FTC Dismantles Two Huge Robocall Organizations (onthewire.io)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Dismantles Two Huge Robocall Organizations (onthewire.io)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday January 21, 2017 @04:34AM from the do-not-call-or-you'll-be-dismantled-list dept.

Billions of robocalls came from two groups selling extended auto warranties, SEO services, and home security systems over the last seven years -- many to numbers on the "Do Not Call" list -- but this week the Federal Trade Commission took action. Trailrunner7 shares this report from OnTheWire: Continuing its campaign against phone fraud operations, the FTC has dismantled two major robocall organizations... They and many of their co-defendants have agreed to court-ordered bans on robocall activities and financial settlements... The FTC and the FCC both have been cracking down on illegal robocall operations recently. The FCC has formed a robocall strike force with the help of carriers and also has signed an agreement to cooperate with Canadian authorities to address the problem.
"The law is clear about robocalls," says one FTC executive. "If a telemarketer doesn't have consumers' written permission, it's illegal to make these calls."

121 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:38 · Score: 1

I've been getting a lot of "silent" calls recently from numbers that appear to be in the region. Of course, the callerID means nothing.
I'm guessing these are robocallers that record the voices of people for some kind of identity theft.
1. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing these are robocallers that record the voices of people for some kind of identity theft.
  Seriously, your paranoia, combined with your speculation which is rooted in an utter lack of knowledge, is both comical and pathetic.
2. Re:Fingers crossed by unixisc · 2017-01-21 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I get calls that initially seem personal, but turn out to be robocalls promising me a cruise vacation in Florida. It starts like this
  
  I: Hello
  R: Hello,... Oh, sorry, I was talking to my husband. Here's what I called you about. You have been selected for an all-expenses paid cruise to Florida...
  I: Ma'am, I'm not interested
  The voice keeps talking, and I am left w/ no choice but to hang up. It looks smart only the first time, when the reference to the husband leaves one w/ the idea that one is talking to an actual person
  Actually, this is a good candidate for automation. How many people like making cold calls soliciting sales to anybody, be it insurance, cruises or anything else? If anything, call centers should be set up only for warm calling i.e. receiving calls, and not bother people
3. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I like the idea of the one-way call centers.
4. Re:Fingers crossed by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  silent is a call centre. What happens is that real people are "expensive" (comparatively, even in whatever 3rd world country the call centre is in) whereas the auto-dialer is practically free. So the dialer calls more people than it has agents ready to talk to, knowing that many won't answer the phone, each one that answers is sent to an agent, but if there are no agents ready, you get silence. The goal of the system is not to match called parties to agents, the goal is to make sure that any time an agent is free there's a call immediately ready for them (minimize downtime) The end result is that many people will get called, but there will be no agent ready to talk to them.
5. Re:Fingers crossed by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And that's why if you do end up on the receiving end of one of these calls, you talk to them as long as you can. If everyone did this, their business model would die because each sucker they reel in would cost too much in human time.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
6. Re:Fingers crossed by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  The last one of these I talked to I told him the call was illegal because I'm on the do not call list.
  His answer was "The call not illegal, I in *long pause* *horribly mispronounced version of the name of my city*" The attempt was ridiculous for 2 reasons, first of all if you have to pause to look up which city, and then can't pronounce it, you're probably not in that location, and secondly, there's no exemption to the do not call list for companies in the same city as you!
7. Re:Fingers crossed by dcavanaugh · 2017-01-21 06:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There is a free service called NoMoRobo that implements a massive cooperative blacklist on a grand scale. I use it on my Comcast phone (requires multiple ring). One of the few workarounds for tele-scammers is to falsify caller id with a random number in the victim's area code and exchange. Most telemarketers who call me are dumped by NoMoRobo after the first ring, but once in a while I see what appears to be a local call from an unrecognized number. Any number I don't recognize ends up in voice mail, which is where telemarketer calls go to die.
8. Re:Fingers crossed by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Better to just pretend you're gay and you want to have phone sex with him. And remember, the longer you keep him on the phone, the less time he has to talk to the next person. Keep his numbers down, he's fired.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
9. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  And the calls are coming from inside the house.
10. Re:Fingers crossed by ShanghaiBill · 2017-01-21 08:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The voice keeps talking, and I am left w/ no choice but to hang up.
  Do NOT hang up. Instead press "1" so that you waste the time of an actual human, and then put the phone on hold. If everyone did that, their business model would not work. If you enjoy annoying people that deserve it, then stay on the line and pretend to be interested, and give them bogus CC numbers until they start swearing at you. But please don't just hang up.
11. Re:Fingers crossed by Oligonicella · 2017-01-21 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  Better is to feign age. That gives you hard of hearing, confusion, memory problems and the need to go look for your wallet with the credit card. After diddling with them for around five minutes I carefully and quietly lay down my phone on the desk and go about my business.
  That or, if I'm in need of catharsis, I speak very softly to make sure they're listening then scream like a I'm being attacked by an axe murderer. Always makes me feel more relaxed.
12. Re:Fingers crossed by gstovall · 2017-01-21 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  :) The last time I stayed on the phone to talk to one of the "Windows support" scammers, I told him that what he was doing was criminal and that he needed to get a better job.
  He started cursing me out in quite explicit terms. I hung up, and he called me back to continue the cursing. I hung up again, and this time he did not call me back.
  He really had a remarkably broad command of English vulgarity for a non-native English speaker. I was suitably impressed.
13. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  FYI, most legitimate organizations operate exactly that way, as in the 800 numbers they put on their ads, literature, and web sites. Nothing new about that.
  RO
14. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  I think the computer is waiting to hear a human voice before it kicks in the recording. They want to make sure you have a human rather than a fax or answering machine. They certainly wouldn't want to be recorded either so the computer is programmed to minimize that possibility as well.
15. Re:Fingers crossed by whoever57 · 2017-01-21 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to find that there is a remarkable coincidence between these scumbags calling and someone at the front door. I see no need to waste *my* time talking to the scumbag, so I ask them to wait while I answer the door and then see how long it takes for them to wise up and hang up.
  What really amazed me was one of these idiots actually called back when I did this to them.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
16. Re:Fingers crossed by unixisc · 2017-01-21 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I'll try that next time
17. Re:Fingers crossed by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  And then there's this classic of Tom Mabe pretending to be a police detective at a murder scene scaring the sh*t out of a telemarketer.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
18. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I get silent calls as well. I would not be surprised by a nefarious purpose behind it.
  The ac/human dictionary/thesaurus calling you paranoid is out of line, show proof of the opposite, chief.
19. Re:Fingers crossed by gijoel · 2017-01-21 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I work in intellectual disability care. If I have a verbal client who likes to chat about rubbish I'll hand the phone over to them. The longest call lasted three minutes.
20. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  silent is a call centre.
  Of course calling someone with no intention of speaking with them is called harassment and is a crime in most states. But then I have never received any telemarketer calls, robo or otherwise, that wasn't a scam of some kind. No legitimate businesses use it.
21. Re:Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-22 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I like the idea of the one-way call centers.
  And our customers appreciate the call when you tell them that their server went down or they are being DDOS'd.
  I knew what you mean though. I was just reminding you that call centers exist for lots of reasons.
22. Re:Fingers crossed by green1 · 2017-01-22 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  As you point out, they're all scams operating offshore, they don't care what the law says because the chance of the law affecting them is zero.
23. Re:Fingers crossed by VAXcat · 2017-01-22 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  HA! I did the same once and after cursing at me the guy told me that they knew my address and were sending jihadis to cut my head off with a sword. I told him I live in Texas and go armed, and that hereabouts we think it's foolish to bring a sword to a gun fight. He hung up.
  
  --
  There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
24. Re:Fingers crossed by Coren22 · 2017-01-23 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Someone should totally design a bot to do this. It would be rather funny if we could setup thousands of bots answering cold calls and wasting their time.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
25. Re: Fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Been there, listed to bot, want it:
  https://www.reddit.com/r/itslenny/
Credit where credit is due by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:41 · Score: 0

And Trump will take credit it for this in five ... four ... three .....
1. Re: Credit where credit is due by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  Why shouldn't he? Some would certainly try to blame him if it went the other way.
2. Re:Credit where credit is due by tomhath · 2017-01-21 05:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  They made billions of robocalls to people on the Federal Do Not Call List since at least 2012. During that time, Obama worked very hard...on his golf game.
3. Re: Credit where credit is due by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/12/al-sharpton/al-sharpton-defends-obama-family-vacation-saying-g/
4. Re: Credit where credit is due by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  “Honestly, there’s nothing more I can say because I have a lot of respect for those two people, so thank you both for being here,” Trump said, addressing the Clintons.
5. Re: Credit where credit is due by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Because he wasn't involved? I feel truth about reality is not important to a larger part of the population nowaday...
fake news, fake calls by turkeydance · 2017-01-21 04:42 · Score: 1, Funny

it's the Matrix, i tell ya.
Good but... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-01-21 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

tell me when they start putting people in prison for this shit and I'll believe it may actually slow down.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Only prison? Doesn't your kind advocate the death penalty for sending just one piece of spam?
2. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Only prison? Doesn't your kind advocate the death penalty for sending just one piece of spam?
  His "kind" is at least of use, which is more than can be said for you.
3. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  You're aware that most of these people are defrauding people, right? Fraud is an imprisonable offense.
4. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's right big man, we need more middle managers scheduling meetings to justify your continued existence. Job creatin' like a pro Bob!
5. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Are you aware that the only jobs left in America Made Great Again are fraudulent jobs? You either scam people into buying things they don't want, or you don't eat.
6. Re:Good but... by freeze128 · 2017-01-21 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you can imprison a company, but you can fine the hell out of them. Bankrupt a company, and it's similar to death.
7. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  it wont stop the money - if you kill one callcenter/robocaller-company here, ten new pop up in India... And as long as these calls are paid for, the carriers will do squat to stop it...
8. Re:Good but... by hey! · 2017-01-21 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Or... what if anytime anyone called a residential number, a nickel was transferred from the caller's account to the callee's account.
  That wouldn't stop anyone from making a call where an actual person is likely to be involved; the labor costs for a three minute conversation would swamp that. But it would discourage people from robocalling a hundred thousand people in order to turn up a handful of suckers.
  And the public wouldn't have to pay a regulator to try to track down these boiler room operations.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
9. Re:Good but... by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  You could imprison the decision makers who authorized illegal activities... But wait, it's a corporation so we don't need any laws getting in the way..
10. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  "Corporations are people, my friend" If they are people and can have religious beliefs they can be locked up.
11. Re:Good but... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Problem is, many of these calls are from outside the country. The phone companies could avoid allowing call spoofing across geographical boundaries, but there's too much money in it.
  Me, I'd settle for a button that I can press that sends 1.2 "jiggawatts" of power through them, give them a permanent Professor Emmett Brown hairdo.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
12. Re:Good but... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  And if you could block calls that originate from outside your country or from specific countries, rather than allow call number spoofing? Or block all spoofed numbers? The telcos can do it - after all, they know where the calls originate from - that's how they do cross-carrier-network billing.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
13. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  Thing is they're working for companies in your country.
14. Re:Good but... by lgw · 2017-01-21 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Being a corporation may grant immunity to the owners, but it means nothing for the decision makers. You go to jail regardless. If prosecutors aren't seeking jail time for fraud, something odd is going on.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
15. Re:Good but... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is they're working for companies in your country.
  So what. It makes no difference if they're working for a local company - it's still illegal. Which is why CBC Marketplace strung along some of those "marketing firms" to book appointments., then nailed the people who showed up for illegal telemarketing calls. Didn't matter that the call was made from Pakistan. Still illegal, same as if someone booked a hitman to kill you through a Pakistani call center. The person ordering the hit is still liable for soliciting a murder.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
16. Re:Good but... by green1 · 2017-01-21 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's a great theory, but time and again (as in this case here) we see that this is not the way things actually work in the real world. In the real world corporate directors rarely ever face serious consequences for their decisions carried out by a corporation.
17. Re:Good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-22 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Slap the cuffs on the telco operators that allowed this
  gaping vulnerability in Caller ID to exist for so long and has done next to nothing to fix this. Yes, there are legitimate reasons for orgs/companies to "spoof", but this should be entirely controled by the telcos, and require rigerous ID checks, and only the telco can assign the "spoof" number.
Now how about... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:52 · Score: 0

nuking the fuckers in Pakistan and India that keep trying to get my CC numbers?
1. Re:Now how about... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  This is pizza place calling. Please be giving card number for delivery.
2. Re:Now how about... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Thankyou, come again!
3. Re:Now how about... by sims+2 · 2017-01-21 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  That'd be great!
  But the local pizzahut doesn't allow you to pay online or over the phone.
  They don't deliver either.
  You can order online or over the phone but you have to pay in store.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
4. Re:Now how about... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  You won't have to worry about that soon. India is a shithole with enough people without even an outdoor toilet that they could stand in line from here to the moon, and there is no way to get from that to everyone having indoor plumbing, because there are just not enough consumers (individual and business) outside the country to fully address the problem. So the "solution" will be war with Pakistan, probably with nukes at some point. Most countries with cultures that keep much of the population in permanent poverty end up doing so.
  Even the general population treats much of the country as one large shit hole - the majority go out early in the morning to look for a place where they won't be seen and take a dump.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re:Now how about... by Paradise+Pete · 2017-01-21 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Good for you. You saw through his little scheme.
6. Re:Now how about... by Oligonicella · 2017-01-21 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly not a corporate policy as I order by phone, pay with a credit card over said call and get it delivered.
7. Re:Now how about... by lgw · 2017-01-21 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me more about how brown people can't solve their own problems, but they can only be solved from the outside. Do you have more details about your Final Solution to the India problem?
  India is an emerging economy. Change takes time, but their economy is growing at twice the rate of the US economy, and unlike Chine their manufacturing base is for local consumers, not exports. They're certainly capable of becoming a modern industrialized nation, and have come a long way along that path in the past 20 years. They're certainly moving faster than we did in our industrial revolution.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
8. Re:Now how about... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  The environment is deteriorating, and the population is growing, at a rate that will never allow India to actually go from "emerging economy" to modern economy. They can be an industrial nation, but not what we would consider a modern one, with all the benefits. There's just too many people, too high a growth rate, and a huge baby boom in the making which will result in even more poverty, because most of those people having kids don't have even an outdoor toilet to shit in.
  They already have 18% of the human race living on just over 2% of the land. They will pass China as the most populous country in the world in 2022 - that's 5 years. And unlike China, they will continue to increase in population.
  It's simple math - the rest of the world cannot create enough consumer demand to lift the rest of the globe out of poverty. You want to increase your market share, you have to lower your selling price - and your profits, ensuring you stay poor. And there are far too many other countries with over-abundant labour ready to take your place the moment you raise your prices.
  And next, throw in robotics and AI, and it really won't matter how cheap you go, the machines can always go lower.
  They will solve their problem the same way humans have always solved this problem in the past - famine, war, disease, death. Nothing new under the sun there, and it's stupid to deny it, and the associated risks for everyone else.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
only 7 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 04:59 · Score: 1

It took FTC 7 years to shut down 2 robot callers, it took them far less to take action against the "pirate" sites. In former case vast majority of Americans were affected and in the latter a few corporations were affected. Shows the priorities involved.
1. Re:only 7 years? by sims+2 · 2017-01-21 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  For whatever reason us hundreds of millions of peasants don't complain quite as much as the lobbyists that have been paid to do so.
  We also don't give nearly as nice gifts for passing favorable legislation.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
2. Re: only 7 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  I gave a nice christmas ornament. I pooped in a bowl. That should be more than enough.
sham victory by frovingslosh · 2017-01-21 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

And the criminals' punishment is that they had to agree omitting their crimes. And they did agree. And they are such honorable and decent people that they will agree to stop doing it the next time that they are caught too.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:sham victory by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  ... and that, with luck, 7 years from now.
2. Re:sham victory by frovingslosh · 2017-01-21 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  They will be back at it next week, although it likely will take the FTC 7 years before they make any noise about it again. After all, if they announced that they had shut down these criminals every week and made them promise not to do it any more, people might eventually catch on that nothing was being accomplished.
  
  --
  I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I call BS yet again by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 05:04 · Score: 5, Informative

"The law is clear about robocalls," says one FTC executive. "If a telemarketer doesn't have consumers' written permission, it's illegal to make these calls."
I'll believe you when you cut out the exemptions for politicians, banks, carriers, and charities. It's right there in your list of exemptions.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Re:I call BS yet again by freeze128 · 2017-01-21 05:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The most annoying and frequent robocalls I get are from charities, asking for donations. I want those to stop too.
2. Re:I call BS yet again by sims+2 · 2017-01-21 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Robocalls need no exemptions. Except for appointments I really appreciate getting a reminder a day before.
  If anyone is more deserving of NOT being exempt it's politicians.
  How is spamming me with 5+ calls a day supposed to make me want to vote for you?
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
3. Re:I call BS yet again by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  How is spamming me with 5+ calls a day supposed to make me want to vote for you?
  Here's how:
  The local democrats went to a fancy restaurant, ordered like there was no tomorrow, gave a lavish tip, and said "Vote democrat."
  The local republicans went to the same restaurant, ordered like there was no tomorrow, gave no tip, and said "Vote democrat."
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
4. Re:I call BS yet again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand. Those 5+ calls a day trying to get you to vote for candidate A came from candidate B.
5. Re:I call BS yet again by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  At least you're not in Canada, here we added an exemption for newspapers too. How often do I need to hang up on someone trying to sell me a newspaper subscription? and why on earth did they warrant an exemption?
  I can see the argument for charities (though I disagree) and politicians love to make themselves immune to almost any legislation they pass, (hey, wouldn't you if given the choice?) But newspapers????? let them die in peace!
6. Re:I call BS yet again by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  appointments don't need an exemption, they have your permission (and if they don't have your permission, they should honour your request not to be called!)
7. Re:I call BS yet again by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-21 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  At least you're not in Canada
  Actually, I am, and I remember when they brought in the GST on commercial rents, the politicians exempted their riding offices. Then again, most politicians are fools. Before they voted in free trade, I went to Ottawa to point out how much we were giving up ... couldn't find a single politician who had read it. "Oh, how can it be bad, it has the word 'free' in it?" I sh*t you not.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:I call BS yet again by green1 · 2017-01-21 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I tried a policy of not voting for anyone who robo-called me, that worked for precisely one election before that would have meant not voting at all. Unfortunately I still think picking the lesser of the evils is slightly better than staying home, so I end up voting for someone who robocalled me, because everyone on the ballot did.
9. Re:I call BS yet again by sims+2 · 2017-01-21 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  All the more reason they shouldn't be given an exemption :P
  I don't think that's what usually happens but it would make more sense.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
10. Re:I call BS yet again by Oligonicella · 2017-01-21 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Lie. "I'm keeping tabs on you political spammers and I won't vote for them. Congrats. You're now only one call below (other party)." Skeeze deserves skeeze.
11. Re:I call BS yet again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  How is spamming me with 5+ calls a day supposed to make me want to vote for you?
  It's not. It's supposed to drive you to vote for the "calling party's" opponent, which is the real party behind the call.
12. Re:I call BS yet again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you ever donate to a charity, you go on the sucker list of known donators and they will be relentless about getting you to donate again. Those lists their prime asset. They might sell your info to others as well. Sorry to say, but the secret to not getting charity calls is to never give your info to charities, even if that means not donating.
13. Re:I call BS yet again by Rakarra · 2017-01-23 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Robocalls need no exemptions. Except for appointments I really appreciate getting a reminder a day before.
  If companies can be considered persons enough that their unlimited campaign contributions can be considered "free speech," then I would think that a political call would absolutely be considered protected speech that the government cannot legislate against. I mean, the barrier to free political speech is pretty low now.
Same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:21 · Score: 0

I've been getting a lot of "silent" calls recently from numbers that appear to be in the region.

I let them roll over to voice mail and then do a reverse lookup. 9 times out of 10, there's a listing that the number with my local area code was a robocall for some scam about cruises, credit cards, warranties, crap like that.
I'm involved in some local sports clubs and every season, I have to add the roster into my phone so that I see a name with the number. I used to let them roll over to voice mail, but that ended up to be a bigger hassle.
I keep telling folks - trying to spread the word - robocalls and telemarketers are all cam artists. Of course, some folks say well what about political calls. And I respond with, "Yeah, and?"
1. Re:Same here. by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  robo-callers are on to you, many now chose a new randomized call display number appearing to be in your area with each call. A reverse lookup will just show the legitimate person who owns that number. There's no way to filter these without going to a strict whitelist (and even that has some chance of a collision error) and unfortunately whitelists aren't suitable for all people.
2. Re:Same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, some folks say well what about political calls. And I respond with, "Yeah, and?"
  And she was like "duh", and he was like "no way" and I was like "what ev".
3. Re:Same here. by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-01-21 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  Robocallers know that many people block all no-ID numbers, so they now fake a local number to get through. I would like to see the Caller ID information for each phone frozen at the time of provisioning. The only reason it isn't is pressure from large companies that want to be able to assign their own Caller IDs to in-house phones. Is the current populist wave strong enough to overcome this lobby?
4. Re:Same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Like the occasional spoofed number that is my own....
5. Re:Same here. by DanielRavenNest · 2017-01-21 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  > There's no way to filter these without going to a strict whitelist (and even that has some chance of a collision error) and unfortunately whitelists aren't suitable for all people.
  The way to deal with this on cellphones is to set the default ringtone to "none", and whatever ringtones you prefer to your legitimate contacts. Most telemarketers won't leave a message. The ones that do, I can screen at my own leisure.
6. Re:Same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Close but not quite. I think businesses should have the ability to assign their own caller IDs. However, the carrier knows which line numbers are assigned to a given circuit. There is no reason the carrier should allow a call that is spoofing a number not assigned to a given circuit.
  For example, say a business has a few POTS lines and a SIP setup with a number range of 888.555.1000-1100. Any call made from the circuit ID for that location must use caller ID from that range. Any call from that circuit spoofing 888.555.2000 gets dropped by the carrier automatically.
  You are correct, it is a business lobby from large companies. The large companies are the carriers not the hospitals, small/medium business and other organizations making the calls. The carriers, like the post office generate huge revenue from these call centers.
7. Re:Same here. by green1 · 2017-01-21 10:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That would be a white list. Works great if you can, but it's not a solution for everyone. I regularly have my phone number given out as an emergency contact on events. I don't have the luxury of letting everyone go to voicemail and sorting it out later.
8. Re:Same here. by green1 · 2017-01-21 10:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Those are easy, I never answer calls from myself, I don't like what I have to say anyway.
9. Re:Same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  I am the opposite. I can talk to myself for hours.
10. Re: Same here. by stevedog · 2017-01-21 14:25 · Score: 2
  
  It essentially is. What they are doing is spoofing the Caller ID -- you may have noticed that many of the calls come from numbers that are essentially 1 number off (or shuffled) from your own number. Spoofing is illegal, but of course they don't care about that -- if the company is based outside the US, who is anyone going to sue?
11. Re:Same here. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-22 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  I would like to see the Caller ID information for each phone frozen at the time of provisioning.
  And I would like to see those responsible for robocalls to be drawn and quartered, which would totally resolve the issue.
  The truth is, neither of us will ever get what we want.
Re: Canadian? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:35 · Score: 1

All the stories are about the US, but when one mentions Canada, it's weird?
Scams by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 05:36 · Score: 0

Strange that they would focus only on the telemarketing aspect of it, when the fact that these operations are outright scams goes hand-in-hand with the telemarketing side.
1. Re:Scams by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  proving they called people without their permission is a lot easier than proving that they defrauded people, especially being that those who have been defrauded are often too embarrassed to come forward, and that there's practically no way to figure out which call centre they were talking to at the time they were defrauded.
Block Them With Apps by ohnocitizen · 2017-01-21 05:45 · Score: 1

In the meantime for those of us using cell phones as our primary phone, there are a wealth of apps that block unwanted calls. I use "Hiya" and it's blocked carpet cleaners, credit monitors, and all manner of robocall scams I used to get.
1. Re:Block Them With Apps by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Apps stopped working when the robocallers started changing their caller id for every outgoing call. Now you have the choice of receiving the calls, or working off a whitelist of allowed callers. Unfortunately whitelists aren't a viable option for some people.
Yet I still receive about the same number of calls by QuietLagoon · 2017-01-21 06:14 · Score: 2

A slap on the wrist and fines that probably are less than a week's profit for the callers are not going to stop the robo-calls. A few years to ponder one's fate while sitting in a prison cell might be the deterrent the robo-callers require.
Re: Canadian? by green1 · 2017-01-21 06:26 · Score: 1

It's nice that they got the cooperation of Canadian authorities, that will help them stop 0.0000001% of the calls... How about cooperation with all the third world countries that actually place these calls!
I still haven't figured out why this hasn't been stopped years ago through technological means. Stop allowing someone from overseas to spoof a local number that they don't own! I understand the need for caller id spoofing (the ability for a large company to make all outgoing calls appear to come from their main number) But I don't understand why that is done at the company's discretion instead of the carrier's, it should be tied to numbers you own, and only changeable by making another call to your phone carrier. There is never any legitimate reason to be able to spoof a number you don't own, or to be able to change your outgoing caller id on the fly. If this was fixed, blacklisting robocallers would be a piece of cake, but as it is they just change their caller id for every single call.
If a telemarketer doesn't have consumers... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 06:29 · Score: 0

"The law is clear about robocalls," says one FTC executive. "If a telemarketer doesn't have consumers' written permission, it's illegal to make these calls."
Tell that to AT&T. Those asshats keep knocking on my door ignoring the "No Soliciting" sign trying to sell me AT&T Uverse, even after telling them to stop. I'm not one of their customers, and I've even written them telling them to stay the fuck away from my front door with a reply that said they would.
Re: Yet I still receive about the same number of c by mmell · 2017-01-21 06:32 · Score: 1

Nope. It just makes room for the next asshat to take over the operation.
Crime and punishment by Wuhao · 2017-01-21 06:39 · Score: 3, Funny

I wouldn't mind if, after some time in jail, they are given supervised release during which their phone numbers are published so that the rest of the country can call them during dinner.
What about the others by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-01-21 06:48 · Score: 3, Funny

I get calls daily from shitbags promising "0 percent interest rates" and would love to hunt them down and administer a fatal ass-kicking.
First they want to know what kind of card, then the expiration date, and then they want the whole card number to "verify" my credit history.
Usually I fuck with them and waste their time, but what I'd really like to do is mount one or more of their heads on a spike outside my home.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:What about the others by newslash.formatblows · 2017-01-21 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you do it, post here. I'd bet we could crowdfund a helluva defense team.
2 calls a DAY by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 07:43 · Score: 0

I get 2 calls a day from http://amazingbluevacations.com
On the do not call list too. Wish they'd get shut down. Just want my credit card number for some bogus thing.
Whois:
Registrant Name: Edna Lizeth Diaz Priego
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: EK balam
Registrant Street: Calle nichupte
Registrant City: Cancun
Registrant State/Province: Quintana Roo
Registrant Postal Code: 77500
Registrant Country: MX
Registrant Phone: +52.9981834956
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: liz@amigosjungletours.com
1. Re:2 calls a DAY by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, they spoof the caller ID too.
Re: Yet I still receive about the same number of c by QuietLagoon · 2017-01-21 08:10 · Score: 1

... It just makes room for the next asshat to take over the operation....
So then, put him in jail also. As an added bonus, also put into jail those who are paying these asshats to do the robocalling. Go to the source of the asshatness.
Just say hello. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 08:20 · Score: 0

Then don't say anything.
Re:Canadian? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 08:48 · Score: 0

I'm just guessing here, but I am a Canadian who currently resides in the US. When I still lived in Canada, I used to get quite a few robocalls and used to, as a hobby, try to identify the perpetrators. I was often able to trace calls back to a particular company. I would say that out of the calls I got (for a while, it was 6--7 a day), about 75% originated from the USA. There was one company in Arizona and one company in Texas that were responsible for a vast majority of them (though based on the voice, I always envisioned the operators as large black women from Georgia). These companies were both running "free cruise" scams.
So the Canadian authorities might be cooperating because Canada is a major target of scam calls being perpetrated from within the FTCs jurisdiction.
Clap them in irons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-21 10:26 · Score: 0

All governments around the world should get together and agree to put any and all employees of these telemarking companies in jail for 10 years a piece, then with that sort of threat no emplyee would be willing to work for a company that will put them in jail
Re: Yet I still receive about the same number of c by swm · 2017-01-21 11:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, like we did with the drug dealers.
I turned out that there were only a small number of people willing to deal drugs for money, and once we had them all in prison, the drug problem went away.
I'm sure it will work for telemarketers, too.
In other news.... by sconeu · 2017-01-21 13:00 · Score: 1

Two "new" robocall comanies incorporated today

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Stall them! by SpammersAreScum · 2017-01-22 13:21 · Score: 1

Oh, absolutely. I especially love doing this with the "PC support" scammers. It's easy to take forever to walk to the computer (that I'm actually working on the whole time), boot it up, fumble my way to and through the whole Event Viewer flim-flam, and so on, with all the stalling tactics Oligonicella suggests. Eventually I get bored, tell them I need to get my son to help me, and put the phone down. I've been tempted to finish with a scream or a police whistle, but I'm afraid my condo neighbors wouldn't appreciate that.
What about Heather from Account Services? by sabbede · 2017-01-23 02:09 · Score: 1

Cuz that lying bitch won't stop calling me.
Job well done!!!! by sentiblue · 2017-01-23 07:53 · Score: 1

Silent calls are quite minimal in terms of annoyance.... In my case, it was extremely invasive and rude and stupid too... Two types of calls:

1. I pick up and the other end says "Hey, can you hear me? [pause 1 sec].. Good! blah blah blah"... This wasn't a person asking me for a yes, then "Good, blah blah"... it was a recording with a 1sec pause.
2. I pick up and the other end yells "Stop what you're doing and listen"... first time I heard it, I said FU... but then realized it was a recording... so now I just simply hang up.... better yet... if I see out of state calls with unrecognized number, I simply don't answer.