A Florida Man Has been Accused of Making 97 Million Robocalls (bloomberg.com)

A Florida man accused of flooding consumers with 97 million phone calls touting fake travel deals appeared Wednesday before lawmakers to explain how robocalls work and to say, "I am not the kingpin of robocalling that is alleged." From a report: Adrian Abramovich, of Miami, who is fighting a proposed $120 million fine, told senators that open-source software lets operators make thousands of phone calls with the click of a button, in combination with cloud-based computing and "the right long distance company." "Clearly regulation needs to address the carriers and providers and require the major carriers to detect robocalls activity," Abramovich said in testimony submitted in advance to the Senate Commerce Committee. He has asked the Federal Communications Commission to reduce the fine proposed last year, calling it disproportionate, in part because most calls went unanswered or resulted in a quick hang-up by consumers. The panel's chairman, Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, called Abamovich and officials from the FCC and other agencies to discuss ways to stop abusive calls.

Comments

Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

People like Adrian Abramovich have ruined the phone system. Their abuse has led to people no longer answering their phone from anyone who is not in their
contacts already and maybe not even then. While you can use blacklisting software, this is troublesome for people who need to receive calls from any
number. I've talked with a number of people who say they just don't answer the phone anymore.

Fuck these pieces of shit and throw them in jail where they belong.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Locke2005]

First fix the flaw in the system that allows any scammer to spoof any number they want, which is the only explanation for why I keep getting robocalls from numbers that match the first 6 digits of my own number. I've got news for you buddy: having the same starting digits as the area I first got my cell phone in 20 years ago doesn't make you one of my neighbors now!

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[JcMorin]

this! I don't see why the system allowed someone to call me without first revealing their identity first!

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

He spoofs phone numbers to make them look like local numbers (same area code + prefix) to push his robocall scams. Robocalls, number spoofing and scams are all illegal. I receive a minimum of three spam calls per day on my home phone and I've even gotten a few on my mobile phone.

I would beat that guy to death with my bare hands if I got a hold of him.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

They are revealing their identity thats the problem. The phone system should be the one to present their identity.
But if the problem is just the area code that would be easy enough to bypass anyway just a little more expensive cause trusting area codes for verification is so 80:s

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Your talking about a system that is 75+ years old... They didn't think about robo-dialers nor spoofing back in the day...

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[mnemotronic]

I'm not willing to sign off on any punishment that doesn't involve the phrase "next of kin".

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

that sounds too fast and humane, I'd like to see him shipped off to a 3rd world country to be punished in ways north america doesn't have the stomach for

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Your talking about a system that is 75+ years old... They didn't think about robo-dialers nor spoofing back in the day...

Sure but that doesn't mean that the phone companies could do alot to help their customers but they are not interested in doing that. It would for example be possible to set up a service that replaced the fsk info for any call originating outside their network with original prefixed by unverified or 666 for known robocallers

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

First fix the flaw in the system that allows any scammer to spoof any number they want,

And, as swatting has shown us, it's literally a lethal flaw.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[timholman]

First fix the flaw in the system that allows any scammer to spoof any number they want, which is the only explanation for why I keep getting robocalls from numbers that match the first 6 digits of my own number.

It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It permits employees of legitimate businesses to show a different callback number (e.g. customer service) rather than their personal extensions.

But robocalling can still be fixed from the user end. I've got an Obihai Obi110 on my home phone configured as a call screener. When someone calls, it answers in two rings and says, "You've reached xxx-xxxx. Please press 1 to continue." When a live caller hears that, pressing "1" then causes my phone to ring.

But robocallers are stopped cold. The autodialer pushes the call to the next operator in the call center, but that process takes several seconds. By the time the guy in the call center connects to the call, all he hears is silence, at least until the "disconnected number" tone is played by the Obi110 after another 20 seconds. My phone never rings.

In nearly three years, not one robocall has made it past the Obi110. Call logs show that scam call attempts have dropped from 5 to about 1 per day over the past three years, so my home number is clearly falling off the phone lists of the big call centers.

The pickup-to-handoff delay is built into the robocall system. Scammers can't afford to have a live person listen to every call. Give consumers the ability to implement a similar system for home and cell phones, with a challenge / response that can be modified, and you'll cripple the robocall industry.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[ShanghaiBill]

this! I don't see why the system allowed someone to call me without first revealing their identity first!

Because the carriers have no incentive to fix the system, and politicians have no reason to change the regulations because voters don't seem to care.

I would be more willing to vote for someone who promised to require the telecoms to fix spoofing and robocalls. But there clearly are not many people who feel the same, or it would be a winning political issue.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

If your setup were common the robocall system would just send the tone for 1 after first pickup and repeat their behavior for the actual picup.

You hint at the next step with your 'and allow teh call/responce to be changed" but the problem with that is it juts starts an arms race between tech unsay people and motivated tech savy people who sell robo-dialiers.

End result will be right where we are now but every real phone call involves a brief game of Simon and the spam calls still get through.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Obfuscant]

This system is great if your house is wired the right way. You need to have one wire into the house that the Obi plugs into and then all your other phones plug into the Obi.

My house ain't wired that way. One wire sneaks out to the demarc and then it's all parallel wiring inside the walls to all the other phone outlets. I would have to run another wire out to the demarc to put the Obi in series with the incoming line, and then connect to the rest of the inside wiring. Not impossible, but not something I'd like to do.

Scammers can't afford to have a live person listen to every call.

They wouldn't need to. All they need is the software that already exists -- voice recognition. The same voice recognition that already listens for "hello" from you and detects when it is hearing an answering machine. The same voice recognition that listens for your answers when it is an automated spam call. Program it to listen for "press N" and then it sends "N".

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[dgatwood]

It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It permits employees of legitimate businesses to show a different callback number (e.g. customer service) rather than their personal extensions.

That doesn't require the ability to substitute arbitrary numbers — only numbers in a block of numbers owned/rented by the company in question. The flaw is that there is no sanity checking or filtering at the telecom level to determine whether the caller ID data is plausible. If the telephone company detected bogus caller ID messages and immediately terminated the call, we wouldn't have this problem.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[dgatwood]

First fix the flaw in the system that allows any scammer to spoof any number they want, which is the only explanation for why I keep getting robocalls from numbers that match the first 6 digits of my own number.

Oh, I actually kind of like that. Now I know which calls are the really abusive ones. Our area has an overlay of so many different prefixes that I don't know a single person who has both my area code and exact prefix. Even my next-door neighbors all have different prefixes. Most of them use cell phones with different area codes. So when I see a call that matches the first six digits of my phone number, I know with absolute certainty that I should not, under any circumstances, answer it.

Re: Throw this scum in jail

[theshowmecanuck]

They're not mutually exclusive. Do both. Just because the system allows it doesn't make it ok. Throw the fuck face in jail, AND mandate the providers fix their systems.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[timholman]

This system is great if your house is wired the right way. You need to have one wire into the house that the Obi plugs into and then all your other phones plug into the Obi.

Most houses are wired the way yours are. That's why I bought a wireless phone system with a base station and multiple handsets. The Obi110 plugs into the base station (which includes an answering machine). None of my handsets ring unless a human calls me. I do have a couple of plug-in phones on a couple of extensions, but the ringers are off.

They wouldn't need to. All they need is the software that already exists -- voice recognition. The same voice recognition that already listens for "hello" from you and detects when it is hearing an answering machine. The same voice recognition that listens for your answers when it is an automated spam call. Program it to listen for "press N" and then it sends "N".

Right, so you make the challenge "press the number that comes after the number 3", or "press the number that 1 plus 1 equals", or "press the number 9 three times", or any one of a million different variants that simple voice recognition can't deal with. Sure, at some point someone might deploy an AI robocaller that could handle such challenges, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I would prefer that the phone companies fix Caller ID (which certainly could be done), but I have no faith in it ever happening. If the current mess with Caller ID isn't enough to convince the telcos to do something, then they clearly never will. User-end solutions are the only alternative.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[timholman]

That doesn't require the ability to substitute arbitrary numbers â" only numbers in a block of numbers owned/rented by the company in question. The flaw is that there is no sanity checking or filtering at the telecom level to determine whether the caller ID data is plausible. If the telephone company detected bogus caller ID messages and immediately terminated the call, we wouldn't have this problem.

Agreed, the telcos could most certainly fix Caller ID, or at the very least dramatically reduce the ability for scammers to exploit it.

But if current epidemic of scam calls isn't enough to motivate them to do something, then I don't think anything ever will. My Obi110 works, it works for my Mom and Dad, and it works for some friends who have also bought and configured them. It's not a perfect solution, but it beats nothing at all.

Re: Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Have all calls go through a pbx, with the caller needing to know the correct extension.
If they don't know the extension, they either go to voicemail, or are forwarded to Lenny.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[SvnLyrBrto]

> It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It permits employees of
> legitimate businesses to show a different callback
> number (e.g. customer service) rather than their
> personal extensions.

Well, I'd say that's a "feature" that's outlived its usefulness.

I get multiple number-spoofed scam calls every DAY at this point. Sure, every new number goes into my block list. But that doesn't stop the scammers setting their robocaller to just use the next number in the exchange. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure I've only received two real business calls, with a legitimately-spoofed callback number, in the entire last *year*. Both of these were appointment reminders from my ophthalmologist's practice. And while that's a nice courtesy... I guess in theory... it's really superfluous, since those appointments went right into Fantastical when I made them, and I'd already gotten notified that they were forthcoming. So yeah... it'd totally be well worth giving up those appointment reminders, to get CallerID fixed to be non-fakable and drop the hammer on the telephone spammers.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's do a bit of math with one gigantic assumption.

Let's assume that the average call takes three seconds out of every person's life, I have no data to back this but I can explain my logic. Some people are actually going to listen to the conversation for a while. Some people have to wrestle out their phone and then not even answer it (that takes time). Some phone numbers don't even exist or the phone was simply shut off. there's also interruption costs after the call has ended. When you tally all that up, three seconds starts to sound pretty low.

So you have 97 million calls * 3 seconds / 60 (for minutes) / 60 (for hours)
80,833 hours.
3368 days
or 9.227 years
That's how long this guy's jail sentence should be :).

Cheers,
Tony

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[munch117]

Your talking about a system that is 75+ years old... They didn't think about robo-dialers nor spoofing back in the day...

In other words, they've had plenty of time to fix it, but they've sat on their hands for 75 years.

If you were trying to make a case for regulation, you succeded.

Re: Throw this scum in jail

[rob.philip]

Sadly, the obi solution only works for land lines. And I have only a cellphone. So I only answer calls from people I already know, or if I am expecting a call.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It permits employees of legitimate businesses to show a different callback number (e.g. customer service) rather than their personal extensions.

Meanwhile, the price of this "feature" in spoofed robocalls from scammers grows every year. At what point does the public interest in stopping robocalls outweigh the benefit of this feature to businesses? The business people need to think about this one because, as other posters have said, these scam callers are hastening the demise of the phone call as a common method of communication. Most people under the age of about 40 text or use apps that don't allow spoofing. Nobody answers calls from non-contacts anymore because they're almost always a scam call. What good is this "feature" to spoof the caller id if nobody picks up your calls? If 9 calls out of 10 from numbers I don't recognize are scams then what good is an inbound phone call? What does that do to your business? Still want the ability to spoof "customer service"? Maybe it's not such a good "feature" after all.

Re: Throw this scum in jail

[houghi]

In Belgium it is illegal to change the number to anything else but what you own. So if you have a range of 100 numbers, you can onlty select one of those.
When you use an external call venter, you can saynot to show their number (and pay ffor that) or use their number. So here the law is already in place.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[thegarbz]

This. It got to the point where my girlfriend didn't answer the phone from unlisted contacts. So ... she got another phone with a new number when she was working as a substitute teacher with a rule that she will answer that phone and simply hang up if it's not from a school since no one else should have that number.

Well I was stuck in the bush one day without a phone signal and a used ... a pay phone. I know I was amazed they still exist too. After calling her main phone 4 times and not getting an answer I called this burner and then she answered.

Phones have been ruined for everyone.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[thegarbz]

There's two solutions there:

1. Have a short intro message: "thegarbz here!" and if you hear silence for more than 2 seconds just hang up.
2. If you hear an indian accent just hang up. .... This actually got me in trouble with one of my indian friends.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I use this Obihai Obi110 device? Is it something that needs special land line wiring in the home? This is new to me and would very much like the setup you have for my home phone.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[AmiMoJo]

Can't you just making it illegal to robocall people? Seems to have worked well enough in other countries. Robocalls aren't even a thing in the UK.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[timholman]

How do I use this Obihai Obi110 device? Is it something that needs special land line wiring in the home? This is new to me and would very much like the setup you have for my home phone.

Buy one on Amazon, and read the reviews for instructions on how to set it up.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[mjwx]

First fix the flaw in the system that allows any scammer to spoof any number they want, which is the only explanation for why I keep getting robocalls from numbers that match the first 6 digits of my own number.

It's not a flaw, it's a feature. It permits employees of legitimate businesses to show a different callback number (e.g. customer service) rather than their personal extensions.

No, thats a flaw. Number masking should be handled by the PABX system, the telco is not even involved in masking private extensions.

The "feature" is that the scammer pays the phone company money to do this. This is why it was banned by lawmakers in other countries.

Re: Throw this scum in jail

[timholman]

Sadly, the obi solution only works for land lines. And I have only a cellphone. So I only answer calls from people I already know, or if I am expecting a call.

And yet it could be made to work for cell phones, if only Apple, Google, or Samsung chose to lead the way.

All they have to do is provide an "answer but don't ring" option in iOS or Android. Allow the end user to generate a custom challenge and response, or give programmers an API to write call screening apps, and then you have the equivalent of an Obi110 for a cell phone. Plus it would be trivial to whitelist numbers in the phone's directory.

Of course, some people will argue that this will only cause an arms race between spammers and end users. But so what? I'd rather fight back than surrender.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt fixing this "feature" would present even the slightest technological or administrative challenge.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

First fix the flaw in the system that allows any scammer to spoof any number they want, which is the only explanation for why I keep getting robocalls from numbers that match the first 6 digits of my own number. I've got news for you buddy: having the same starting digits as the area I first got my cell phone in 20 years ago doesn't make you one of my neighbors now!

Your logic is the same as fixing the flaw in your car that lets you drive 150 MPH. Just because it can be don't doesn't mean there needs to be a technical solution.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[AnalogDiehard]

But robocalling can still be fixed from the user end. I've got an Obihai Obi110 on my home phone configured as a call screener

That works for land phones but not cell phones. Robocallers are spoofing the exchange numbers for cell phones now and there's no adapter solution to combat this.

The only solution is to fix the callerID system so spoofing is no longer possible, and Adrian is conveniently neglecting to mention this.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[timholman]

No, thats a flaw.

It was originally meant to be a feature, else why would the telcos allow spoofing? Problem was, it has long outlived its usefulness, and the feature has become a bug.

One of the original arguments for Caller ID spoofing (besides business case uses) was to allow abused women staying at women's shelters to "hide" their location, so that husbands and boyfriends couldn't track them down from the Caller ID number. You could block your own Caller ID number when calling out, but many people paid for "Caller ID Block", because it was automatically assumed that someone blocking their phone number was up to no good. So the only way to guarantee that a phone on the other end would ring, yet still hide the caller, was a spoofed number.

Of course, that was decades ago. No one back then foresaw the advent of ultra-cheap overseas long distance that could enable call centers outside the country to run multi-billion dollar scams, or the creation of cell phones that would make landlines largely obsolete. So the feature has become a flaw, without a doubt.

And as we all know, it is a flaw that the telcos clearly have no interest whatsoever in fixing. That's why the solution has to come from the handset makers. Apple, Google, and Samsung need to provide the tools for call-screening functionality within the phone OS, independent of the wireless providers.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[Citizen of Earth]

Sentence him to 97-million consecutive jail terms of one minute each, to make up for the people's time he has wasted.

Re:Throw this scum in jail

[toddestan]

It is illegal. FCC doesn't do shit to enforce it, and the phone companies don't give a fuck. Hence the current situation.

Fine seems fair

[TimMD909]

$1.24 per nuisance call seems pretty fair. Hell, even $5 per unwanted call seems reasonable and would quickly end robocalling.

Re:Fine seems fair

[zifn4b]

$1.24 per nuisance call seems pretty fair. Hell, even $5 per unwanted call seems reasonable and would quickly end robocalling.

In addition, he should be forced to listen to random scam call scripts using text-to-speech for the rest of his life via a cochlear implant.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Just got one as I was reading this "Hello, this is an alert from Visa/Mastercard services"- actually one of the more legitimate scams out there, but I don't have a credit card with the big banks and anything real, my credit union would call me direct without bothering with them.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the phone companies involved are also fined for befitting from the proceeds of crime. ANY one making that many calls and in quick succession should stand out. Hell we'd get calls from Bell Security for wardialing (1-2 numbers per _minute_).

Capatcha: foursome Slashdot you kinky little slut.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard the same message. Two weeks ago it was: "We can reduce all your credit cards to zero percent interest", but I guess that's so unbelievable so they changed their scam script to: "We can lower the interest rates on all of your credit cards".

Re:Fine seems fair

[TimMD909]

$1.24 per nuisance call seems pretty fair. Hell, even $5 per unwanted call seems reasonable and would quickly end robocalling.

In addition, he should be forced to listen to random scam call scripts using text-to-speech for the rest of his life via a cochlear implant.

Robocall for robocall will leave everyone deaf - Gandhi

Re:Fine seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa... I like it. Black Mirror style punishment there :D

Re:Fine seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, Hear!!

Re:Fine seems fair

[SvnLyrBrto]

He should also be required to call... by hand, on an old-school rotary-dial phone... every single person he robocalled, personally apologize, accept any verbal abuse received, and express his total agreement with said abuse, before moving on to the next offended party. And just to add in a bit of extra poetic justice; he should be required to issue these apologies to those people in alphabetical order.

Re:Fine seems fair

[ausekilis]

I agree. He should be forced to have a conversation with Lenny for an hour every day for 20 years.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Jason Levine]

I was thinking that he should have a special collar attached to him that would emit a low voltage (but still painful) shock every time people called a number. "Annoyed by telemarketers and robocalls? Dial 1-800-SHOCKING to shock someone who placed millions of robocalls." Sure, the hold times might get long, but the knowledge that we were returning some discomfort back to him would be worth it.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, the other isn't that unbelievable....I get at least 20 advertisements in snail mail spam for 0% introductory rate cards a month.

I just don't have time to mess with playing that game. My parents, who are retired, do- they just keep transferring balances to new cards.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

$1.24 per nuisance call seems pretty fair. Hell, even $5 per unwanted call seems reasonable and would quickly end robocalling.

In addition, he should be forced to listen to random scam call scripts using text-to-speech for the rest of his life via a cochlear implant.

Robocall for robocall will leave everyone deaf - Gandhi

No no, you misunderstand. We certainly don't want him deaf. We simply want to make him suffer as he has made others suffer. It's not fatal, not even painful, just incredibly annoying. This is exactly what he deserves.

I propose we even give him a nice 8 hour window to sleep soundly. With maybe only 3 or 4 random wake up calls during that time. That's far more humane then he deserves.

Re:Fine seems fair

[zifn4b]

The sad thing about all this nonsense is it's the product of Keynesian Economic Theory. Still think it's a good idea?

Re:Fine seems fair

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Never did. I prefer Pope Leo XIII to Lord Keynes. But that is because despite my nickname from when I was younger and more foolish, I now believe 100% in the universal right to productive private property ownership.

Re:Fine seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

$1.24 per nuisance call seems pretty fair. Hell, even $5 per unwanted call seems reasonable and would quickly end robocalling.

It's too small.

The better approach is to recognize that people's time is valuable - and let them charge whatever they want for receiving unsolicited offers - whether sent by email, phone, smail, or door-to-door. The government keeps a web site that anybody can register at, with the prices they charge listed. If I want to make it one million dollars per call, I can. Making a call to such a number, or otherwise making an unsolicited offer to that address constitutes agreement to pay the listed fee.

Now THAT would end robo-calling and perhaps junk mail - at least within the country, and with some reasonable technical solutions to handle special cases. We would still have to deal with overseas calls, but there are probably reasonable technical solutions there.

We'll make exceptions for reasonable questions about existing business, such as a mistaken digit on a credit card when placing an order. People can sign up at the web site for the sorts of things they are willing to accept, in addition to some standard set.

Offers includes business offers, such as calls relating to the sale of goods or services, but also the sale of religion, or the sale of political causes or candidates, or surveys and so forth.

Anybody that is willing to receive offers from particular sources without charging for the time taken to listen to them can do so at the same web site. For example, if you want to receive catalogues for a particular type of product, you can sign up for that. If you want to receive communications for businesses that do X, or Y, or Z, then you just sign up for that. If people are willing to answer survey questions, they can sign up for that (perhaps even with limits on the types of surveys). Changing one's answers gives the businesses a grace period before the new rules apply.

Right now, we allow robo-callers and similar people to steal the time of others without compensation - it's not really all that different from kidnapping somebody for ransom. In both cases, the bad guys are stealing a portion of somebody else's life for their own profit. No rational society should permit that. Any law that would permit such conduct represents an infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law".

In addition to the fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

... he should be forced to hear a loud clip of a cruise ship horn every time he answers a phone call, for life.

Florida Man strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida Man strikes again!

Re:Florida Man strikes again!

[skids]

Worst. Superhero. Ever.

Re:Florida Man strikes again!

[Serge_Tomiko]

I'm not quite sure "Florida man" is accurate for someone with his surname.

Re:Florida Man strikes again!

[lgw]

Florida Man, Florida Man
Florida Man meets Particle Man
They have a fight, Particle wins
Repugnant man, Florida Man

Now you got that in stuck your head

Hang him now!

[Anonymous Coward]

This shit right here is why the death penalty is still relevant!

Re: Hang him now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to murder a man over some annoying phone calls. You have a dark and merciless heart.

Re: Hang him now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing him would be merciful. In my mind a long and torturous life sentence is more fitting for this crime.

Not a Florida Man

[DarkRookie]

This is not a FL man headline
This is a Florida Man headline

Florida Man gets drunk, falls off bicycle, hits man at hospital with folding chair, police say

Re:Not a Florida Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida Man Accused of Making 97 Million Robocalls While High On Bath Salts and Boxing an Alligator .

Fixed That For Everyone.

Re:Not a Florida Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod up at +5 Informative

Re:Not a Florida Man

[DarkRookie]

We don't box them.
We wrassle them

Re:Not a Florida Man

[Anonymous Coward]

"'I Only Had one Beer' Says Naked Florida Man Punching Cars in Publix Parking Lot" is that latest thing on the Florida Man twitter.

Re:Not a Florida Man

[dgatwood]

Florida Man Accused of Making 97 Million Robocalls While High On Bath Salts and Boxing an Alligator.

How do you get high on boxing an alligator?

Re:Not a Florida Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Or feed tourists' dogs to them.

Re:Not a Florida Man

[drainbramage]

You put the alligator in to a special kind of box that's larger on the inside.

Re:Not a Florida Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida Man Accused of Making 97 Million Robocalls While High On Bath Salts and Boxing an Alligator .

Fixed That For Everyone.

Florida Man Accused of Making 97 Million Robocalls While High On Bath Salts and Boxing an Alligator in flip-flops.

Fixed that for Everyone else.

Fry the shit bag

[Chewbacon]

Zero sympathy. Takes a lot of work to set up such an operation to scam grannies out of their credit cards.

Re:Fry the shit bag

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes zero work. On the other hand, the owners, the head of sales, head of legal and head of engineering of the telco that does not validate whether the supplied caller Id is within the allocated block of the subscriber should be stretched on a rack and left to birds of prey in a hot dry place

Re:Fry the shit bag

[Anonymous Coward]

"validate whether the supplied caller Id is within the allocated block"....Telecom Engineer here - Doesn't work that way anymore, hasn't for years, wish it was that simple...allocated block segmentation based on proximity was abandoned about 15 yeas ago. Between VOIP and hundreds of companies reselling to anyone with a asterix box its all a big shit show now.

Re: Fry the shit bag

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let outsiders supply caller id - the telco should set the id based on physical connection. They have the info needed - the are capable of routing calls TO telemarketers, so also capable of setting id when receiving a call.

And if spoofers run their own telco - revoke their right to connect to the rest of the telcos if they ever spoof a call. Spoofing will then be a bankrupting move.

Why open source is significant?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Would it be any better if a closed source software did the same thing? Is it something like Thomas Alva Edison persuading New York to choose an AC current to make the electric chair to make people fear his rival's inventions?

Re:Why open source is significant?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Would it be any better if a closed source software did the same thing?

Yes, for the same reason that I like it when [Large Tech Company] patents [Evil Thing]. Sure, evil thing is evil, but now only that one company can do it (for 20 years). Closed source software would raise the burden to spam calls, making it happen less frequently.

Re:Why open source is significant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one ever paid to use a thing developed by a company, that held the patent on the thing, ever in the history of mankind.

Re:Why open source is significant?

[jellomizer]

I think the fact that the software was free, and was able to do this with a low expense to himself. Could possibly saw peoples opinions.
If they were a big company who but millions of dollars into this, they may get less sympathy then some redneck who is following the get rich quick scheme of the week.
That would be for some people. Me having worked for small businesses want to point out lowlifes like this give small companies a bad name, and reasons for people to shop at the big name store. Sure they will on average get less service, be treated as a number from a big company who sees your business in terms of fractions of a percent. But the reason people go with the big company vs the small one, is the general fear of getting ripped off by a fly by night operation.

Key word: touch of a button

[WillAffleckUW]

That which is jailed shall never be permitted to access phone systems

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Z00L00K]

Solitary confinement for life?

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Anonymous Coward]

Only for a couple of hours.
Buried alive in a coffin is considered solitary confinement, right?

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[WillAffleckUW]

I was thinking an Iron Maiden ...

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[bluefoxlucid]

Unacceptable. Solitary confinement shall not be used except in extreme cases, due to specific need, with the signature of the Prison Director, and never for a period longer than 15 days, for up to 22 hours per day, with council from a physician and psychiatrist that confinement will not exacerbate any physical or psychological illness, and a physician and psychiatrist visit each day. Should medical council instruct the removal of the prisoner from solitary confinement, it shall be carried out immediately. All matters on when confinement began, all medical council visits, and any harm to or removal of the prisoner due to confinement shall be documented in the prisoner's file.

Prisoners are to be provided contact with society to the greatest degree reasonable without creating a public safety hazard. This includes phone calls and access to current news and media.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Z00L00K]

That depends on which country that carries out the sentence.

Or in a prison filled with batshit crazy gangs and you can't be a member of any of them.

Re: Key word: touch of a button

[AntronArgaiv]

Just put a phone in his cell and give out the number. Problem solved.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[bluefoxlucid]

There shouldn't be prison gangs. Prison should reflect society--the community we want to create--so that people come out of prison ready to thrive in society, to go on to be productive individuals. Prisons that create insecurity and fail to treat people with basic human dignity fill with gangs and violence, and emit violent and damaged criminals to terrorize our communities.

By creating an environment in which the prisoners are secure, treated humanely, and given attention to their individual needs, we develop a better community within the prison, and release into society those well-adapted individuals who are brought up and made whole by the support of such a community.

Prisons such as we see in many areas of the United States are cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Anonymous Coward]

That which is jailed shall never be permitted to access phone systems

You are probably not talking about a new draper, poulsen, wozniak or for that matter a new mitnick but more probable some dude who learned how use something like asterisk for scamming.

phreaker vs script kiddie

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Obfuscant]

Prisons that create insecurity and fail to treat people with basic human dignity fill with gangs and violence,

Gang members are gang members before they go in. Putting gang members in jail is what fills jails with gangs, not how well or poorly you treat the gang members while they are there.

Also, gang activities have little to do with how well people are treated, they are an attempt to gain power over others. Put 10 bloods into a jail housing unit and they will act in concert to have power over the other inmates, no matter how well they are treated. They won't stop being bloods just because they get extra servings of apple pie with dinner and everyone calls everyone else 'sir'. In fact, they'll probably be motivated to take YOUR piece of pie just because you have it.

Put 10 bloods and 10 crips in the pod and then you'll regularly have 20 people ganging up on the rest, with occasional eruptions of 10 on 10 when one group offends the other.

Prisons such as we see in many areas of the United States are cruel and unusual punishment.

This is not because gangs exist, it is because administrations are slow or incapable of reacting to gang presence. They do not monitor the population well, and many of the guards don't care or they think it is part of the punishment. (Who cares if a pedo in prison is gang raped? He deserves it, doesn't he?) If one prisoner beating up another received swift and harsh punishment based on guards observing the action there would be less of it. Not completely eliminated, because power requires demonstration of control, and the reward of power can supersede the cost of punishment. AKA "don't mess with Ox, he'll beat your ass every time he gets back from solitary..."

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[PPH]

Solitary confinement for life?

No. He shares a cell with Cletus.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Anonymous Coward]

So what would happen if all of the inmates in a pod/wing/whatever are all members of the same gang?

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Anonymous Coward]

Prisons such as we see in many areas of the United States are cruel and unusual punishment.

By definition, if we see them in many areas, it isn't unusual.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[bluefoxlucid]

Putting gang members in jail is what fills jails with gangs, not how well or poorly you treat the gang members while they are there.

Empirical evidence has shown this is false, although you can continue to claim that consuming alcohol in high quantities over sufficiently short time spans doesn't cause drunkenness if you like.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[Obfuscant]

Empirical evidence has shown this is false,

Uhhh, so you put a blood in jail and he stops being a blood? What?

Yes, I will agree there is some potential for gang recruitment of previously unaffiliated people, but that's still not because of mistreatment -- except for mistreatment of unaffiliated inmates by the existing gangs. People join gangs for power over others. Strength in Numbers. Not because jailhouse food sucks.

although you can continue to claim that consuming alcohol in high quantities over sufficiently short time spans doesn't cause drunkenness if you like.

I have no idea where you got this from, so I know you are not understanding what I actually did write.

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[bluefoxlucid]

Uhhh, so you put a blood in jail and he stops being a blood?

No. It's been shown that taking nearly anyone--gang criminals, rapists, drug dealers, the lot--and putting them into a humane environment which focuses on their individual needs to maintain their sense of security and their human dignity quickly and effectively rehabilitates them. Yes, even hardened gang criminals.

By contrast, prison gangs actually rally around neglect and inhumane treatment. They use it to form a bond among their kin, reassuring themselves that The Man doesn't care about them, and thus demonstrating that they are fully-justified in being what they are. They do this because they need it. They believe that society owes them and that they're entitled to making the rest of us suffer and fear them. Think about the whole image of a violent gang member threatening you if you don't "respect" them and you'll see it.

Not because jailhouse food sucks.

It's not the food.

Read this in full. You can skip to the 4th page, the one that says "Rules of General Application".

Re:Key word: touch of a button

[pnutjam]

It says alot about you when you immedietly go to Bloods and Crips as your gang example, vs MS-13, Outlaws, or the Aryan Brotherhood.
Gangs exist in prison because the guards like it that way. They let them run things because it's convenient.
We can and should do better.

Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Start charging the call originator for all of the costs on the destination system, including mobile charges, as soon as the call starts ringing.

Maybe it's time that our "aging" telephone systems are upgraded at the expense of commercial solicitors trying to reach us. This time no exemptions for political campaigns.

Personally I think every inbound call should show as a credit on my bill.

Re:Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Start charging the call originator for all of the costs on the destination system, including mobile charges, as soon as the call starts ringing.

Thats the tradition for internet packets, but net neutrality people want it differently.

Of course, doing it any differently leaves a giant loophole that is ripe for abuse... but hey... why consider the economic reality when you have good intentions to push.

Re:Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Start charging the call originator for all of the costs on the destination system, including mobile charges, as soon as the call starts ringing.

Thats the tradition for internet packets, but net neutrality people want it differently.

Of course, doing it any differently leaves a giant loophole that is ripe for abuse... but hey... why consider the economic reality when you have good intentions to push.

What? The tradition of internet packets is that each actor carries their cost in connecting to nearest peer nothing else. But i take i you are pushing some corporations anti net neutrality agenda.

Re:Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the tradition for internet packets, but net neutrality people want it differently.

Bullshit.

Internet packets have always been transferred using peering agreements, peering is often done "for free" as it's a mutual benefit to both networks. The Internet has never used a "sender pays" model.

When peering isn't free, the end receiving more data pays because the receiving end is the one that requested the data. With that model, an ISP charges end customers, because the customers are largely receiving data, not sending it.

Large ISP's want to remove net neutrality -- they want to change to a "sender pays" model, like the telephone model of old -- where the sender pays, and the customer pays -- ie. they get to double charge.

This is a big part of the problem...

[QuietLagoon]

... ."the right long distance company."...

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

... This is a big part of the problem... ."the right long distance company."...

What about "open-source software" :-D

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[edi_guy]

Seriously, that is the key to this. Find that telco and make them pay $120 million too. Problem solved.

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[BitwiseX]

... ."the right long distance company."...

or more specifically the right SIP trunk provider. I worked for a company that made lots of automated calls (legally, within the bounds of market research). We had plenty of providers who would just say no, but there were enough that didn't even bother to ask. They all made sure we sent an ANI, although they didn't seem to care what that ANI was, or if we even owned it, (which we did), and they made sure our call duration on connected calls wasn't below 12 seconds (I don't recall what the short duration regulations are, but I believe that was why we had to stay connected at least that long.)

Those trunk providers are also rampant with this: https://www.voip-info.org/fake...

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[Khyber]

I can tell you with 99.9999% certainty that Level 3 is responsible for this. Every single robocall I've ever received has been from their networks and numbers they control (when the idiot scammers don't bother hiding their CID.)

Re: This is a big part of the problem...

[willemakeit]

You may be on to something.

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[sl3xd]

How does one tell it's a number/network that Level 3 controls?

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you with 99.9999% certainty that Level 3 is responsible for this. Every single robocall I've ever received has been from their networks and numbers they control (when the idiot scammers don't bother hiding their CID.)

Flawless logic the legimate bad calls are from level 3 so the ilegimate bad calls must be from there too.

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one tell it's a number/network that Level 3 controls?

You check your VOIP logs for the next hop IP, then do a whois database lookup on it to see who that address/block is allocated to.

If you only have an end-point device connected to the phone network, and are not actually a participating node, I don't believe there is any way for you to determine this info. Whoever runs the phone network switch you are using for connectivity would be the ones with the logs needing checked.

Woe is thee who has a national level phone endpoint provider like AT&T or verizon. Even being their customer, they aren't going to assist you in that at all.

Re:This is a big part of the problem...

[Khyber]

A lot of times the idiot scammer doesn't hide their Caller ID, which makes it very easy to trace to a call center whose VoIP is provided by Level3 or one of their direct subsidiaries.

Reduce the Fine?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Because the victims didn't answer their phones? Isn't that what Caller ID is for? Once the phone rings, the crime has been committed. Just because the victim isn't stupid enough to answer, that doesn't mitigate the accused party's guilt.

Fine him $1 per call

[Locke2005]

That sounds fair to me!

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[HornWumpus]

Allow those that received the calls to kick him square in the nuts. Once for each call.

Put him in stocks, that travel the nation, so people can kick him in the nuts without travelling. Just a trip to the local park to catch his 'tour'.

Allow any gay male victims to 'go in dry' if they so choose. Only rule, no lube allowed.

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[Anonymous Coward]

One kick per call? My feet would get sore!

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[HornWumpus]

Engineers are encouraged to automate the nut kicking process. Power limited to 400 ponies.

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[Anonymous Coward]

Reaux-chambeaux
An honorable Gallic custom.

https://www.urbandictionary.co...

An ancient game of Gallic origin, typically involving two male participants alternately kicking each other in the scrotum. Traditionally, the kicking order is determined by the toss of a coin (or dwarf). The game ends when one player is rendered unable to continue... usually the player who lost the coin (or dwarf) toss. Some historians now believe this is how Julius Caesar actually died.

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I array the ponies in series instead of parallel?

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a gay man, but I've got a broken bottle full of ghost pepper sauce duct-taped to the end of a stick. Mind if I have a go?

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[HornWumpus]

You only get one kick per call.

I'd just attach a leg and foot to a car wheel. Line things up, jack up the drive wheels and dump the clutch at yellow line.

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow those that received the calls to kick him square in the nuts. Once for each call.

Put him in stocks, that travel the nation, so people can kick him in the nuts without travelling. Just a trip to the local park to catch his 'tour'.

Allow any gay male victims to 'go in dry' if they so choose. Only rule, no lube allowed.

Wow. That turned gay and sexual quickly.

Re:Fine him $1 per call

[HornWumpus]

Just 'identify as gay' for an afternoon and you are good to go. I'm not going to 'judge' your particular kinks.

Limit the oil content of the ghost pepper sauce, can't be 'lube'.

Bigger problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they still allowed to change their caller id. It should not be possible at all. I get calls all the time from the same area code and exchange as my cell. They are fraudulent. It got so bad I banned all calls like that. Eventually I am just going to shut the ringer off for good and only use it for outgoing calls. Not worth my time anymore.

Re:Bigger problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That is unfortunately what will happen but changing your caller ID has legitimate uses. With an inbound call queue for example. Something I've done for years (well before it became a thing voip providers even offered), is have my primary phones logged into a queue. All of them ring at once including cellphones. The catch though is I need to see who called.

Though both are spoofing caller ID, there is a very big difference in call volume. Thankfully my provider is smart enough to know I'm not a call center and not engaged in any fraud.

Phone companies make billions off marketing / scam calls both by charging the call centers and extorting fees from end users for caller id / call privacy / whatever the hell they want to call their "solution". Sure you can change your number... for a fee. You can also do a call trace (required for any police involvement), again for a fee. They're very well aware of where the calls are coming from, hell in Bell Canada's case they outsource marketing to the same damn call centers.

A "Different" Fine

[GregMmm]

How about this: Force him to answer the same number of robo calls he's made. Then he can know how fun it is to be interrupted during dinner, working, etc. and I'm sure it's not that big of a deal since he will hang up real quick.

"'I am not the Dread Pirate Robocaller,' he said."

[ToTheStars]

"'My name is Adrian; I inherited the phone from the previous Dread Pirate Robocaller, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Dread Pirate Robocaller either. His name was Tommy Tutone. The real Robocaller has been retired 15 years and living like a king in South Carolina.' Then he explained the name is the important thing to inspire the necessary impulse. You see, no one would ever buy a travel deal from the Dread Pirate Adrian."

Easily solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there is a sucker born every minute, these scammers will keep bugging the rest of us continually so that they can get to the 1% who might actually fall for their scam. Trying to block them is fruitless. They will always find a way around any countermeasures. The ONLY way to stop them is to make it really expensive to find those 1% suckers. Whenever you get a call, immediately dial 1 so that it connects you to a real person. As this guy said, it only costs pennies to dial thousands of people. It costs them real money when they have to pay some guy (even if he lives in India) to talk to you on the phone. Waste his/her time. Pretend you can't hear so they must repeat everything. Pretend you are going to get a pencil (or you credit card) and just set the phone down while you watch TV. Every minute the other party must hang on the line cost the scammer some real dough. If they had to wade through a hundred callers who did that before they found someone who might actually fall for their scam, it would be too expensive and they would stop altogether.

Re:Easily solved

[Scoth]

I haven't gotten any of my own recordings up yet, but I've had a great time working on getting scammers to a Lenny bot I run at home, as on https://www.reddit.com/r/itsle...

He's still calling

[spywhere]

I've heard from this scumbag twice today, a dozen times so far this week. Fines and prison are too good for him. He should be keelhauled.

97 million is a drop in the bucket

[devjoe]

There are one or two scammers calling just about every American phone number more-or-less weekly, way more than the 97 million calls this guy is alleged to have made. They always spoof the source number into something the same as yours except for the last 4 digits, which are selected randomly, in an attempt to make the call appear to come from one of your neighbors, in the misguided belief that people still use phone numbers which were assigned to landlines sequentially throughout neighborhoods decades ago. It probably works for them because Granny who's had the same phone number for 40 years is the kind of person they are trying to prey upon. [This also has the side-effect of making it difficult to blacklist all the calling numbers, which drives the hatred seen elsewhere in the thread.]

When I ignore the call on my cell phone, the robocaller, who doesn't understand answering machines or voicemail, just starts talking anyway as soon as it hears voice and then the voice stops, and leaves a long rambling message (the first few words of which is cut off) about one of two scams: Either "you qualified for a free trip based on your previous stay at one of our resorts" or "there is a problem with your account", both of them being very vague (the resorts or account in question are never specified) and trying to social-engineer actual information out of the victim.

Of course, those of you with phones have probably already heard these calls enough times to learn to ignore them immediately.

Re:97 million is a drop in the bucket

[Scoth]

I set up a Lenny bot on my home Asterisk system and have been enjoying getting scammers into it. I haven't got around to posting any of my own recordings, but https://www.reddit.com/r/itsle... is pretty hilarious.

Still Culpable!

[bill.pev]

That fact that a button is easily pushed does not in any way exonerate the button pushers. The President has a button, and, "gosh, who knew it would screw things up" for people won't fly if it were ever to be pushed. Neither would "gosh, I didn't build the nukes" won't either. Even if they're open source at the time.

I want his calling list

[Anonymous Coward]

Then everyone who he called could sue him for what is it, 5 hundred per call I think.

He'd have to travel to every state or accept the default judgement.

So he should really quit ditching about the fines.

Toss him and throw away the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if he made just one robocall, make an example out of him so the dipshits who call my phone daily about my credit card, health care or alarm system take a hint.

As to the alarm company, they were out of Utah. I let it ring through, book a sales call and then right before ending the call, I said, BTW, I f'in hate that you spam me daily. I'm telling you right now that I am going to turn the sale guy away at the door. This is a warning, but next time, I'm going to let them drive an hour to my house and then let them know to shove off there. She said, "Well why don't you just ask to be taken off the call list?" I said, "I should have to seeing as how I didn't ask to be put on it." "But, you have my number and if I get another call, it's going to be sure, send that sales guy out so that I get the name of the company that I am going to sue for $500 for each annoyance."

Solution for Nerds

[SinGunner]

Just don't say anything when you answer a call from an unknown number. A real person will always ask "Hello" in a questioning voice. Robocalls don't know how to deal with silence and hang up. And even if they learn to interpret long silence, they'll never navigate the awkward handshake that happens when the person answering the call doesn't get in the first "Hello".

Re:Solution for Nerds

[gman003]

That is reasonable and probably quite effective, but I have a more fun solution. I instead answer the phone in Classical Latin - "Salue, hic [nomen] est, quomodo audiuem?". If they respond as though nothing weird just happened, they're either a robot or a person who's indistinguishable from one, and I hang up, often after threatening some manner of debauchery with them, their parents, their progeny, their pets, or all of the above. (Latin is *great* for that sort of thing.)

If they get confused, or try greeting me again in Spanish, they're a human, and I switch back to English like nothing ever happened.

Sure, that's probably less effective, and it *has* resulted in a few odd looks in the office. But dammit, I spent three years learning that language, I am *going* to find a way to use it.

Re:Solution for Nerds

[Obfuscant]

Just don't say anything when you answer a call from an unknown number.

In other words, let the scammers win because you've wasted your time answering their call in the first place.

The solution is to put an answering machine on the line. If there is no message, the call wasn't important enough to worry about anyway. If you are home and hear someone leaving a message, answer the phone and tell them you picked up just because it was them. That will make them feel special.

For the few stupid scammers that leave messages, yes, your time listening to the message is wasted. Better than having to run to the phone every time it rings to pick it up and say nothing.

Re:Solution for Nerds

[DontBeAMoran]

It would be interesting to know if your method is as effective using Klingon or Esperanto.

Re:Solution for Nerds

[gman003]

Clearly not having learned my lesson with Latin, I *have* been attempting to teach myself Esperanto. I might try that when I feel like I could actually carry on a conversation, in the one-in-a-million chance that the person calling actually speaks Esperanto. I will report back when I finally give it a try.

Re:Solution for Nerds

[Jason Levine]

And whatever you do, don't say "Yes." If you do, your recording of "Yes" can be attached to a recording of "Do you agree to X" and used as verification that you agreed to some garbage service. If you have to answer in the affirmative (for example, there's still a chance that this isn't a scam call and you want to stay on the line), find other words that can't be used to mean "I agree to whatever you're really selling."

Not the outfit from Saranac Lake NY?

[Anonymous Coward]

518-891-3400

FUCK NO!

[Sebby]

He has asked the Federal Communications Commission to reduce the fine proposed last year, calling it disproportionate, in part because most calls went unanswered or resulted in a quick hang-up by consumers.

He wants a reduction because he couldn't annoy people long enough?

Seriously!?

They should double his fine just for asking that.

Maximum Sentence!

[Anonymous Coward]

CHOP OFF HIS HEAD AND STICK IT ON A POLE!

Sits down, straightens tie, sounds like we can't do that here. Lets just fine him 120 BILLION dollars! Oh that's to high and he can't pay well this systems sucks. Fine, it's a 120 MILLION dollar fine. That's the worst they'll let me do today, but next time, your head on a pole.

Does florida execute for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

if not could we persuade them to start

"in part because most calls went unanswered"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but you woke me up after working a night shift and when I didn't recognize the number I went back to a fitful sleep...

Put him in a jail cell with a dozen phones and have them go off randomly 24/7

....they forgot one thing

[kiviQr]

his phone numbers should remain public for every one to call him with congratulations on winning a vaction or whatever crap he sells.

The Caine Robocall

[epine]

I'm imaging a Life of Brain-like movie, where someone impassioned stands up, and delivers with deep, sonorous eloquence the famous line from Jesus: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

And everybody in the crowd seems to take a deep breath, and the underfed scoundrel at the center of things is about to kiss the dirt beneath his scabby feet, but then somewhere in the crowd a phone rings, and then an agitated Hebrew voice mutters "fucking robocall" with dark resignation—and immediately the execution is on again, with twice as many stones in hand as the first time.

Psssst, Jesus, word to the wise: don't deliver that epic line while someone in the crowd is receiving a robocall, it just won't stick.

Furthermore...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does the fact of most calls going unanswered or ending quickly present any sort of a case for reducing the fine?

Re:Furthermore...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

How the hell does the fact of most calls going unanswered or ending quickly present any sort of a case for reducing the fine?

Because if the fine is low enough, paying it as a business expense and continuing the profit-making illegal operation is a viable business model.

So if he can somehow sucker a judge with such an argument, he gets to pay an affordable fine and go back to suckering grannies out of their credit card info.

Re:Furthermore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sure.

I was more trying to present, in frustration, a rhetoric of, Why does it feel plausible that a judge would even entertain such a silly, nonsensical argument for more than a couple seconds?

I would have wanted to shut down the case in aggravation that someone would have tried to utterly waste my and everybody else's time like that.

Re:Furthermore...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Why does it feel plausible that a judge would even entertain such a silly, nonsensical argument for more than a couple seconds?

Because it's his job to hear the argument, consider it, and then call bull if that's what it is. Cutting the attorney off after a few words isn't fair: He MIGHT actually have a valid point but got off to a start that sounded like bull.

Similarly, it's the lawyer's job to make arguments favorable to his client and try to get the judge to accept them. That means the lawyer is (or tries to be) an expert in making arguments sound plausible, even if they're bull.

Occasionally a judge gets suckered - great for the client of the lawyer who put it over.

Usually the judge makes the right call.

But figure he calls bull on more than half of the arguments he hears. For starters, when two lawyers are arguing opposite sides of an issue, he pretty much has to call bull on one of them.

Re:Furthermore...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Also: If the judge cuts off the argument after a few words, and that side loses, they get to appeal. Then if they convince the appellate judge/panel they had a valid point, the first judge gets reversed or the case handed back to be retried.

In addition to maybe having to do the whole thing over and THIS time listen, this is a BIG black mark on the judge's reputation.

(Unless they're in the Fifth Circus Court of Appeals, of course. B-) )

"disproportionate" fine?

[mnemotronic]

This guy is trying to spin himself as a "not-so-bad-guy" because it's so easy to get software to do what he does and the carriers don't prevent him?

"Clearly regulation needs to address the carriers and providers and require the major carriers to detect robocalls activity,"

I.e. if it's illegal to spoof and robocall then robocall and spoofing tools need to be impossible to get, illegal to use or taken away, and the media companies should prevent these tools from being usable! I can't be held responsible!

Let's apply this reasoning to Nicholas Cruz: Hey! If it's illegal to kill people with guns, then guns should be impossible to get, illegal to use or taken away, and everyone should prevent guns from being usable! Or to Harvey Weinstein: Hey if rape and molestation is illegal, then penises and white guys in authority should be illegal and taken away.

I don't think so bucko.

Re:"disproportionate" fine?

[Obfuscant]

Let's apply this reasoning to Nicholas Cruz: Hey! If it's illegal to kill people with guns, then guns should be impossible to get, illegal to use or taken away, and everyone should prevent guns from being usable!

You've just described the anti-gun zealot's argument in one sentence.

My phone rings a lot less now!

[JimboWTF1360]

I am all for "innocent until proven guilty," but I have noticed a significant drop in robocalls. Just sayin'

Why so much effort?

[Cajun Hell]

Holy crap that was a lot of robocalls. Why would someone do such a tedious thing? He should have gotten a robot to do it for him.

...

Thanks, I'll be here all wee- oh shit, they cancelled me. Fuck this crowd, good night.

Make it difficult/impossible to spoof caller ID

[Anonymous Coward]

The simplest fix I can think of, to start with, is to update the Caller ID system with security built in to prevent people from being able to spoof phone numbers in the first place. At least, if we can stop spoofing, I know who to sue to stop the calls. Just last week, I received the classic "Refinance your credit cards to drop your rate" and "Extend your car's warranty" calls. I would love to actually know where they are coming from so I can sue to stop them. If it meant that I had to buy new phones to enable secure Caller ID, I'd buy them in a red-hot second. Today's system is just to hard to hide behind and abuse.

Obligatory

[DontBeAMoran]

Hello. This is Homer Simpson, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call every person in town to apologize for my telemarketing scam. I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to Sorry Dude 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power.

I agree. In part.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The fine imposed for his activity is disproportionate to his crime. I just suspect that he'd be begging to have the fine back if anyone proposed something actually proportionate.

Didn't answer = no annoyance?

[markdavis]

>"to reduce the fine proposed last year, calling it disproportionate, in part because most calls went unanswered or resulted in a quick hang-up by consumers"

Really? So, the fact that we didn't answer or did and hung up quickly somehow means we weren't annoyed, or weren't disturbed, or didn't have our privacy invaded?

We need CRIMINAL laws against *all* robocalling (and most other unsolicited spam calls) and an easy way to report them (like dialing a number after a call) AND enforcement. None of the existing "regulations" and "fines" seem to make any difference at all in the problem.

Re:Didn't answer = no annoyance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently most of my incoming calls are from unknown numbers that I have learned to ignore. I'm not interested in their fake deals, I'm not being sued by the IRS, and I don't have any problems with my real accounts.

This guy and all his robocall scammer buddies are a public nuisance even when nobody answers

Re:Didn't answer = no annoyance?

[Anonymous Coward]

We need CRIMINAL laws against *all* robocalling (and most other unsolicited spam calls) and an easy way to report them (like dialing a number after a call) AND enforcement. None of the existing "regulations" and "fines" seem to make any difference at all in the problem.

They're calling from India. They don't care about your laws or regulations.

Fine too high? prison time is an option...

[LeftCoastThinker]

OK, lets assume you wasted 1 minute on average per person robocalled, so you get to go to prison for every minute you illegally stole from some innocent victim. What does that add up to? 184.5 years... enjoy your stay.

Re:

[srichard25]

The issue with this is that there are a few legitimate robocaller uses. My credit card company uses robocalling to contact me when there is potential fraud charges on my account. I realize this might be a rare case, but I really want that particular robocall to go through.

I'm not a phone line expert, but it seems like phone companies should require companies register numbers that they want to spoof and provide proof that they actually own that number. Any spoofed calls not validated should be killed.

Another thing that phone companies could do is charge significant fees for robocalling, making it prohibitively expensive for scammers.

This PoS still calls....

[BulletMagnet]

I wished I had a 200db Air Horn handy for those times I'd bother to try to get a live body on the phone when this schmuck calls - one of those "My job sucks and this guy tried to deafen me - might want to consider a new job"

KILL HIM!

[slashmydots]

I think I speak for everyone when I say he needs to be executed for wasting billions of hours of Americans' time. Crime on that level is unforgivable.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

why on earth would this need to be a robocall? if you're credit card company detects potential fraud then they could just get someone to call you

You ever try those sound boards

[wolfheart111]

Call random numbers as homer simpson... ya that was classy

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The system I use is similar to the one above, but has a whitelist capability so I have numbers I know use dialers setup in it like my doctor's office that automates reminder messages on appointments.

theater

[Anonymous Coward]

lawmakers make a show out of supposedly trying to address spam calling but it never really goes away, let's face it, these callers get their phone service from a provider who could easily detect this kind of behavior and stop it so the reason spam calling still exists is because business wants it to, they're making money off it

Don't like BUT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there actually a code that says it's illegal? If so then why are political robocalls allowed? Why have such calls been going on for YEARS completely unchecked?

If it is illegal, then lock the guy up because I hate robocalls.

If it's not illegal, then the FCC needs to STFU.

Agree

[Anonymous Coward]

My internet/tv package comes with a land-line, which I never use because I have a cell phone with unlimited minutes. I have it hooked up to an answering machine with the ringer turned off. I use the phone number to give to places that insist on having a phone number. I call it my "spam phone".

Oddly, the only calls I get on it are either spam, or from people like my parents who can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that I have a cell phone.

Captcha: absently
It's somehow creepy that the captchas seem to know what is in the contents of my comments a lot of the times...

I Used to Get Calls from This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so happy that this guy was caught. I used to get 1-3 calls per day on my cell phone from this guy's scam. Even when I blocked the numbers I'd get calls from new ones. I wondered why they stopped a while ago and now I know why. Instead of paying a fine, which those of us affected won't see a cent of, I hope he has to stay in prison and listen to his robocall's pre-recorded sales pitch 97 million times. Then he should be released.

so the breinbaf mafiaa

[KingBenny]

how many robocalls have they made hoping for out of court settlements from the 100s to the $1000s a pop ? off-topic i guess