pays to try to scam folks overall and the more calls required to ever get through to a live victim.

  26. Easy solution by cciechad · · Score: 1

    Simply require the carriers include incoming ANI info for all calls on the customers bill. They can change the CLID as much as they want but changing their ANI is quite a bit more complicated.

    --
    https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
  27. Grand Central? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this different than how Grand Central, now Google Voice, handles spam calls?

    1. Re:Grand Central? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't seem to be too different. I actually use Google Voice with a multi-ring setup. If Google Voice seems to a spam/blacklisted caller, it catches it before the first ring 99% of the time, and "answers" it with a disconnect tone. It ignores other callers so they ring through, and I can answer them on my phone.

  28. Spoofed Neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I live, the robocallers have started spoofing other legitimate numbers from the area. In a rural setting like mine, you start getting robocalls from your neighbors, and I've even seen them come in spoofed from my own number. Blacklists are useless as they are already poisoning the well.

    Jump on your favorite search engine and find the list of invalid-but-pass-validation credit card numbers from darkcoding, make up some fake identities, and start keeping these people on the line as long as you possibly can. If each call takes them 5 minutes instead of most being immediately dumped, the profits will shrink.

  29. This Is Windows Calling, Your Computer Has A Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do? Can you call me back on my home phone, I'm on the car phone right now. My number is (gives number to ?)

  30. My wife answered one of those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe YOU never will pick up when the caller is yourself," but some people are still naive enough to be fooled and pick it up. Of course after finding it to be some idiot scammer, and after the huge lecture she got from me, she'll never do it again. That leaves only how many million more folks to learn that lesson the hard way?

    On a side note, I used to call myself fairly often, back when I had POTS, to get other people's attention in the house (poor man's intercom). I'd just call my own number, then hang up right away and the phone would ring. Of course at the time I don't think there was even such a thing as caller ID, or if there was it was new and cost extra.

    1. Re:My wife answered one of those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a special prefix number you added to the last 4 digits of your number to call yourself. It was for testing, can't remember what it was.

    2. Re:My wife answered one of those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a special prefix number you added to the last 4 digits of your number to call yourself. It was for testing, can't remember what it was.

      My parents used to frequently use the call-back digits to call me and my brothers from their bedroom when we got too noisy at night. They never understood that we were loud on purpose - trying to drown out the sounds of what they were doing.

  31. Web site sucks, but service actually works well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd heard of Nomorobo multiple times, but after looking at the web site with it's yellow colors and what looked like a "but wait their's more" dude pushing it in a video I figured it was either an overpriced service or some kind of scam itself, and ignored it. Only when I heard positive results from a "real" person did I go look into it further and find that i twas both legitimate and free, and that my VoIP provider does offer simultaneous ring so setting it up was trivial. Since then (which was back in the election robocall season, which is the WORST) I've gotten maybe 3 calls that made it through, and I reported each of those callers and never got another call from those.
    Before that I tried to use my service's built-in personal blacklist, but it was too limited and couldn't block enough numbers so it ended up being high-maintenance, then I tried screening via Google Voice, which wasn't quite as high maintenance, but more fragile and quirky. So far Nomorobo has been a huge improvement as the blacklist is shared. I've gotten legitimate calls from the school, or doctor's office reminders, or trash pick up delay notifications, etc, just fine, but when the idiot telemarketers, scammers, "surveys," recordings of pushy politicians, and pseudo-charities that try to guilt trip you into donating so they can use your donation to hire more professional telemarketers to harass even more people, my phone only rings about half and ring and then Nomorobo picks it up and tells them to shove off. I couldn't be happier, considering the price.

  32. Phishy by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    In USA, your 2) will be a fraud attempt.

  33. I just want his blacklist... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    I don't suppose the list is available?

    1. Re:I just want his blacklist... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... i wonder if I could scrape 800notes.com and create a blacklist...

  34. There IS NO legitimate reason to spoof or block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    call origin. Period. All calls should be identifiable and if you don't want to be identified AT LEAST by your calling phone number, DON'T MAKE A CALL.
    The end.

    But but, whisleblowers and people with abusive ex-boyfriends and stalkers... No, don't call them, you moron! And in the case of whistleblowers, you're screwed anyway. Given enough motivation and influence those calls CAN be traced regardless. They might trace to the number of a disposable mobile phone that was in a particular area at a particular time and through which particular vehicle license plates or particular people's faces passed around that time, but attempting not to send the correct number of origin doesn't protect anyone in such a case regardless and would only offer a false sense of security.

    1. Re:There IS NO legitimate reason to spoof or block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the AC.
      Granted, there's a difference between posting here publicly for the purposes of discussion versus making direct phone calls to thousands of individual people who do not want to talk to you, and under false pretenses.

  35. He sells the service to businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently he has some business customers willing to pay for the service, and also certain (smaller) service providers apparently now pay him to offer the service to their customers.

    "Consumers can use the service for free but businesses have to pay. For consumers, robocalls are just an annoyance. But for businesses, robocalls cost them a significant amount of resources (salaries, benefits, etc.). They are more than happy to pay for a service that reduces their costs."

    Reference

    1. Re:He sells the service to businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link. Selling to businesses is a smart strategy, but he faces an uphill battle convincing them of the need for the service. At my day job at a top Fortune 500 company, I requested blocking of a business that I last dealt with over four years ago. Oh. Wow. The PBX admins called in the vendor to figure out how to properly block one number to one extension. I take it I was the first person out of thousands of employees to ever make such a request, even though many colleagues get unsolicited calls throughout the day.

      At any rate, I disagree with what is effectively his blacklist approach and prefer my own extensive whitelist for home phone use. In case of emergency, anyone who knows us in real life knows our cell phone numbers and can call from any number (at least for now, until the FTC changes its mind).

  36. What does Nomorobo do with the call data? by questro · · Score: 1

    I have looked at the Nomorobo website to see how it works, but what is not clear is what happens with all the call history? I understand that the "bad" calls get logged to improve the ability to block calls but the Nomorobo "Privacy Policy" is silent about what happens to all the data logged for the call attempts etc. Seems to me that this solution is another "Free" service to fix a problem that should not exist to begin with, and oh, by the way now there is yet another point of data collection on calls. Maybe no call "content", but the details of how many calls and from whom are now collected. And of course it's "Free" (wink).

  37. Incorrect/Stupid/Naive definition of civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom is quite definitely NOT what makes a civilized society.
    Civilization is completely dependent on cooperative, voluntary, curtailment of many freedoms in order to function.
    People stop at red lights, don't operate unlicensed megawatt transceivers, can't hang a shingle out declaring themselves a physician without the proper credentials.

    Do please reflect on how stupid it is to claim that freedom is what makes a civilized society, and/or start to question the source from which you are parroting that idea.

  38. Better system by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Your caller gets a message "dial 75 (random number) if you are not a robot, and you will be connected." It would get rid of most of them.