Slashdot Mirror


Why Robo-Calls Can't Be Stopped (washingtonpost.com)

"When your phone rings, there's about a 50 percent chance it's a spam robo-call," reports the Washington Post. Now a computer science professor who's researched robo-call technologies reveals the economics behind automatically dialing phone numbers "either randomly, or from massive databases compiled from automated Web searches, leaked databases of personal information and marketing data." It doesn't matter whether you've signed up with the federal Do Not Call Registry, although companies that call numbers on the list are supposed to be subject to large fines. The robo-callers ignore the list, and evade penalties because they can mask the true origins of their calls.... Each call costs a fraction of a cent -- and a successful robo-call scam can net millions of dollars. That more than pays for all the calls people ignored or hung up on, and provides cash for the next round. Casting an enormous net at low cost lets these scammers find a few gullible victims who can fund the whole operation...

Partly that's because their costs are low. Most phone calls are made and connected via the Internet, so robo-call companies can make tens of thousands, or even millions, of calls very cheaply. Many of the illegal robo-calls targeting the United States probably come from overseas -- which used to be extremely expensive but now is far cheaper...

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has been asking U.S. phone companies to filter calls and police their own systems to keep out robo-calls. It hasn't worked, mainly because it's too costly and technically difficult for phone companies to do that. It's hard to detect fake Caller ID information, and wrongly blocking a legitimate call could cause them legal problems.

The professor's article suggests guarding your phone number like you guard your credit card numbers. "Don't give your phone number to strangers, businesses or websites unless it's absolutely necessary."

"Of course, your phone number may already be widely known and available, either from telephone directories or websites, or just because you've had it for many years. In that case, you probably can't stop getting robo-calls."

338 comments

  1. Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a nearly-universal business practice: if you are ordering a product or service online, they will require a phone number. The form won't submit unless you put in a valid one.

    You really can't refuse to do business with people on these grounds; all competitors require a phone number as well. Further, if you put someone else's number up there, it's fraud.

    You can complain. If they respond at all, it will be a roundabout way of saying "too bad."

    1. Re: Online order forms require it by pollarda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They should turn it into a source or revenue for the phone companies. When a phone call completes, have an option for the recipient to charge them $1.00. The phone company keeps half.

    2. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if it was a penny it would probably work...

    3. Re: Online order forms require it by dwywit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if it's possible to have a reporting and billing system like this:

      1. Answer a call, it's spam/scam
      2. While the call is in progress, key in #, the last four digits of your number, # (or some sequence that confirms the recipient's number, and a sequence to identify the type of call, e.g. 55 for spam, 66 for scam)
      3. That sequence immediately bills the caller $1 and/or blacklists the calling number.

      This depends on being able to trace and identify the caller while the call is still in progress.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    4. Re:Online order forms require it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The spam calls I receive do not mention my name or any other identifying information.

      As far as I can see, they are just calling numbers randomly.

      I am skeptical that keeping your phone number confidential will make any difference at all.

    5. Re: Online order forms require it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When a phone call completes, have an option for the recipient to charge them $1.00. The phone company keeps half.

      Another requirement should be that if the caller can't be identified and billed, the phone company still has to pay you.

      Anonymous spoofing will end real quick.

    6. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse. Even if you are able to stop a caller there is a process by which they can re-add your number to their system within a few months, especially if you didn't send them a no-call request in writing via certified mail.

    7. Re:Online order forms require it by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, please. This is directly on the mark.

    8. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who are you going to bill it to when the source has been masked ?

    9. Re: Online order forms require it by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the carrier that transferred the call to my carrier gets billed. THey bill whoever gave it to them, and so on.
      If you reach a point where it can't be tracked the carrier that can't track the incoming origin is where the net cost lands.

      See how long they put up with not being able to trace their inputs!

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    10. Re:Online order forms require it by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The spam calls I receive do not mention my name or any other identifying information.

      As far as I can see, they are just calling numbers randomly.

      I am skeptical that keeping your phone number confidential will make any difference at all.

      Completely agree. Most of the calls I receive have the same matching 1-XXX-XXX prefix. As I no longer live in that town or have any friends there, I can safely ignore them but my assumption is they are just calling all 9999 numbers in that prefix with another random number in that same prefix. I know the number is spoofed too because I originally tried to call a few of them back out of curiosity and I also get people regularly calling "me" back so I know they are using my number to call other people as well.

    11. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do you just take it on the word of the person who received the call? What if the robo call comes from someone like the electric utility, giving them a legally required warning that their electricity will be cut for non-payment. Of course the receiver is pissed off and reports it as spam, even though its not.

    12. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if you can't prevent this, then just shut the thing off eventually. A no-brainer

    13. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You nailed it.

    14. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia already does a similar thing for all calls to mobiles (no choice). We've discontinued the landlines and get less than one robocall a week. Peace, it's wonderful!

    15. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another requirement should be that if the caller can't be identified and billed, the phone company still has to pay you.
      Anonymous spoofing will end real quick.

      Billing uses ANI service, in which neither "anonymous" or "spoofing" is possible, so that isn't even a problem.

      It would appear you are still not believing that CID and ANI are not the same and serve different purposes.

      ANI is the path through the phone network, between phone networks, specifically for billing.
      It's akin to an emails chain of "received from" headers

      CID is intended to be set by the call originator. It's akin to an email "From" header, like the "Subject", inside the email from the sender.

      In fact due to its intent, CID can almost never be "wrong" even when it is spoofed to a non-existent number or spoofed to your own number, so long as that was the intent of the caller to do.
      It can only be "wrong" in cases like cell phone companies, where they will show my number no matter what my intent. But as it shows the number to return the call to me, no one else is going to complain when it is set wrong and in a way I don't wish it.

    16. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot a few spambois ... just cut them down in their BMWs like feral pigs. OINKSNORTMLUFF ... that's why we have AK-47s in every yeomans house. Then shoot a few more "porkers" .... betcha spam stops.

    17. Re: Online order forms require it by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about simply cutting through their bullshit. Those telecoms also make money on the calls so they allow it to happen on purpose.

      Here is how to stop, OHH FUCKING LOOK this fucking phone line made 1,000 calls in the last hour, could it possibly be a scammer, do people make that many calls, no, well cut them off, done and finished.

      They are total fucking liars and cunts, they can totally 100% control this, they choose not to because they profit from it. Limit the number of calls any line can make in any set time period, done and finished.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your fios phone number in there, plug a phone into it but set the ringer to off. Then do your real calls on cellular.
      What I'll probably do is put my old school answering machine on my fios and turn off the ringer.

    19. Re: Online order forms require it by sjames · · Score: 2

      They already know the ID of the caller. Have you ever heard of the phone company giving away free service because they couldn't figure out who to bill?

    20. Re: Online order forms require it by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      $500 is the right price.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    21. Re: Online order forms require it by pollarda · · Score: 1

      On some levels I agree. But if someone is making legitimate calls, if they get hit $1 here or there it won't amount to anything. But if someone is making 10's of thousands of calls, it will add up to a lot. Besides, once the word gets out that if a telemarketer Calls your number they'll get dinged $1, all the telemarketers will stop.

    22. Re:Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To protect their ill gotten gain most of these scammers are international. Re-introduce large tolls on international calls. Most of the calls will stop. There will be plenty of money to send law enforcement after the rest... and money to spare for Trump's wall.

    23. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already know the ID of the caller. Have you ever heard of the phone company giving away free service because they couldn't figure out who to bill?

      The NSA might know, but the network carrier probably doesn't. That's not how phone billing works. The carrier is going to bill the carrier that put the call on their network. That carrier is going to bill the carrier that put the call on their network and so-on until the bill reaches the carrier from where the caller actually originated. If that network operator at the end of the chain cannot figure out who to bill then they have to eat the cost. No carrier would remain in business for long if they couldn't figure out who needed to be billed and how to collect. The carriers have automated systems for tracking and settling these charges among themselves. Those who can't or won't settle get disconnected from the larger network.

    24. Re:Online order forms require it by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for this to change. I suspect that the main reason people have a phone number nowadays is because it's basically expected that you have one. However, the vast majority of calls I get are junk, to the point where my ringer is permanently off if I'm not expecting a call. Anyone who wants to get a hold of me generally uses other methods to do so. Robocalls, scams, and other garbage have basically broken the phone system to the point where it's no longer a reliable way to get a hold of someone.

      The phone companies, if they were smart, would be doing everything they can to put a stop to robocallers. Otherwise if they don't, as soon as it becomes acceptable in society to no longer have a phone number, there's going to be a mass exodus from the traditional phone system.

    25. Re: Online order forms require it by LostMyAccount · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We know what carrier every number belongs to thanks to number portability. That database exists and is updated frequently, or you couldn't port your number to a new carrier. This database enables carriers to connect outgoing call to the carrier who can complete the call.

      All that needs to happen is for ATT, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile to verify that an inbound call seeking to be completed on their network comes from the carrier that number belongs to. If it doesn't, then it should be rejected. If those four carriers alone started doing this, I'm pretty sure robocalls would collapse because so many of them wouldn't get through.

      One step better would be for all carriers to reject any inbound call using ANI that doesn't belong to that subscriber. Since individual carriers know what number blocks they are associated with and which blocks belong to their subscribers (all necessary for proper call termination), that database essentially exists, too.

      All this mumbo-jumbo of "what about VoIP" misses the point; the calls have to enter the public phone network someplace, and ultimately in the jungle of low-rent VoIP carriers are circuits that enable them to terminate calls on the major carriers, those circuits cost money and the carrier is keeping track of inbound calls.

      The fact that carriers haven't done anything like this really means they're part of the problem, making revenue off of it and are loathe to threaten that revenue.

    26. Re: Online order forms require it by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's the benefit of the back propagating spam fee. Each carrier in the chain gets the choice to either propagate the fee back towards the caller or eat the cost itself (guess which they'll choose!).

    27. Re: Online order forms require it by rworne · · Score: 1

      Source has been masked?

      Just drop the call.

      Legit VOIP services should not do this, and if they do, they'll fix it real quick.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    28. Re:Online order forms require it by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I work support for a local telecom. I had a customer call because she kept getting spam calls from her own number.

    29. Re:Online order forms require it by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It is a nearly-universal business practice: if you are ordering a product or service online, they will require a phone number."

      Buy a dozen empty prepaid cards from eBay for a buck or 2, then you own the number you never answer to, so no fraud.

    30. Re: Online order forms require it by houghi · · Score: 1

      I kniw a way that will be for the people.

      1) make it illegal to call, unless you are a customer
      2) make it mandatory to stop marketing calls on request
      3) make the telco responsible for blocking spammers and abusers

      Because what you are doing is blaming the victim.and ask them to take action.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    31. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly yes. Billing fraud with sms and calls happens a lot. Usually no-one or the wrong entity is charged. This is especially lucrative if you use the free calls to pay for service numbers.

      If the source info is wrong the operator has to decide between dropping the call or taking the risk. From my professional experience European operators will drop, while the us and uk will let it go through up to a certain amount. Business lines have a higher chance of not having the call blocked as the impact and potential liability of blocking a legitimate call can be high.

    32. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, once the word gets out that if a telemarketer Calls your number they'll get dinged $1, all the telemarketers will stop.

      Only those that averages less than $1 per call.

      In political marketing $1 per call might still be worth it.

    33. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your idea sounds good, but it is extremely abusable. Probably, someone could snoop your number as caller ID, and then use it to spam people. As a result, you are the one who is paying for the bill. It's not going to work in the real world.

    34. Re: Online order forms require it by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      Telecoms have already abandoned phone systems. they can't abandon local exchanges fast enough and they don't really care about cellular except to provide data along with it. Corporations follow the money and its not in phone service.

    35. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is valid to an extent, however there are exceptions as in any case. So, as an example, large corporations could easily make 1000 calls in an hour. Another (on the opposite side of the spectrum) would be school districts easily placing 1000 calls in under an hour.

      I see the charging of a connect fee to be the most likely solution. Not a big fee, but something (as someone stated above) a nickel a call. That fee is given to the phone company (3 cents) and the customer (2 cents, applied to phone bill) and automatically charged back to the originating number. For those of you who doubt the phone companies will know whom to bill, believe me they will easily be able to trace it back directly to the originating carrier if not the caller. They could "fix" the spoofing issue in a heartbeat as well, but that would mess up people from large corporate customers to educational institutions, and even domestic violence centers, as well as the spammers/scammers.

      The other solution is for everyone, and I mean everyone, to just stop hanging if they connect to people in the end. So, for example, with the medical brace (et al.) scam, get connected but just tie up their time. Don't have the right information, long pauses, everything, never commit to anything, but don't hang up. Hell don't even talk but don't hang up. Keep those arseholes connecting their limited pool of human scammers to people who won't say shiat really. If 5% of all the people they called did this, and occupied 30-60 seconds (more would be awesome when you have time to fark with them) of the calling rep's time, you reduce their profitability exponentially.

      In the end they'll be reduced to purely automated calls trying to get you to call a number or go to a website. The call centers can be dealt with by spamming them back. The websites could be dealt with by a Peer-to-peer version of software like the old Bluefrog idea. Forget about the opt out list though, just nuke'em from orbit it's the only way to be sure.

      The only way this bullshait stops is if spamming/scamming costs exceed profit potential. That can be done.

    36. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One step better would be for all carriers to reject any inbound call using ANI that doesn't belong to that subscriber. Since individual carriers know what number blocks they are associated with and which blocks belong to their subscribers (all necessary for proper call termination), that database essentially exists, too.

      This right here! It is absolutely possible, because my carrier does this where I work. We have to have individual ANI for every call for 911, and it's easier to just send it for every call. When we occasionally screw up and set it to an number outside our block, the phone company substitutes our listed directory number.

    37. Re: Online order forms require it by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      As best I can tell, there are three layers to the bullshit (likely four):

      1) The calling system "press 1 to speak to an operator", this part is 100% automated. Doesn't matter what you do, say, or press here. Obviously the "don't call me again" option isn't connected to anything

      2) The "first line of defense" actual human beings. All these people do is verify that the info you give them matches the info they have in the system. They already have your name, address, etc. Pretty sure, for the vehicle warranty people, they have your vehicle information as well. I've talked to these people a number of times, with varying degrees of false information. Anything that questions the nature of the call or deviates from "pretty close to accurate" gets you disconnected immediately. I've had a few of them get cranky when I give them blatantly false information, that usually makes me happy. My favorite was the dude that responded with "Sir, you could have just pressed the do not call me again button."

      3) The "actually sell you something" people. I assume these resources are extremely limited. And they have all of your info. I drug on a conversation for a half hour before he caught on that I was messing with him. He didn't seem too pissed that I wasted a half hour of his time, but he did tell me my full address, phone number, vehicle info, etc. It was actually kind of creepy. But the good news, after this incident I haven't got a car warranty call again. Now the "insurance broker" people are calling me.

      I can only assume that there would be a 4th layer of people that I would talk to, should I actually agree to buy something.

    38. Re: Online order forms require it by syn3rg · · Score: 1

      They should turn it into a source or revenue for the phone companies. When a phone call completes, have an option for the recipient to charge them $1.00. The phone company keeps half.

      IMAO, the main problem with this would be number spoofing. 90% of the robo calls I get are using spoofed numbers. So this would create a pool of unintended victims (the one whose numbers are being spoofed) having to pay for something they didn't do.

      I also don't see how you could issue a charge back to an overseas caller.

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    39. Re:Online order forms require it by lpq · · Score: 1

      There's no law requiring that you must remember your phone number, correctly, when sharing it... more than once i find that even an 800 number will work fine.

    40. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      we are pleased you are taking interest in the workings of our telephone company. While we appreciate your enthusiasm and excellent idea, we regret to inform you,
      that you could cut off legitimate bussinesses in this way too. And since we have NO WAY of distinguishing between those two everything will stay the way it is.

      respectfully yours,
          nameless underling in pr department (opens up shirt and starts massaging nipples)

    41. Re: Online order forms require it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use 555-555-1212 for forms that ask for it but donâ(TM)t actually need it. Universally known as a dead number. It is used in advertising and movies so it has to be dead otherwise it would receive bogus calls all the time.

      I have given my mobile out for business lodging at a reputable national location and sure enough my number was sold off or stolen. Never again.

    42. Re:Online order forms require it by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Whitelisting is the way to go. Any call not in my contact list goes directly to voicemail. If you are a real person you can leave a message and convince me why I should call you back. ThaT's become the only way to deal with robocalls.

    43. Re: Online order forms require it by sjames · · Score: 1

      Then we will incentivize them. They can either pass the fee on or pay it themselves.

    44. Re: Online order forms require it by dknj · · Score: 1

      Did you just ... invent...... long-distance toll calls? YOU ARE BRILLIANT SIR!

    45. Re: Online order forms require it by pollarda · · Score: 1

      I never claimed to have invented it. Also allowing a user to hit #4 (or similar) to charge the caller $1.00 is very different than the mandatory per minute rate of traditional long distance toll calls from back in the technological Stone Age. Perhaps you are too young to remember the particulars.

    46. Re: Online order forms require it by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      What fucking puzzles me is why nobody -- anti-junk-call advocates or anyone else -- has trotted out someone knows a fucking thing or two about telephony.

      If I was Jane Senator grandstanding on this, I'd drag out someone who knew something about telecoms to let the public know that the carriers already can and do this kind of filtering, and then let the shit hit the carriers in the fan about why they're perpetuating this.

  2. Enforce the Do Not Call registry by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    It only takes one conscientious citizen to humor a robo-spammer long enough to get the real name/contact information behind the call, after which that company can be reported so the FTC can enforce their severe Do Not Call fines.

    1. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Rob+Y. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no? It's not all bitcoin - the targets wouldn't be savvy enough to pay that way, right?

      Anyway, if these things cost fractions of a cent to make, then the answer is to make all phone calls cost 1 or 2 cents - paid by the caller. I'd sure pay that for the calls I care to make in order to stop receiving the ones I don't want. Kind of like the idea of using a transaction fee to shut down robo-trading. If it hasn't happened yet, it's because lobbyists are paying for it not to happen.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    2. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Bruinwar · · Score: 2

      It only takes one conscientious citizen to humor a robo-spammer long enough to get the real name/contact information behind the call, after which that company can be reported so the FTC can enforce their severe Do Not Call fines.

      Years ago I tried just that & it failed to work. I suppose I wasn't a good enough actor. Every time they saw through my subterfuge & hung up. I did play along with the IRS guy with the british/nigerian accent for about 5 minutes before he got exasperated & told me a warrant has been issued & the police are on the way to arrest me! I couldn't stop from busting up laughing when he told me to go to a CVS for a payment card. "YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY?!" & I said hell ya!

      btw, you could be that conscientious citizen.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    3. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no?

      The problem is that everyone, including your phone company, is making money off of it. The only one not making money off of it is you and your phone company knows that you aren't going to cancel your phone service because of this. If this problem had an easy solution it would have been solved a long time ago.

    4. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      told me a warrant has been issued & the police are on the way to arrest me!

      At that point you respond with, "That sounds great. Why don't we just continue talking until they get here. You said that they are on their way, so it shouldn't be too long before they arrive."

    5. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Blue23 · · Score: 1

      If they're making money off of this, then at some point a payment gets made someplace traceable where it can be prosecuted, no? It's not all bitcoin - the targets wouldn't be savvy enough to pay that way, right?

      Trying to get not just local law enforcement, but also international law enforcement involved for the loss of a few hundred or even a thousand dollars in an incident is hard to do. They usually want a larger monetary loss to get involved.

      That's assuming that, depending on the country the calls are being made from, that there isn't an "arrangement" with their law enforcement already.

      --
      LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
    6. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $.25 paid to the receiver. I would pay that to call a legit client, or family member.

    7. Re:Enforce the Do Not Call registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money is sent out of US/Europe jurisdiction. If you are dealing with scammers in Belarus, Russia, India, China, some African country, or whatever, the local authorities are not of much use. They also use payment methods that makes it easier for them to scam you. People actually buy $300 in itunes gift cards to pay off scammers, who then turn around and resell them at a discount.

      They are already paying for phone calls, but VOIP services are so cheap that they can afford it. Increasing cost of phone service would impact users of VOIP services for personal and business usages but not so much scammers.

      Phone service is incredibly cheap. If they want real phone numbers, they can buy them for $1 a dozen. if you do not want to spend them, you can spoof.

  3. Robocalls by danskal · · Score: 2

    I've never in my life experienced a robocall. If we can avoid them in Europe, so can the US.

    1. Re: Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely rubbish. Most likely scammers are noft interested in your location, or they simply don't have staff that speak your local language. There is nothing in Europe that would protect you.

    2. Re:Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know I have been thinking about that too. And I think it is economics too but may be not the one you think. USA+Canada is about 350 millions people who you can expect to be fluent in English as they would need it for they day to day life.

      European union may have about as many people but when you look at the language spoken over there, the picture is much more fractured. People in France, Germany, Spain and other such continental countries don't expect to be called in English.

      It is such a problem in North American because they are a homogeneous language block. Monoculture strikes again.

    3. Re: Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cost free local calls creates an opportunity to spam. Small cost per phone call => spamming becomes costly. You pay for the usability of your phone. A free phone service that allows spamming and no way to filter out the spam makes your system unusable.

      In Finland we also have an opt out system for phone marketing. It works.

    4. Re:Robocalls by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never in my life experienced a robocall. If we can avoid them in Europe, so can the US.

      Most European countries ban anonymous spoofing.

      America does not.

      America's political system does not respond well to geographically distributed problems. If all the robocalls happened in a single swing state, they would stop tomorrow.

    5. Re:Robocalls by fazig · · Score: 1

      Taking a look at the blocked number list in my Fritz!Box 7490, there are a bit over 20 numbers in there since 2014. All of which I got on my unlisted land-line number. I also look up every individual number and know that they're supposedly from all over the planet.

      All of the blocked numbers are scammers that told me I've won something, somewhere where I never participated and similar things. I could not tell whether they were robocalls or not, since I usually hang up long before.
      It's difficult to say how often they'd call my number if I didn't block them manually. In a couple of instances, when I was not at home I received calls in intervals of one hour for 5 hours. The scammers are definitely there, however the occurrence of being called by a unique number is manageable.

      On my mobile phone I block all unknown numbers.

    6. Re:Robocalls by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Very common now in the US, or at least in California, is the scam call in Mandarin. It apparently is requesting the person contact the Chinese embassy at a certain number.

    7. Re: Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely rubbish. Most likely scammers are noft interested in your location, or they simply don't have staff that speak your local language. There is nothing in Europe that would protect you.

      You must be American

      "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"

      The quote is about gun laws, but is also applicable to your phone problem.

    8. Re:Robocalls by fgouget · · Score: 1

      I've never in my life experienced a robocall. If we can avoid them in Europe, so can the US.

      I live in France and I regularly get telemarketing calls (which are typically included in the robocall category as far as I can tell). As for calls made by an automaton I receive a handful per year; typically scams telling me to call some expensive phone number. So no, Europe is not immune to either telemarketing calls or robocalls.

    9. Re:Robocalls by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Here in BC, those are about the only scam calls I get on my cell phone. House phone is another matter though, most calls seem to be scams of some type

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not immune, but the defenses certainly help. In Germany, the fines are large enough to distract most and the telecommunication companies have to provide a certain amount of help in enforcing them.

      It certainly also helps that the charge a phone call is normally on the caller, not on the called.

    11. Re:Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most European countries ban anonymous spoofing.

      More precisely, you get two pieces transmitted: the caller ID as set by the caller and the "line number" where the call originated. As such, you can easily log the latter and abuse of the CID comes with some nice fines...

    12. Re:Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happens in swing states, your argument is without basis.

    13. Re:Robocalls by danskal · · Score: 1

      Ok, now explain why you don't get robocalls in the UK? Is it because of the welsh-speaking population?

      It's not language, it's pricing and/or legislation and/or culture.

    14. Re:Robocalls by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      We do. I get ~ 1 a month purporting to be from BT. The number is always a spoofed local number. He wants my to install TeamViewer so he can fix my 'virus problem'. If I have time, i play dumb and play along awhile. I don't run Windows, and I'm not even with BT, so I'm never in any danger. I try to follow the instructions he gives me and read back what I see on the screen. I once got as far as the supervisor's supervisor trying to 'solve my problem'. Eventually he cottoned on and called me a motherfucker. So nice. I reported the number to actionfraud - and noticed many others had done the same, and most calls had ended with the same epithet, so the guy's not exactly original with his insults. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest his arsehole.

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    15. Re:Robocalls by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      We get 4 or 5 a week on BT landline in this part of Britain. The majority are 'silent'. Unless you speak on answering, they hang up. If you speak, their system switches you to a live scammer. Only the 'Oven Cleaners' do semi-legit recorded roboclls.

    16. Re:Robocalls by zifn4b · · Score: 2

      You can't begin to stop them while you're not enforcing laws to do exactly that.

      You can't! Most of the calls are coming from countries where the laws aren't enforced.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    17. Re:Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all it would take? Really? Couldn't that be crowd funded by the non-swing-states?

      Seems to me "can't be stopped" is really "we can't be arsed to stop".

    18. Re:Robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with spoofing. This is VOIP. Do you know how much it would cost you to get one VOIP number for a month? Less than a quarter. That is you, individual person, buying one of them at a time. Companies can buy them up for pennies. Entire blocks. When they get busted for violated terms and lost service, they move on to another company or start up under a new name.

      Robocall scams are purely about being profitable. If it costs $1000 to make $2000 with robocall scams, someone is going to do it. they will either collect numbers through searches, buy lists of them, or just run an incremental dialer on every valid area code. My otherwise unused google number gets loads of scam calls because of the damned WHOIS data.

      Somewhat related, I was getting loads of spam and robocalls from same source, which I investigated and found to be all coming from someone using US addresses for state and city, but with Iranian street addressed. I gave up after getting about 70 domains revoked and accounts with 13 VOIP providers shut down. It is a losing battle.

    19. Re:Robocalls by robotercih · · Score: 1

      I've never in my life experienced a robocall. If we can avoid them in Europe, so can the US. Most European countries ban anonymous spoofing. America does not. America's political system does not respond well to geographically distributed problems. If all the robocalls happened in a single swing state, they would stop tomorrow. Üniversite taban puanlar.

  4. Time wasting by roll_w.it · · Score: 1

    If it didnâ(TM)t make me so angry I would spend more time wasting theirs. I think itâ(TM)s best for my stress is to hang up before saying anything.

    1. Re:Time wasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them are automated. Even the ones that respond interactively to you (and sound quite like a human) are actually dumbed down AI applications nowadays. There is no human in the loop anymore, other than you.

      You can't waste the computer's time, at least not at this scale.

  5. Terrorists and Swatters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has been asking U.S. phone companies to filter calls and police their own systems to keep out robo-calls. It hasn't worked, mainly because it's too costly and technically difficult for phone companies to do that. It's hard to detect fake Caller ID information, and wrongly blocking a legitimate call could cause them legal problems."

    If this were really true, then surely terrorists, swatters, bomb threats, harassers, etc would be wholly above penalty. Yet, funny enough when law enforcement gets involved they're able to track people down. It's almost as if when the law requires them to trace people, they're able to. Hmm... Sort of makes you think what the FCC could do if it make it a legal requirement that fake Caller ID information wasn't a thing (or very limited in scope).

  6. I get two kinds of robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRS scammers from India or recorded messages from a Democrat Party candidate.

    I don't want either.

  7. How can you "guard a number" by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's impossible to guard a number, when at this point they are simply calling all numbers in a valid area code, probably sharing any numbers that even voice mail picks up on...

    Almost getting to the point where I wish there was an hour a day I could designate as a time it was possible to call me, that I could set arbitrarily - then the rest of the day have my number reported by the phone company as disconnected.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How can you "guard a number" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes the trolls are right: You are being a moron in this case.

      Turn your phone off except for that one hour a day. Mission accomplished.

  8. Did this in Canada and made things worse... by mykepredko · · Score: 4, Informative

    All it did was move calls to overseas (India being a big one) and by publishing the "Do Not Call" list all they did was provide the callers with a list of numbers that they knew people would pick up if they were called.

    Ironically, the people who are bothered the least are the ones that didn't sign up for the "Do Not Call" list.

    1. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The calls have to pass through US telecom hands at some point in order to reach the person being called. The truth is that they like the money that they're being paid to terminate the calls rather than blocking the ones from the call centers engaging in this.

      The ultimate solution to this is primarily technological in nature. Don't connect calls from overseas telecoms that refuse to accurately indicate where the calls are coming from and terminate those that engage in these practices. Few of those overseas telecoms are going to give up being able to route phone calls to the US over a small number of rogue call centers.

      The real problem though is that these robocallers make money whether or not you answer the phone. They frequently make money based upon the caller ID look up. So, the only permanent solutions is going to involve ensuring that those numbers are never looked up for the contact details and that the people placing the calls are unable to make money off of the look ups. Mr. Number and similar solutions only solve the problem if the scammer needs you to take action based upon the call, rather than automatically making money when a computer looks up the information on its own.

    2. Re: Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a lot of sequencial phone numbers for my business and it seems there are quite a few phone scammers that just call every possible number 0001, 0002, 0003 .. we get them calling our numbers in a row

    3. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It should be trivially easy to have the phone company block all incoming calls from India. Most people have absolutely no need to be reachable from India.

    4. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by ytene · · Score: 2

      This.

      The international handshaking agreements between the telecoms companies of various nations means that the country receiving the call gets paid a small amount of the fees being charged by the originating telco.

      This is why the overseas robocall problem doesn't go away easily. However, there is no technical reason why it should not be possible for you to set up some simple rules, such as:-

      1. Block all international calls...
      2. ... except for this country where relatives live...

      I also like the idea of telco's offering a "request white-listing" service... Have the telco check the calling number and, if it is on your white-list, let the call through. If it is not on your white-list, allow the caller to leave a message with the telco [which captures their number]. When you listen to the message, you get a push-button option to white-list or block the number, at that point.

      To cope with scenarios where someone is trying to reach you from an unrecognized number in a hurry, have the system offer, "Press 1 to return the call to this number" as an option.

      Telco's don't want to do anything because of the cost. But it's worth pointing out that if they fail to act, they are becoming actual accomplices in whatever fraud you might fall victim to. You might not be able to file suit against the originator, but there's no reason you can't go after their accomplices, is there?

      That's got to be worth a class-action attempt. To put this into perspective, remember the movie, "The Firm"... Each time the law firm mailed out invoices to their clients with over-stated claims for hours worked, that constituted mail fraud. With multiple companies receiving the invoices from multiple partners, that became racketeering, a RICO crime. As Tom Cruise mentions in the film, "That's more than you had on Capone".

      These robocallers are parasites, and they get away with what they're doing because they're not *enough* of a pest to get stomped on. But if we put pressure on the telcos to the point where it starts to *cost* them money rather than *make* them money, this crime will be stopped quick enough.

    5. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The ultimate solution to this is primarily technological in nature.

      The real problem though is that these robocallers make money...

      The ultimate solution is not merely technological but rather financial. Even if they are hacking PBXs and getting the phone calls for free, there is still someone's time involved somewhere. There needs to be a way to quickly report them in real time so that the telecoms can disconnect them as well as a way to make it unprofitable. If on average it takes 100 calls to get one victim, if just 5% of those first 100 had to ability to report it, you could shut them down the majority of time before they reached the first victim even if it was a hacked PBX. Secondly, you need to put in better safeguards in the financial world so that finding a victim is less profitable. Better restrictions on first time users of western union, bitcoin gateways, or any other ways that they are getting the money. The harder you make it for the victim to send money, the more likely the victim will be unable to do it, will ask for help, or detect something is up.

      There are 3 main ways to stop almost all types of spams, scams, and crimes:
      1) Starve the money so that they don't make as much per scam or there are more hoops to jump thru to get it.
      2) Increase the noise to signal ratio so it's harder to find victims.
      3) Better reporting so they are more likely to get caught or shut down before finding a victim.

    6. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by pepsikid · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell don't want my telco storing a whitelist of my contacts. Those kinds of relationships are just begging to be sold for profit. I don't even want them holding a blacklist. My phone device should be able to do that just fine. If only those things weren't disabled so the telco could profit by selling me services which do the same thing...

    7. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by andymadigan · · Score: 2

      The GP referred to incoming calls from India, not outgoing. I have no reason for anyone to call me from overseas, or really even domestically. I'd bet that a very large percentage of the U.S. population has no need to receive calls from overseas. E-mail works just fine. When a company does call you, it's usually a dirty sales tactic to create a false "sense of urgency" in the hopes they can get you to make a quick decision that's profitable for them.

      No, the problem is that it would be far too easy for these boiler room call centers to mask their location. Allowing phone users to opt out of receiving calls from certain countries (or to allow them to whitelist countries) might very well be a solution, but only if the country the call is originating from can be positively identified.

      Yes, some people would still want to be able to receive international calls, but the set of potential targets for the scammers would be massively reduced. And, of course, scammers can be homegrown, too. But there's a reason they're overseas right now, a much lower chance of criminal prosecution.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    8. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always turn on whitelisting in your phone settings, aka "the nuclear option". This should match well your stated preference that nobody except people you already know have any reason to call you.

    9. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      to reach any of those indian call centers, you usually do not call an indian number.

      instead you will call a number in usa. because they like to pretend like the call center is in usa.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell don't want my telco storing a whitelist of my contacts.

      It would be trivial for them to figure out your contacts by themselves.

    11. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I try to make a point of picking up every call.

      And then pushing the buttons until I get to a human.

      Who I then ask if they're having a nice day, what the weather is like, how they like their job, of course I am deeply interested in what they're trying to sell and could they repeat their sales pitch again, etc. etc.

      This is the game: be as polite as possible, and derail the conversation as much as possible until they swear at me and hang up.

    12. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would want to refuse calls based on actual location, not based on phone numbers. Spammers spoof local numbers. You can't block based on that. It's very similar to email spam: If you block based on the "From" header, you're not going to get good results. If you want to block email based on the origin country, you need to base your filter on the "Received" header added by the first trustworthy mail transfer agent (some spammers add spoofed "Received" headers to throw off this type of filter, so you have to know which servers in the chain you can trust).

    13. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by pepsikid · · Score: 1

      Fine, but make them at least do their own work. Don't do data entry labor for their benefit.

    14. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      1. Block all international calls... 2. ... except for this country where relatives live...

      Uhhhh ... maybe you shouldn't be specifying the reason why someone wants to allow calls from Mozambique or Botswana. It is sufficient that someone can say "allow calls from Switzerland" without having to lie about having relatives there.

      When you listen to the message,

      By the time you're listening to the phone spammer's message, the damage is done. It's a win for them.

      have the system offer, "Press 1 to return the call

      Thus increasing the wasted time as you get to listen to that for the spam call, too.

      But it's worth pointing out that if they fail to act, they are becoming actual accomplices in whatever fraud you might fall victim to.

      Care to rethink that? You're making the carrier responsible for the content.

      Each time the law firm mailed out invoices to their clients with over-stated claims for hours worked, that constituted mail fraud.

      Do you think suing the USPS for the legal firm's criminal activity is the right solution? Or do you want USPS opening up your mail so it can scan for potential criminal acts and refusing to deliver any mail that appears to be fishy? That's what making the telephone carrier an "accessory" to any spam caller fraud would equate to.

    15. Re:Did this in Canada and made things worse... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      If you want white listing there's already apps that can do that. Any calls not in my contacts go straight to voicemail, and there's a 'likely spam' flag which I use to drop the call entirely (from user reports). Since my number is from an old area, I can even add an exception for numbers on my real local exchange. I never pick up to spam with this system, and only maybe 1 in 10 leave a voicemail to deal with, so it's entirely manageable.

  9. Yes we can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use asterisk to screen calls. If it is an previously unknown number a message will request the caller to press a number. If the number is correct the callerid will be added to a whitelist and the call connected.

    1. Re:Yes we can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set your default ring to no ring. As you add someone to your address book, add a ring for them.

      Allow all non-ring calls to go to voicemail as evidence. Most robots will not leave an automated voicemail anymore because of the legal risk. Delete recorded voice voicemails in passing if you're not going to contest them at law.

      When you expect an urgent call from someone not in your address book who is hard to get a hold of, pick up, but put your hand over the microphone and say nothing. A live person will ask, "Hello?", a robot will not.

      If no one says anything after a moment, hang up. A real person will try to call back.

  10. Whitelist your phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy

    1. Re:Whitelist your phone by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      My favourite is to come on to them. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman. Talk dirty. Gets them every time.

      I signed the papers on a new place the other day and I'm planning to use Asterisk to screen my calls. Two or three whitelisted numbers, block everything else.

      ...laura

    2. Re:Whitelist your phone by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      My favourite is to come on to them. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman.

      90% of the calls I receive are neither man nor women.

      They are robots.

      Some of them are good. I try to trip them up by going off script, and some of them are capable of making reasonable responses and try to steer the conversation back on track.

      If nothing else, robocalls are advancing the state-of-the-art in voice synthesis and recognition.

  11. What? by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Funny

    And lose a source of amusement? I've had the callers crying, screaming, cussing and generally butt-hurt. I mock them with their accent regardless of what it is and insult them in kind. Why in hell do I want to remove that catharsis?

    1. Re:What? by dwywit · · Score: 0

      I have a lot fun with the scammers. I've had one screaming at me after I insisted I didn't own a windows computer, I suspect one girl came close to tears after I asked her "how would your mother feel about you doing this?", and I've learned a few nasty phrases in Hindi.

      No mercy, they're trying to steal from me.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had the computer scammers so furious with me that they've called back after I hang up on them. If it's a choice between TV and screwing with a scammer, I'll choose the latter. Yesterday I had one of the tech guys agreeing that one of the bad IP addresses that was stealing my banking information was 127.0.0.1. The other was 192.168.1.1. He said they were from Russia and China.

    3. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they get really mad they start using your number as the from address on every single call. Then you get dozens of people calling you back what do you want why did you call me

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had them get so angry that they threatened to rape my wife. The weird thing was, they couldn't hang up the phone. After a few minutes of these insults, there was silence, then a retry of the sales pitch. Unfortunately, they are getting better at figuring out who wants to play with them.

    5. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide id to proceed fixing your Windoes. It is currently needs fixing.

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful cowboy - if SJW types get to know that you do that it is a simple case of discrimination and you are boiled.

    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this for a while. It was fun the first dozen times or so, but then it just became a waste of time.

    8. Re:What? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Why would this be rated 'funny'? It, and all the others who say "I like making them cry" or scream or whatever are just saying that they value their time so little that they think talking to people that don't care what you do is better than reading a book or doing something actually productive.

      Really. These people don't care what you say as long as there is some chance that they can con you, and they get paid to talk to you. They aren't as stupid as you think. Like, the guy who agreed that 127.0.0.1 was the source of a cyber attack was saying what he thought would lead to a successful con. He'd agree that the sky was lavender and the moon was made of green cheese if he thought you'd eventually be a profit for him.

      Why in hell do I want to remove that catharsis?

      You need a more productive hobby. Might I suggest a nice game of chess?

  12. VoIP filtering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they can't be stopped but any good VoIP service is going to have great filtering services from IVR to time-of-day, as well as whitelisting. Just think of robocalling as all the noise and spam newsgroups had to put up with, and the powerful filtering clients had to deal with it.

  13. It can be stopped with software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If my so-called smartphone is able to run arbitrary code, then it could answer calls from unknown numbers without ringing, test the caller for humanness (with a message asking to press # to go through with the call), and *then* ring my phone.

    1. Re:It can be stopped with software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better would be if it didn't detect it as human for it to then pass it through to an automated, human-impersonating system designed to waste the time of the calling automated system and to try to get passed through to the human operator and subsequently waste their time. What we need to be doing is granting companies that we want to have the right to contact us some sort of digital key to get through the gatekeeper and, if they abuse that key by handing it out to scammy third parties, etc. the ability to revoke that key, and or report them for misuse leading to reputation damage and possibly fines.

      If every robocall resulted in a human operator on the scammer's side having to deal with it, you could probably waste at least ten seconds of their time on each call. If every million robocalls cost them about sixteen man-months of real, extremely tedious, work, it might not be so worth it.

      Overall, even without a human impersonating gatekeeper, cryptographic identification systems seem like a good idea.

  14. SubjectsSuck by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any argument that we can't stop robo-calls because it's "too expensive" is just stupid. The cost of stopping them is miniscule compared to the cost of allowing them.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    1. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure there is almost no cost to allowing them

      other than wasting our time, which has no value to any of the parties involved in the financial tradeoff

    2. Re:SubjectsSuck by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any argument that we can't stop robo-calls because it's "too expensive" is just stupid. The cost of stopping them is miniscule compared to the cost of allowing them.

      Cost of stopping them will have to be borne by the telco,.

      Cost of allowing will by borne by you, not the telco.

      So what would telco do?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re: SubjectsSuck by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      There is a good amount of expensive that comes into effect. There a lot of people who I need to call when I have repaired the equipment they sent in. I need to communicate that their equipment is fixed and arrange payment and get it back to them. Many of them no longer answer a call from a number they don't recognize. So there is telephone tag which wastes a lot of time. It delays them getting back their equipment and my company getting paid for the repair.

      We are approaching the point where everybody refuses to answer the telephone.

    4. Re:SubjectsSuck by djinn6 · · Score: 0

      The telco won't do anything, but you can switch to a data-only plan. They can't spam you if you don't have a number.

    5. Re:SubjectsSuck by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Cost of allowing will by borne by you, not the telco. So what would telco do?

      Simple answer: government, represented by the people, forces telco.

      At least, that's how it works here in Communist Europe. Americans prefer free market where telcos can assist in harassment for profit.

    6. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in the US, it's just 1.4 million to stop an entire phone-farm location from ever calling anything again.

      Other countries aren't getting scammed by Raytheon though and should be able to stop it much cheaper.

    7. Re:SubjectsSuck by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Any argument that we can't stop robo-calls because it's "too expensive" is just stupid. The cost of stopping them is miniscule compared to the cost of allowing them.

      Cost of stopping them will have to be borne by the telco,.

      Cost of allowing will by borne by you, not the telco.

      So what would telco do?

      I'd expect a telco to stop them... Or face fines that increment by the day.

      The problem isn't that it would _cost_ the telco's too much money... the technology to do this has been in place for at least 20 years (when we changed from cell switched to packet switched exchanges). The problem is that the telco's are _making_ too much money from this. If you want to stop spammers, you have to make it cost less for the telco to not host them than they make from hosting them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what your saying is that men (women, and non-binaries) with guns should use violence to force the phone companies to do what you want? OK.

    9. Re: SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the party. I haven't answered the telephone in over six years. No going back now!

  15. How to make them pay by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever you receive a call from one of these scammers do what you can to talk to a live person. This is what costs them money. When I get a robo-call telling me about pack pain medication or having an import message from my credit card company, I always press whatever button I need to push to seem interested and speak with a representative. Then I keep that person on the phone for as long as possible until they give up and hang up on me.

    If everyone did this, the overhead of these bastards would be too high to keep calling people. At worse, it would make them limit their calls to known suckers.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:How to make them pay by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      There are a load of YouTube videos of people screwing with scammers. Some of my favorite are where they manage to get the scammers to lock themselves out of their own computers in addition to just wasting their time. But this kind of thing has been going on for far, far longer. I'm sure anyone of age remembers the P-P-P-Powerbook from back in the day. One of my personal favorites is this similar take involving ANUS brand laptops shipped COD that were actually several boxes full of junk equipment and dead hardware with a shipping cost of several thousand dollars.

    2. Re:How to make them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Great idea for those, such as yourself, who value their time as worthless.

    3. Re:How to make them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is legend. It probably took me over an hour to read through that ANUS thread, and it was worth every second. Thank you, this has earned a top spot on my list of Internet lore, right up there with "I put on my robe and wizard hat."

    4. Re:How to make them pay by rcharbon · · Score: 1

      This gets you on a "live number" list, resulting in even more calls.

    5. Re:How to make them pay by fgouget · · Score: 1

      This gets you on a "live number" list, resulting in even more calls.

      Thus causing them to waste even more time and money. Yes it requires a bit of effort on your part but it's for the common good.

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

    6. Re:How to make them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only works to a point. This wastes their time/money, but also wastes your time too. Sure it can be fun when you have nothing better to do while sitting at home, but how often does that happen? It is not practical while sitting at a ball game, or out to dinner with friends. Plus, remember that the spammers now employ technologies to help filter out would-be pranksters, making it more difficult to get you connected to a person. This is an arms race that cannot be won by the consumer. This needs to be stopped by the Telco, in the same way that Google blocks spam. They see a much larger part of the universe, and can adapt much more quickly, stopping a much higher volume of the calls before they go through.

    7. Re:How to make them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have done that on occasions when I have some time. What usually happens is you get a live screener who asks a couple questions than forwards you to another sales rep who actually works for a legitimate company that has no idea why you are so upset at them. Apparently "legitimate" companies are paying another agency for sales leads, and a lot of those sales referrals companies are resorting to robocalling to get their leads. The "legitimate" sales rep that I end up with has no idea who is forwarding the sales leads.

      Now, somebody at that company has to know about the sales referral arrangement, if only because they need to pay them if a sale is actually completed. But I have never succeeded in tracking down who the referral agency is. The arrangement seems to be covered by several layers of management providing plausible deniability. So all I can do is report the "innocent" company for violating FCC regulations.

    8. Re:How to make them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever you receive a call from one of these scammers do what you can to talk to a live person. This is what costs them money. When I get a robo-call telling me about pack pain medication or having an import message from my credit card company, I always press whatever button I need to push to seem interested and speak with a representative. Then I keep that person on the phone for as long as possible until they give up and hang up on me.

      If everyone did this, the overhead of these bastards would be too high to keep calling people. At worse, it would make them limit their calls to known suckers.

      If only one person in ten did this on one call out of ten it would kill robocalls and telemarketers as their response rate is 1 in 100. They would be drowned in revenge spam - poetic justice! Play along keep them on the line. There is also http://listofrandomnames.com/ if you really want to screw with them sign up for whatever with fake names, addresses, CC #s

    9. Re:How to make them pay by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      There was an article on Slashdot back in 2016 about a bot called the Jolly Roger Telephone Company that would do just this.

      Jolly Roger Telephone Company

      Driving Robocallers Crazy With The Jolly Roger Bot

      A Bot That Drives Robocallers Insane

  16. Is this a landline thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to get called on my landline, but never had the issue with my cell-phone.

    1. Re:Is this a landline thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      This used to be true for me. In the last year or so however, 99.9% of all incoming calls on my mobile phone are scams and spams. Sometimes they don't even call but go straight to voicemail.

  17. Whitelist by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    I guess in extreme cases (and if your telephone system supports it) you could go to a whitelist system:
    Anyone who wants to call you has to give you HIS number in advance and you enter that number as "may call me" in your system. Anyone else gets blocked.

    For me personally, it is not that bad yet but I have on occasion wished for a service that would block calls with spoofed numbers. Not those where the caller uses his real number, but those using faked numbers.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Whitelist by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Not those where the caller uses his real number, but those using faked numbers.

      A large percentage of the scammers who call me these days use realistic looking numbers. How do you tell the real from the fake just by looking at caller ID?

    2. Re:Whitelist by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Late answer, but in theory the telecom providers could provide such a service. They get the real number as well as the spoofed one.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  18. Wasn't there a push for SHAKEN/STIR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand the full details but wasn't the FCC planning on pushing telecom companies towards implementing SHAKEN/STIR to help cut down on robocalls? Is there merit to do doing this? Costs?

    1. Re:Wasn't there a push for SHAKEN/STIR? by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

      Until Trump came into office, they were.

      Today? I doubt there is any effort at all. Ajit Pai testified to congress on the subject and thought it would be funny to make a joke out of spam callers.

    2. Re:Wasn't there a push for SHAKEN/STIR? by Kvan · · Score: 1

      Pai has threatened regulation if they do not implement it voluntarily. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

  19. Caller ID shows faux number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lot of spoofed numbers with these robo calls as well. Make it look as though its a local number so you'll answer. I've seen some apps that claim they are effective with some of it. I doubt they do much for spoofed numbers and many of these robo calls change numbers a lot. Best of luck to the phone company dealing with it, maybe eventually they can do better at locating the actual location and take legal action.

    1. Re:Caller ID shows faux number by lpq · · Score: 1

      So it's local? Why do I want to answer it?

      Let me blacklist all callers, then permit by number or area.

      2nd: before it rings on my phone, let my answering machine
      pick up and ask them to type in the extension of the person they are
      trying to reach. If they don't know your extension, they don't
      get through.

      There are tons of ways to block unwanted callers, its just that the
      phone company doesn't want to give customers the right to block
      them -- if they did, they'd lose a huge revenue stream from the callers.

  20. screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use Asterisk* to screen calls. Any unknown callerid will be put through purgatory. The caller will be asked to press a number and if entered correctly it will be entered to a whitelist and connected. So any valid caller only has to go through this once and robo-calls are blocked unless they guess a "known", whitelisted callerid.

    1. Re:screening by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Press a number? Or enter a number? One has a 1 in 10 chance of getting through, the other is much lower if the number of digits is allowed to vary.

    2. Re:screening by dead_user · · Score: 1

      Yes, it asks them to press 7, audibly. If there is no response, or a wrong response, the call is dropped. If the response is correct, the call is let through and the number whitelisted. If a scammer gets through, I can STILL add them to the blacklist manually with *31 after I hang up on the call. 99% of the scam bots aren't intelligent enough to respond to a voice prompt for input. So the odds of them guessing correctly are irrelevant if the odds of them guessing at all are against. I will say that I never get those calls at all anymore.

    3. Re:screening by Snotnose · · Score: 2

      Someone you care about has an emergency where they can't use their cellphone. So they borrow someone else's. They call you, you assume it's a scam, and don't answer.

      These assholes have made phones useless, and the only people that can stop it are the telcos. So make the telcos pay for the spam/scam call, problem goes away overnight.

    4. Re:screening by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Adding unwanted robocallers to a blacklist doesn't do any good because they don't ever use the same number twice.

      You might stop 99% of them from getting through with the technique, but only until they adapt... at which point, you will be forced to utilize a more sophisticated means.

      In actuality, I think the only way that robocalling can be controlled is via an independent reverse lookup on an incoming call. If the caller isn't really calling from the number that they say they are, then when you do the reverse lookup, that lookup is going to be querying a different exchange than the one the actual caller is from, so the reverse lookup would fail and you could know that any claimed number is spoofed.

  21. A phone setting to ignore calls from non-contacts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems like something as simple as a (cell)phone setting to ignore calls from non-contacts would make a lot of us happy.
    Everyone I know is already in the habit of ignoring calls from numbers they don't already know.
    If it's a legit call I want, they can leave voicemail, I'll call them back.

  22. Certs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has already been solved on the web using certificates.
    Extend it to phones. You call me and present an invalid or incorrect cert, my phone doesn't event ring.
    Of course, this requires everyone to have a valid cacert.

  23. Phone companies are liars by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Informative

    They manage to find out enough information to make money don't they? Every single call can be traced... if they wanted to trace them. The key is that there is no motivation to do so. It is just easier to allow robo-calls and collect money from a subscriber.

    Every system could implement a technology that when a person receives a robo-call they hang up and immediately dial... say Start or Pound 666... nice number for that shit, and it immediately drops an electronic note to the phone company that the last number that called was a robo. It all goes into a database and now they have at least the exit phone number attached to a business, whether that number is VoIP or Traditional is meaningless. That number itself like an IP address is registered to a business and then you go to that business and tell them... if you keep letting your telephony infrastructure make/forward robocalls we fine you into oblivion or force the telephone company to cut your phone/internet.

    The problem is actually very easy to solve, the problem is political and businesses do not want to lose the revenue robo-calls generate. There really are lots of ways to solve this problem. But it will never be resolved because leaders don't actually care about citizens, they just care about your votes. We all can't be William Webster.

    1. Re:Phone companies are liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea of the underlying technologies and you just blather gut-level bullshit.

    2. Re:Phone companies are liars by pepsikid · · Score: 1

      The phone companies can easily log which tiny minority of their customers are making 50% of all calls and take steps to block them. They probably DO keep tabs on them, but only to maximize their revenues. And revenues come from the marks who received the calls too (in the USA).

    3. Re:Phone companies are liars by Kjella · · Score: 2

      You have no idea of the underlying technologies and you just blather gut-level bullshit.

      Meh, this isn't really about technology at all. Give the FCC the authority to fine $1 per spam call and customers something to dial to report the last call. Issue the fine to the phone company, tell them you can either pass the buck or pay up. Very soon afterwards they'll know what contact point it came from and update their agreements to forward the charges. Eventually that'll trickle down to the end customer who'll probably see this as a $1 start charge that's refunded in say 24 hours unless the caller complains. Throw in an appeals process for callers who make a lot of legal "unwanted" calls like collection agencies to have the fine refunded and the number whitelisted with heavy penalties (perjury?) for abusing it. That would kill phone spam dead.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Phone companies are liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually that'll trickle down to the end customer who'll probably see this as a $1 start charge that's refunded in say 24 hours unless the caller complains.

      This is an awful idea that will hurt prepaid cell phone users (who by the way aren't even capable of spoofing their CallerID).

      The real problem is MNVOs. Just bill the MNVO that originated the call. Done. No need to complicate life for pay-as-you-go users.

    5. Re:Phone companies are liars by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      No, it will not harm the prepaid cell phone users, and is a straw-man post.

      The MNVO's are only part of the problem and only possible because of the "original" problem. If they can get a contract for service from a traditional telco then the telco is also complicit in the problem and specifically why I said that there is no motivation to put and end to the problem because money. It talks and the bullshit walks.

      The telco's are liars because it is good business to lie about this problem. Everyone running mouth about people not understanding the technology are full of the BS and are nothing other than ignorant nay-Sayers looking to act like they know more than they do about the issue or troll for lulz. Liars, hackers, spoofers, and the like are being caught all the time when they finally piss off the right people, which is why I also brought up William Webster in my original post. They can be discovered! And the easiest solution to the problem is to place liability on the telcos for keeping the problem going.

    6. Re:Phone companies are liars by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      The FCC will never attempt to fine the phone companies. A. Ajit Pai works for the telecom industry and B. The phone companies would point out to their purchased ^H^H^H^H duly elected representative that the proposed fine inhibits their right to provide emergency services to millions of americans. C. I expect (just my theory) that they use internet VOIP via anonymous VPN services like TOR. Even if you find one or two of the people responsible for this, how would you disincentivize them or make an example of them? The standard approach would be heavy fines. Not a disincentive when their profit margins are so high.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    7. Re:Phone companies are liars by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Ajit Pai will not last longer than the Trump presidency and this is not a partisan issue. Either the telcos will fix the problem, or they will be fined, or people will eventually stop getting phone service. The only reason I use my phone is to call businesses which don't respond to email in a timely manner. Since all of my friends and family are on chat apps, I have no problem blocking all incoming calls.

      On the other hand, I don't think catching the spammers is all that useful, but if you do manage to catch them, just throw them in jail for a few years. Money isn't that useful if they can't spend it.

  24. Just don't answer by glomph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your phone rings, and you don't know the calling number - just let it go into voicemail. If it's important, they will leave a message which you can retrieve at your convenience (or if like me you use Google Voice, the voicemail is transcribed to quasi-accurate text). Almost always it's some marketing scam. Fuk Them.

    1. Re:Just don't answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's great, unless you're a freelancer or small business and have to answer calls in case it's a customer.

    2. Re:Just don't answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what I have to do and when you check your voicemail once a day and there's 12 silent "messages" and no real messages, it gets old pretty fast.

      I'd prefer if unknown numbers had to enter a passcode. If they enter the correct code, my phone rings and if I don't answer they have a chance to leave voicemail. If they don't provide the passcode, the call is dropped without ever ringing my phone and there is no opportunity to leave voicemail.

    3. Re:Just don't answer by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I don't want it to even alert me unless the person is in my contacts list.

    4. Re:Just don't answer by glomph · · Score: 1

      I would be all for this, but sometimes I interact with a website which insists that I receive a call to get a 2FA code. Or similar.

      But in general, yeah, fukk'em.

    5. Re:Just don't answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or if like me you use Google Voice, the voicemail is transcribed to quasi-accurate text). Almost always it's some marketing scam. Fuk Them.

      You use Google voice, so even your non-robo calls are being transcribed/logged by Google for more marketing purposes.

      Good job... (?)

    6. Re:Just don't answer by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If they had that feature, you could turn it on and off for times you were expecting a call.

    7. Re:Just don't answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "solution" works great when you are looking for a job.

    8. Re:Just don't answer by fgouget · · Score: 1

      If your phone rings, and you don't know the calling number - just let it go into voicemail.

      By doing so you're helping them save money as they don't have to pay someone just to talk to you.

  25. Useless Channels by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Notice that people have been moving away from phone calls and email for years now. Robocalls/spam are a large part of the reason why. If those old systems aren't capable of stopping the crapflood, then people will move to systems that are.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  26. Re:A phone setting to ignore calls from non-contac by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    Pretty much this. It's surprising how much education I've had to do with people about leaving a damned voicemail, though. I have mobile service through Verizon; the fact that the caller hears the phone "ringing" doesn't mean that my phone is actually ringing. The only way I know for sure that you called is if you leave a voicemail. Doesn't have to be long. "Hey, demonlapin, this is Dave. Call me back, got a quick question for you."

  27. Listen, then answer while caller leaves message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend had this on her phone: When I called her, a recording would warn me that she was on the do-no-call list, so it was a federal offense to bother her with ads. If my call is not an ad, then please leave a message.

    While I left my message, she would listen to me. Since she recognized me, she would answer the call, interrupting my leaving a message with "Hi, I'm here."

    That's the way to do it. You answer the phone only if it's not spam. And since most spam callers don't leave a message, she wasn't bothered by too many "missed call" messages.

  28. 128-bit phone numbers by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only way keeping your phone number a secret might reduce spam calls is if the current successor to NANPA (Neustar?) takes a currently-unused areacode, then uses it as the prefix for a random 40-digit phone number (approx. number of decimal digits in the largest unsigned 128-bit value), then allows consumers to link an unlimited number of randomly-picked numbers to your "real" one (and allow you to know what number an incoming call dialed, so you could program your phone to ignore incoming calls to your "real" number, but allow incoming calls to one of your incoming 40-digit numbers to ring).

    Then, whenever you had to give someone "your number", you'd peel an unused 40-digit number from the metaphorical stack & give it to them (probably, via an app running on your phone).

    If a specific incoming number of yours started attracting too many junk calls, you could unceremoniously nuke it & unlink it from your real number. Likewise, since you'd give a unique inbound number to everyone, you could do 'traitor tracking' & punish businesses that failed to safeguard your number.

    Random dialing would cease to work, because a robocaller could literally try random numbers for HOURS before hitting a valid one... especially if the system were designed to detect and frustrate such attempts.

    The same service could reserve the shorter numbers (say, 12-16 digits) for more public purposes. Say, I might buy a 16-digit number & post it to social media after linking it to a service that charges callers $20 to complete the call (if I answer) & pays ME $15 for answering it if I agree to talk to the caller for at least a minute. We could ALL have the equivalent of 1990s-era 900/976 numbers to give out to the public & use dollars as a tool for screening our calls. I might even set up one number with a $5 charge explicitly FOR telemarketers to call me at, agreeing to give them 5 minutes of my time in exchange for paying me to listen.

    Or... I could point one number to a bot that answers the call, then makes the caller play "Simon Says" & spend 10-20 minutes answering captcha-like puzzles for the privilege of making my phone ring (or the privilege of leaving me a message) for free.

    1. Re: 128-bit phone numbers by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Building on random-dialing prevention, they could set aside all the 40-digit numbers so that attempting to dial an invalid number cost the caller 10 cents, but dialing a valid number was free. That alone would quickly reduce random dialing by telemarketers by destroying the profitability of dialing random numbers.

    2. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just ignore the fucking phone calls unless it is from someone you know.

      And since I can control what ringtones I hear, all spam calls are silent if not in my address book.

      Obviously the fail here is when they start using your known contacts that were leaked out by social media and other parasites. By that time I will end taking phone calls completely.

    3. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random dialling would cease to work - for about six months, until new processes were developed to scrape and use the new numbers.

      The bottom line is, a lot of people don't want or outright can't afford to keep their phone numbers secret. If you want people to call you, you need to give them your number. And having given it to them, how do you stop other people from getting hold of it?

      No, the sensible option is mentioned in an earlier thread: a small, fixed charge per call completed. The moment the recipient (or a machine) picks up the call, the caller's carrier must pay 5c to the receiver's carrier. Simple and effective.

      A similar solution would work for spam email. All that's stopping us is an inherent reluctance to pay for something that we're accustomed to being "free". But isn't paying to use simpler and fairer than paying to block, which is what we do now?

    4. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bottom line is, a lot of people don't want or outright can't afford to keep their phone numbers secret. If you want people to call you, you need to give them your number. And having given it to them, how do you stop other people from getting hold of it?

      You could have tried actually reading what you're replying to.

      The answer is straight forward, if someone gives out the unique number for you that you gave to them, it gets revoked and they are never given a new one.

      You mention spam email as well, yet the very solution you replied to that you claim is "impossible" is *exactly* the setup I use with my email.
      I will not get more than one spam from any given entity assigned a unique address from me, and that one spam is exactly what triggers revoking that unique address preventing future spam from them and anyone they shared it with.

      The reason such a solution isn't going to happen with the phone network isn't a technical or practical one, it is because the phone networks get the vast majority of their income from spam/robo calls and they have no interest in stopping that income.

    5. Re: 128-bit phone numbers by PPH · · Score: 1

      The phone company could easily plant a few honeypot numbers in each exchange. Land on one of those and it's $9.95 plus $4.99 per additional minute. They'd be earning that fee, so there's their motivation

      Trouble is, I suspect that people dialing in through a VoIP gateway have some means of hiding their origin on the Internet side. And some poor gateway provider will get saddled with the charges. Which might not be all bad, as I suspect that gateways that do not authenticate properly will get hit and be motivated to tighten up their access and TOS.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > Obviously the fail here is when they start using your known contacts that were leaked out by social media and other parasites

      That's the beauty of giving everyone a different number to call you at... if the phonebook of a friend or relative gets inhaled by malware, all that's been compromised is LITERALLY a single phone number used by exactly one person to call you. It's a lot easier to nuke a number used by only one person to contact you and give them a new number to reach you at than to change your One and Only phone number and update everyone ELSE to use it instead.

      This is why I started using adhoc email aliases more than 15 years ago... everyone who emails me gets a different address to reach me at. Part of my reason for starting to use adhoc aliases was precisely the fact that people like my dad kept getting their addressbooks vacuumed up by malware and ruining my email addresses by disclosing them to spammers. The solution was to limit the scope of damage from any one addressbook-slurping to an address used by exactly one person. If a business extorts my email address from me and starts spamming me, I don't have to bother asking them to stop emailing me... I just add the alias to my mail server's nuke list, and future email from them gets blackholed directly to /dev/null.

      As an alternative, they could possibly extend SS7 so that it uses the first {n} digits to ROUTE the call, but PRESERVES and PASSES ALONG an additional {x} digits as the tail end of the caller ID string so people could treat those additional digits as customer-defined routing codes, inbound-ring passwords, whatever. It would only be used by tech-savvy users for a few years, but eventually someone like Apple or Verizon would start selling services to intercept inbound calls and decide how to handle them based upon the additional digits dialed along with the number itself. The only catch to make THIS work would be the need for a federal regulation requiring that any business that DEMANDS the disclosure of a phone number be capable of accepting registrations with the additional digits (put another way, a shitty web site that just wants a phone number for no specific reason and doesn't actually REQUIRE you to provide a number could still get away with only allowing 10-digit numbers, but someone like Domino's, Uber, Citibank, or whatever who won't allow you to proceed with registration or an order without disclosing a valid phone number would be required by law to accept those long numbers).

    7. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, whenever you had to give someone "your number", you'd peel an unused 40-digit number from the metaphorical stack & give it to them (probably, via an app running on your phone).

      You're ignoring the fact that not everyone uses phones capable of running apps. My mother and sisters don't have a smart phone, I don't have one either, the elderly women down the street who calls me at least once a week to ask if I can bring something for her from the grocery hasn't got a mobile phone or a computer.

      Please focus on solutions that work for everyone.

    8. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > Please focus on solutions that work for everyone.

      Nothing EVER literally works for "everyone"... but if you really want to be pedantic about it, the app is for user convenience.

      If push really came to shove, even somebody with a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... could call their telephone service provider's customer service number to generate and obtain another batch of 10-25 40-digit numbers assigned to their phone and write them down on a page of the phone's paper "phone book" using its included pencil... crossing them off the list (ideally, with a note indicating whom they assigned the number to) as they use them one by one.

      Or, someone could buy a million randomly-generated phone numbers, print them into 10,000 booklets of LITERAL "one time pads" with 100 of those numbers apiece, and provide a customer service number on the back that the purchaser could call to instantly associate the 100 numbers in that book with their "real" phone number. Maybe print 5 numbers per credit card sized perforated tear-off sheet, so the buyer could rip of a sheet at a time & carry it in their wallet to use as the need for a number arises.

      The point is, it's 2019, and even someone who's dirt poor can buy a piece of shit throw-away Android phone at Walmart for $30... or get one that's practically free from a pail at a flea market or Goodwill store.

      There you have it... an entire spectrum suitable for 99% of people who care enough about avoiding unwanted calls to at least lift a finger and do something about it, ranging all the way from convenient apps to numbers written on scraps of paper.

    9. Re:128-bit phone numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just almost described IPv6 and the rightly called Privacy Extensions (RFC 4941). Your own prefix is 48 or 56 bits long in general, and you can choose whatever IP you want in it.

    10. Re: 128-bit phone numbers by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      I think the IPv6 privacy extension goes a step further & shares a short privacy prefix among a large number of the ISP's users... so you, as the customer, would get TWO prefixes:

      * a 48-64 bit prefix that's either fixed, or at least infrequently-changing

      * a much longer prefix with a much shorter lease, from among a short prefix shared by a large number of users, to use for tasks like anonymous web-browsing.

      That said, I think I remember reading that many US ISPs currently take the middle ground... they assign a 56-64 bit prefix, and have a web proxy available for customers to optionally use for privacy-sensitive traffic that does address-scrambling. I think the push for doing it at the IP level is to satisfy government logging requirements. With the proxy approach, the ISP has to log (and retain) literally every http request (or at least, the origin, destination, and timestamp). With the IP approach, the ISP only has to log the IP assignments (lowering the compliance storage burden enormously).

    11. Re: 128-bit phone numbers by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The phone company could easily plant a few honeypot numbers in each exchange. Land on one of those and it's $9.95 plus $4.99 per additional minute.

      So, a 40 digit phone number and a potential $10 charge for a wrong number. It's like you want to give money to the phone company.

      There are enough wrong numbers with just 7 or 10 digits (and 3-6 of them usually predictable), you think needing to dial 40 correct digits in a row is going to be a solution to any problem and not a huge problem all by itself?

  29. You mean we can't stop them with our laws by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure that if we had the CIA rendition third worlders who pretend to be federal agents it would stop really fucking quick when Pajeet starts thinking "I might disappear to a black site if I make that call and pretend to be IRS Agent Jack Stone."

  30. There are plenty of ways to slow them down by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    If the cellular carriers actually cared.

    They could use their monitoring tools to track call levels by number, and assign weights to the caller based on call frequency during a time period.

    After weights were assigned to numbers, the carriers could create an "alternate billing rate" for calls originating from those numbers. The actual numbers, not a spoofed caller-id...

    Many people don't actually make many calls, it's all texts and other IM services.

    Someone could create audio captchas for incoming calls to ferret out robocalls.

    Send callers that are not in your contact list directly to voicemail. Don't even ring your phone.

    It would be nice to able to set up your voicemail to wait for 10+ rings in your settings) it could slow them down even more.

      If it's important, they can leave a message.

    1. Re:There are plenty of ways to slow them down by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They could use their monitoring tools to track call levels by number, and assign weights to the caller based on call frequency during a time period.

      So spammers do exactly what they already do, just more often: change the spoofed number they use.

      Send callers that are not in your contact list directly to voicemail. Don't even ring your phone.

      I haven't decided which is more annoying. 1) Pulling the phone out of my pocket and seeing three missed calls from different, valid-looking numbers or 2) seeing the voicemail notification icon and calling to retrieve them just to hear tele-scams. No, I've decided -- the voicemail is much more annoying.

      If it's important, they can leave a message.

      Every telescammer thinks their message is important, and many of them do leave messages. A much larger waste of time than just a missed call.

  31. how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Require by law, telcom operators to verify the phone number of the caller is correct. Forget caller ID, just let me block the damn scammers phone number.

  32. simplest "unsolvable" problem in human history by epine · · Score: 1

    You just need a system to credit the person called by ten cents for every call received from the originating party (whether answered, or not).

    Even better if each phone owner can establish his or her own price. I'd probably set mine my inbound threshold at 25 cents to see how that goes, initially.

    Mostly these small tithes would just slosh back and forth and be largely a wash for many people.

    But somehow you need to make sure that your phone company doesn't install a tollbooth and then take a bite of 50% or more on every transaction (which they will surely justify as as a necessary economic response to the lower call volumes).

    1. Re:simplest "unsolvable" problem in human history by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Even better if each phone owner can establish his or her own price. I'd probably set mine my inbound threshold at 25 cents to see how that goes, initially.

      How do you propose notifying the caller of the price you've set for the privilege of calling your esteemed self? I know: "You've reached the bank account of epine. If you agree to a $1 charge to talk to epine, please press '314'".

      So I'm calling to tell you that the faucet on the front of your house is broken and spewing water, you might want to check it out. You want $1 for the privilege of helping you? Screw that ...

      Mostly these small tithes would just slosh back and forth and be largely a wash for many people.

      No, there will always be self-entitled people who put a huge charge on their incoming calls to unbalance the system.

      (which they will surely justify as as a necessary economic response to the lower call volumes).

      They can easily justify it based on the increased costs of providing this service to you, and handling the money involved. They'd also have to deal with nonsense of people who choose a ridiculous charge on every incoming call and then demand that every incoming call result in money for them, even if the phone company cannot determine who to charge for it.

  33. American Problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it. i live in Switzerland and my phone number is in the directory and on the equivalent of our do-not-call list, which is more of a gentlemen's agreement. However, I hardly ever get any ad/scam calls if I filter call center numbers (there's an app for that). I never got a call without a human at the other end. Why is this a Problem overseas?

  34. make it illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    problem solved

  35. The Phone Companies Can Solve Robocalls Overnight by pepsikid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Robocalls CAN BE STOPPED.

    It's the phone companies who can't be stopped! From letting 50% of all calls come from a tiny minority of customers and not flag that as suspicious behavior. And remember, in the USA they charge the chump receiving the call as well. We should end that, how bow dah?

  36. Five years, uh huh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. Context independent speech recognition that actually works is also five years away. Along with 'not killbot' self driving cars and Mr. Fusion...

  37. Or: just charge per call by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    it should cost 5 cents for every call placed. The money would go to the carrier of the person receiving the call and taken from the carrier of the person making the call. It would be up to each carrier to decide how to bill or refund the money to keep this simple.

    I can easily afford 5 cents a call (note not 5 cents a minute). And Likely they would reimburse me an other casual callers, just not industrial scale ones.

    This way no one has to actively do anything, like report a call. It just snuffs out the tragedy of the commons with a trivial fee.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Or: just charge per call by glomph · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are describing ALMOST ALL of the world. Other than in Trumpistan, it DOES cost 5 cents/min (or so) to call a mobile phone.

      In The Land of Freedom, the recipient pays to receive a robo-call (or any call).

      Don't you just love your corporate kleptocracy?

    2. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh thanks for the explanation. I was wondering what the difference was between US and AUS. Yup making the caller pay is a much better idea.

    3. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who still pays per-minute charges for calls? In any case charging the caller to call a mobile phone is ridiculous. The recipient is the one who is using the mobile network for their phone, not the caller (assuming they are calling from a landline or internet). Should I be charged $15/min to call someone on a satellite phone? What about charging me a portion of Slashdot's bandwidth costs to visit their site? If you have a mobile phone then you are responsible for the cost of making the wireless connection to the PSTN and I am responsible for the costs of my connection.

    4. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a great idea, but less profitable.

    5. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. You are the one calling. That dude didn't ask you to call him on his satellite phone you asshole. You call, you pay. If you know him well enough you'll know he is using one and can decide if it's worth calling. If you don't then calling it once in a long while doesn't matter. Or if you don't know him and is calling all the time ...... you really are an asshole or a robo caller...

    6. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly are you going to charge a VOIP call made from China?

    7. Re:Or: just charge per call by smi.james.th · · Score: 4, Informative

      As much as I enjoy your mindless Trump bashing, you realise that this has been the case in the US since the very beginning? It's not as though Donald had anything to do with this particular eccentricity of the American infrastructure.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    8. Re:Or: just charge per call by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I never get a spam call on my cellphone. It costs them too much.

      I don't ask you to call my mobile either, that's your choice that you made, so you pay for it.

    9. Re:Or: just charge per call by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      the VOIP call has to enter a portal somewhere. That's the point where the charge is accessed. No payment no portal entry for Voip.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    10. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you just have flat rate mobile phone service and nobody pays any extra money for that call.

    11. Re: Or: just charge per call by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Someone is always paying for it. Just because there aren't any per minute charges, doesn't mean it doesn't get factored into the cost of the service.

    12. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is AUS, all mobile numbers start with 04... The US should adopt a similar strategy. Rouse who don't want robocalls just use there cell number... and bingo...too expensive for robocallers.

    13. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are all paying for spam email, too, since it takes up so much band width.

    14. Re:Or: just charge per call by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, you people don't pay to make calls, but pay to *receive* them? Holy crap your country really is backwards. Do you get paid when you gas up your car?

      How the hell did this happen? And how did it only happen in the past two years?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    15. Re: Or: just charge per call by jlar · · Score: 1

      I am stunned that it is the reverse in the US. Sounds pretty stupid to me. And here in Denmark we don't get robocalls either.

    16. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because US phone companies decided it was a smart idea to mix in mobile phones and landlines in the same numbering space, so there is no way for the caller to know which kind they're calling. But they still wanted to charge a premium for mobile calls.

      So US mobile phone users pay the mobile surplus part of the cost for receiving calls, while everywhere else in the world mobile numbers have a separate prefix and the caller pays. Yes, it's stupid and backwards, just like so much else about the US.

    17. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's gotten worse though. I don't speak out of experience, just what I catch in this kind of outlets (and Jon Oliver). There is someone who can fix it, but he doesn't seem willing. That person is appointed by the Orange Prime.

    18. Re: Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5ct/min is a lot. In Europe it is much cheaper usually. Asia also.

    19. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is was a possible fix then I guess neither Bush nor Obama appointed anyone to fix it either, right?

      So what is this fix you speak of that President Trump is purposefully withholding?

    20. Re: Or: just charge per call by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I get spam calls on my cell phone daily.

      I know they are spam as they start with my phone's area code - and three digit exchange.

      I don't live in that area or do business there. So it is automatically spam.

      The best I got was when my spam spoofing caller used my number to call me.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:Or: just charge per call by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      It's gotten worse though. I don't speak out of experience, just what I catch in this kind of outlets (and Jon Oliver). There is someone who can fix it, but he doesn't seem willing. That person is appointed by the Orange Prime.

      But that'd be Ajit Pai's fault, for being unwilling, not Trump

    22. Re:Or: just charge per call by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      They change phone numbers quicker than many people change their under ware. Catching them involves a bit more. Pretend to go through with the deal and get their phone number and location or delivery address or make an appointment for them to come do their thing such as a carpet cleaning solicitation. When they show up record all that you can and get the plate numbers off of their vehicles. Now you have a way to get at them. Police may not be at all helpful but a lawyer might get quite a few settlements for people who fight back like this.

    23. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, the 5 cents goes to the person receiving the call. That way it is (more or less) a zero sum for "normal" phone users.

    24. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it should cost 5 cents for every call placed.

      One cent per call would suffice to shut down robos.. Alas, the cost of doing either would likely swamp the amount of money transferred.

    25. Re:Or: just charge per call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I enjoy your mindless Trump bashing, you realize that this has been the case in the US since the very beginning? It's not as though Donald had anything to do with this particular eccentricity of the American infrastructure.

      Trump is symptom of basically the rot that has pervaded well all over. He is not the cause, though he is effective at making things worse. He is a product of various coalitions, some intersecting, some not. It is actually quite sad to hear many apparently religious people make so many excuses to excuse well, evil, simply because he is doing some of what they want. The other common Trumpism is "The others are to blame" That can be democrats, muslims, or mexicans. He doesn't care. It's just using "Mob at the Gates" (Robert Reich) as an excuse to avoid addressing actual problems. In short many realize and cheer on as he continues to burn order to fuel his sick quest for power.

      Trump is not the cause of crappy infrastructure, nor will impeaching him fix anything, save at the edges. It requires a lot of people working towards solutions and making sure they get implemented. That being said, Trump is likely almost enough, by himself to block progress on any number of real solutions.

      For instance, various robocalls made by shady groups could help flip elections, true or not. Do you really think Trump would take the smallest risk that might reduce his chances of getting reelected, and thus staying out of possible jail?

  38. Or they could just charge more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an economic problem that they could solve just by disallowing bulk discounts and setting a minimum price per call, can't my rear end.

    They should also disallow connections from any source that does not guarantee caller id, or at least give users the ability to block all such calls. I know that they want to allow companies for example to "call on behalf" possibly from within a different network than the customer they are calling on behalf of, and this is what complicates the caller ID, but the gains do not justify having the current system at all. Between making phones unusable, or dropping a niche feature, which is the best choice? As the phone companies have a surprising amount of regulatory support, and a near monopoly/duopoly in many states, the idea that they cant change this is a insult not a joke they are just being lazy to the point of their own destruction.

  39. communication needs a cost by hdyoung · · Score: 1

    I've said this before, and for some reason tons of people take offense at this idea, but the only solution that I can see is to charge for communication. What I want is a cell phone number and an email that's linked to a bank account. You want to call, text or email me? It's gonna cost you about 5 cents, per communication. Money into my account. Up front. You want to talk to me, you gotta have a real identity, a real bank account in a reputable country and the ability and will to transfer a token amount of money to me.

    Nobody who counts will balk at 5 pennies but no scammer or spammer is gonna cough up that much per person. It will shut their business model down cold. Overnight. My phone will stop ringing off the hook with trash calls and my email won't need a spam filter. My friends, colleagues and I will have cleaner lines of communication. Everyone who matters at all wins.

    I understand that this would be a 2-way street. I'm willing to pay similar to send things to others. I wouldn't be making money at this.

    1. Re:communication needs a cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get spam emails that tell me that they guessed my password. Messages originally contained password, that was not mine, but have moved on to not including it. To prove that they did it, they put my email address in sender field. They include request for $1000 to be set to bitcoin account.

      I check out account sometimes. They actually have balance. Someone is doing it. At $0.05 per mail, it would need to be a rate better than 1/20000. They could lower price and probably get better return.

      People need to be smarter. Idiots and elderly people paying scammers and buying scam products is why we get these calls and messages.

  40. Straining Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and evade penalties because they can mask the true origins of their calls...."

    5+ years past Snowden and we are still supposed to believe that if someone perpetrated an anthrax attack and used the above scammer technique that the full force of the US military/nsa/cia couldn't track down the origin of the call.

    Seriously, just imagine if the government reallocated 5% of the DEA's operational capacity at the problem of hunting down these scammers with the same veracity they target big scale drug dealers. Are we really supposed to believe the DEA would be thwarted by the current spoofing tech used by the current robocall scam masters? Really?

  41. "Unstoppable" problem only exists in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very few, if any, other countries have a robo-call problem. It's just the crazy screwed-up ultra-deregulated pro-capitalist system you people have that lets the phone companies enable this shit.

  42. Intelligent people can be really stupid sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guard your phone number like your credit card numbers? Doesn't he realize that most people need to accept calls from strangers? How are the strangers supposed to know the number to call if you don't give it to them? A phone number isn't secret information. The few people who only want to be called by people they know can send all calls from phone numbers which aren't in their phone book directly to voicemail or reject the calls outright, and sure, they can keep their phone numbers "secret", but their friends and acquaintances won't. The rest will have to deal with robocalls as a fact of life. Robocalls aren't as big of a problem in other countries, btw, where the caller pays for both legs of the call and calls to mobile numbers are more expensive.

  43. If the average is 50% by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

    then there are a lot of people who never get them, to make up for how many I get. For me, it's one real call for every 20 or so robocalls.

    Got a comical one last week - deep male voice, saying, "Hi, this is Barbara with the Visa/Mastercard Alert system..."

  44. When will the phone system become useless by CaroKann · · Score: 1

    If this becomes as bad as email spam has become, then it will make the US phone system completely useless. People will simply stop answering their phone unless it is a number they know. However, sometimes you do have to take a call from a number you don't recognize, such as for a delivery or a call from a doctor or small business. When people stop taking those calls, then how will these companies reach their customers?

    1. Re:When will the phone system become useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've already done this.

  45. This paper is a scam by cullenfluffyjennings · · Score: 1

    The referenced paper cost $33 to download and it is pretty much shit - there are good reasons why none of what it proposes will work. The abstract of the paper does not even hint and what the paper is about. Yes we should work on robo calling - follow the work of people like Professor Henning Schulzrinne at Columbia university.

  46. Wapo reporter = idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has been asking U.S. phone companies to filter calls and police their own systems to keep out robo-calls. It hasn't worked, mainly because it's too costly and technically difficult for phone companies to do that. It's hard to detect fake Caller ID information, and wrongly blocking a legitimate call could cause them legal problems.

    If it's so fucking difficult for telcos to know who is terminating calls on their network, how in the world do they figure out who to bill?

  47. Captchas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make captchas on phones. At least option

  48. It's trivial to stop by Solandri · · Score: 1

    the Federal Communications Commission has been asking U.S. phone companies to filter calls and police their own systems to keep out robo-calls. It hasn't worked, mainly because it's too costly and technically difficult for phone companies to do that. It's hard to detect fake Caller ID information, and wrongly blocking a legitimate call could cause them legal problems.

    No it's not. The phone companies don't depend on caller ID. They know exactly who is making the call - that's how they know to bill them, or to allow the call to go through if the subscriber has an unlimited calling plan. The problem is they're refusing to share that info with the number being called. The reason they won't share is because the robocallers and telemarketers constitute a substantial percentage of their revenue. And they're afraid that if they let us filter out those calls, that revenue will dry up.

    The end-game here is pretty obvious - the end of the POTS (plain old telephone system). It's not like email where you can scan the entire message before putting it in the inbox, thus filtering out spam emails. A phone call actually has to be connected before you can scan its content to filter it out. Meaning either the person has to manually answer and filter out the calls, or we'd have to develop some sort of sophisticated voice recognition voicemail system which would be annoying for legitimate calls to navigate through (would you make phone calls if you had to complete a captcha before each call?). Instead, what's more likely is that we won't have phone numbers anymore. Everyone will instead have some sort of Internet identifier. All phone calls will be VoIP calls. Your ID will probably use some sort of private/public key system so others cannot spoof a call pretending to be you. There will be public whitelists of known good callers (people and businesses) which you can load into your phone, and the phone will allow calls from those numbers to go through. If an ID somehow gets hijacked by telemarketers, it'll be reported and blacklisted within a few hundred if not a few dozen calls, and the telemarketer won't be able to get through to anyone using that ID.

    The phone companies will have put themselves out of business by not addressing the spam and telemarketer problem.

    1. Re:It's trivial to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for business purposes, phone calling will or already is going the way of snail mail. For casual communications there are already many other options that exceed what the phone call can do. Thankfully USPS implemented informed delivery so you can see when something of interest comes in the mail. Unless there is something of interest or a package I am expecting i now just leave my mail box to overflow with the bulk rate crap that the USPS delivers.

      Thankfully for now our SMS inbox hasn't begun to look our email inboxes. Im sure with time that will change. Perhaps soon you'll see more and more people just going with data only SIMs for their phones, and using something along the lines of google voice for the rare real phone call that needs to be done.

    2. Re:It's trivial to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The end in the USA perhaps. As other have stated above, in most countries robocalls are really not a problem. In Australia recently it made national news when Clive Palmer sent SMS spam to a few people.

  49. I block spam calls by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    I use nomorobo on my land line - works well. On my cell phone I use Call Blocker by Vlad Lee. It blocks all calls from numbers not in my contacts or whitelist. Blocked calls can leave a voicemail.

  50. "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're a liar, Bill.

  51. I want extension numbers added by thogard · · Score: 1

    I think all numbers should get 5 extra digits. Let the PBX or mobile phone decided which of the 100,000 extra numbers to answer and let the rest go to a voice mail system. That would make my phone useful as a voice device again and end the scams.

  52. SIT tones by emil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is far easier to place a SIT tone sequence at the start of your voicemail. The technique is shockingly effective. https://lifehacker.com/trick-a...

    1. Re: SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not. It's a transitional thing when they changed over some of the exchanges to fiber

    2. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done this, and it doesn't work. It may have worked in the past when calls were legitimate and call centers were designed for such, but it doen't work for me. Also, half the calls are spoofed as numbers from my local exchange in the hope that I'll think it's a local call; so, blocking numbers doesn't work anymore. My telephone provider (FIOS) does mark some calls as "SPAM?" on my caller ID, but not all spam calls are marked as such.

    3. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The website points to a dead link.
      Nice try asshat.

    4. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a solution that stops working as soon as it becomes popular since the scammers will account for it.

    5. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any caller id beginning with my area code and prefix is immediately ignored by me as I know it is spam. After that I've added a device on my landline that allows me to whitelist some numbers, but if not whitelisted it states the message "Press 0 to leave a message and you will be called back". It doesn't allow callers to click through but if they leave a message I can then whitelist them if appropriate.

    6. Re:SIT tones by Angeret · · Score: 1

      It may not have been dead when the person last visited so there's no need to go off on one just because it doesn't work now. Is it *really* that hard to type "SIT tone" into Google?

    7. Re: SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just recently wondered if SIT tones still worked. Anyhow I'm relying on a layered approach at home. I use simultaneous ring to ring my home and NoMoRobo numbers. NoMoRobo will disconnect a call if it is known to be spam. The house phone rings once when this occurs, or used to.

      I recently replaced out aging home phone with on that has a call screening feature. If I haven't added a number to the directory on the phone as approved the caller is required to say their name and press #. Once they have done this my phone rings and announced the caller name. I have the option to answer once, answer and add as approved, or reject.

      My cell is similar using the provider's call blocking coupled with a call filtering app to help block numbers. Ideally I could block anything not in my contacts, but that feature doesn't exist yet it seems.

    8. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried this on my voicemail with no noticeable effect. For several years, I also used a device called the TeleZapper, which plays a SIT every time you answer the phone. All it did was confuse legitimate callers. I don't think most robocall systems pay any attention to SITs.

      I started using a VOIP service provider that allows me to create an IVR menu and whitelists. Callers that I haven't manually added to my whitelist are asked to press a number before connecting. Robocall systems don't understand how to press the button, and it's stopped them with 100% success. This technique would obviously be trivial to defeat, but fortunately not enough people use it for robocall system operators to bother defeating it for now.

      My cell phone is another matter, since I don't have a way to answer calls to it with an IVR system. The only way I've been able to get some peace is to turn on Android's do not disturb feature and set it to only allow known contacts to ring my phone.

    9. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:SIT tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tone has explanation and sample tones

  53. The obvious solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is to charge the call originator 1 cent per call.

  54. Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lot of robocalls I get are because I signed up for something at least tangentially related to the purpose of the call. Usually they apologize and ask if they can send direct mail or email. I don't see any point in chewing out some Indian or college kid. I have a friend who really likes to lay into these people and make them cry. It's funny when it's a really ill-behaved company but why react more than necessary and waste your time distressing some poor slob making minimum wage?

  55. It is actually trivial to stop this by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I had written up some patents for going after spam as well.
    Simply have customers enter a *number AFTER spam call. While you and I see DiD # (ones that the customers use), the phone company gets a LOT more data. Then once say 100 phone calls from a single number over a day have entered *#. block that # for a day.
    TO makes this work fast, have all of the western phone companies cooperate to a central DB. Once they get 100 spread over all of them, then shut down that line. The cost of this coming from places like India, China, Russia, North Korea, will become WAY too expensive in a hurry. After all, paying for a high speed connection is still expensive.
    And for those stupid enough to do this from western lines, they should all be turned over to FBI.

    But, I doubt that CLECs/ILECS will be in a hurry to do this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  56. Waste their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My family call me on whatsapp, not my phone
    Work colleagues are whitelisted on my phone
    Everyone else gets to leave a voicemail, or gets put on hold infinitely while I find the person they need to talk to

  57. stopping robocalls by ddyer · · Score: 1

    Guarding your phone number doesn't work. They literally call every number, they don't care whose it is. Robocalls would be stopped cold is phone calls transferred a dime from the caller to the callee. Or a penny. Robocalls are only economically viable if calls are free to make.

  58. Re:Yes we can, but not with asterisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're assuming the caller ID values are correct. They're not. They're whatever the caller wants them to be. That's why they all come from your same area code and 3-digit prefix now: xxx-yyy-####. There are only 10,000 numbers, so if you know 100 people in your area code and you get 10 robocalls/day, they're going to guess someone you know once every 10 days on average.

    That's what needs to change: don't let a call onto the network unless it is "allowed" to set the callerID that it's using (e.g. rep of company XYZ is calling from a private extension, but the callerID shows the main 800 number).

  59. Re: Yes we can, but not with asterisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't really matter. Most likely they do not guess a number which is already whitelisted.

  60. So who the fuck answers their phone anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its a number you don't recognize? Yeah, only fuckng morons.

  61. Bullshit by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    You know WHO they are. break limbs.

  62. Horse Hockey by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Who knows where the calls come from? The phone company. Who makes money for each call placed? The phone company.

    Let me file a complaint that a call was bogus, and if shown true I get $1. This will cost the phone company money, seeing as they are the only ones that can fix the problem they will suddenly be motivated to fix the problem.

    I only wish my scam calls were 50%, I'm pushing close to 90%. Not because I get more of them than most, but most of my communication is via text messages nowdays.

    1. Re:Horse Hockey by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Who knows where the calls come from? The phone company. Who makes money for each call placed? The phone company.

      The originating phone company.

      Let me file a complaint that a call was bogus, and if shown true I get $1.

      Who pays the $1? How do you prove that a call was "bogus"? Do you record every call, including all associated caller ID data? If the call starts "we're calling you back about your recent request for pain relief braces...", how do you prove that you never contacted anyone about pain relief braces?

      This will cost the phone company money

      The destination phone company.

  63. Easy solution for "land" lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In eight years we have not got a robocall call on our "land" line. This is a VOIP connection provided by a service (voip.ms) that permits setting up a virtual PBX. I set the service to answer, "You have reached.... If you are a telemarketer, hang up now, otherwise press one to continue."

  64. 100% preventable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution is simple: A phone company KNOWS what numbers you have from them. If you try to pass caller ID info that is not from one of the numbers you should be legitimately using, the call gets dropped. All calls now show the actual number that's registered and you can trace that back to group doing the spam/scam calls and bring legal action on them.

    If you actually have legitimate reason to spoof caller ID, you get a permit to do so.

    There is absolutely no reason phone companies couldn't stop practically all robots-calls if they wanted to basically overnight. They don't want to because the scammers pay them to make the calls, and they can then charge you for services to stop the scammers. It is in the corporation interests to let them continue on.

  65. Re:Yes we can, but not with asterisk by glomph · · Score: 0

    What needs to change is the billing model - outside of Trumpistan, the caller pays a few cents/min to call a mobile phone. Why the fukk is it different in the land of caravan attacks?

    #Corporate_Kleptocracy

  66. Obvious Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU citizens are a lot smarter than most Americans, so scammers don't try.

  67. I pay for MY phone and NEED to answer it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who has relatives with medical issues, and needs to be reachable 24/7 by those relatives in order to help them, NEEDS to answer the phone at any time day or night. I personally have my phone on me every minute of the year, and with the ringer ON.

    I pay for the damned phone, and NOT so some moron can robo-dial me to try to sell my a time share in the Bahamas or offer me a free trip if I just show up for some get rich quick seminar.

    I cannot screen my calls with caller ID - the relatives I am attentive to are elderly and, for reasons I'll not go into here, do not always call from predictable whitelistable phone numbers.

    WHERE did YOU get the idea that other people have some God-given right to abuse me by calling MY telephone (which I purchased) on MY telephone line, which I pay for? I'm even paying the extra fee to be unlisted, but that obviously does not stop a robo-dialer that dials random or sequential numbers.

  68. A few hit teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Setup a few hit teams, and use them, that will stop it

  69. Recycled numbers known to collection agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently moved to a different town and was assigned a new (obviously recycled) land-line phone number. This number gets multiple robo calls per day (if I pick up the phone I get silence) from collection agencies leaving threating voice mails for people I don't know. Fortunately I have a phone with call block capabilty, but each week I have to block a couple more numbers, so at some point I will run out of space to store new numbers.

  70. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had no facts to refute the earlier post, you just did not like what he/she said?

  71. Solution: Capital Punishment for Robo-Calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution: Capital Punishment for Robo-Calls

  72. Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nonsense. Shanghai bill is above reproach and tells it like it is. Who is Shanghai bill again?

  73. Solution to all robocalls!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If caller id faking cannot be fixed,
    Then a silent traceback(callback) to originating number
    before your phone even rings.
    If the traceback comes back as the same number
    that is trying to connect to you the start ringing.

    Maybe then robocallers will not escape the do not
    call lists. and can be sued out of existance.

  74. Re:Yes we can, but not with asterisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How do you know it's a mobile you are calling?

    In most countries, mobiles were allocated their own 'area code'. Just like you know you are calling out of state (and thus, a toll call), you'd know you were calling a mobile, and would be charged.

    USA decided not to do this. A number is a number, right? You call Joe at 555 1234, it's HIS decision to make that a mobile, so HE pays the extra cost, not you. The unintended consequence of that decision appears to be robocalls.

    (Posting as A/C so as not to undo moderation)

  75. So in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That robo-caller is out there. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Ever.

  76. A modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to stop robocalls is to make them unprofitable. Eventually there is money flowing into the robocall system, usually in the form of referral fees from the legitimate business being advertised. I propose a simple crowdsourced solution to dry up the money. If I receive a robocall and can tie to to a real business (ADT or whomever) the business is billed $10,000 by the FCC and I get to split it with the government 50/50. This is a per call fine. I have motivation to do a good and complete investigation of a call and the business has to put effort into reviewing referrals to ensure they are not spammy, Put the payment processors on the hook for scams and the ability to pull off a "Microsoft Support" deal goes away as well. Win Win...

  77. Stupid professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prevent spoofing which is something teleco companies can do. Problem solved.

  78. FCC already working on this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The robo-callers ignore the list, and evade penalties because they can mask the true origins of their calls"

    FCC is already working on this issue, to make phone companies prevent masking true origin of calls.

  79. How long will our devices use a phone number? by nichogenius · · Score: 1

    One key problem with keeping your phone number confidential is the spammers don't care who you are as long as someone picks up the phone. Lucky for them, phone numbers are very easy to brute force, so they don't have to mine phone numbers from databases. They just pick a target area, string together the country code, regional code, then iterate through the list of the remaining digits... cheap. However, I've been wondering how long it will be until the vast majority of voice services are handled by messaging applications like Facebook Messenger, discord, skype etc which have the capability of bypassing the need for phone numbers entirely. What is keeping our phone tied to the ancient concept of a phone number? I think a short lived invite code to initiate a conversation with a new contact, then whitelisting that contact by a user id for all future calls would go a long way toward preventing robocalls. In my opinion, robocalls are hastening the demise of the phone number for personal use, however businesses that depend on phone numbers will keep the technology alive for decades to come, much like they did with the fax machine.

  80. Whitelists blacklists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wildcard blacklisting works wonders. Disregarding 100+ area codes with which I have no need to interact has brought sanity back to my cellphone. A regex whitelist, however, seems like it would be even better.

  81. mobile phone luser control foss vmail menuing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ask yourself why this isn't trivial in 2019.. with an 'open source' mobile phone os such as LineageOS. Thar be dragons at the other end of that thread if you start pulling at it..

  82. Fight Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you leave a usable number, you will be put into my fax machine, which will auto dial you back every 30 seconds...all day. BOOOOP......BOOOP

  83. Tax carriers a half cent an outgoing call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and that should end it pronto.

  84. Same reason why your lies cant be stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just too profitable.

  85. CaffeinatedBacon's lies cant be stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    said the wanker that is paid by Xi to lie here, and then go back to cleaning Xi's knob.

  86. Why not follow the money and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and fund a class-action lawsuit? Instead of blocking calls, accept every one and pretend to be a gullible customer. Buy what their selling (or almost buy it), learn where the money went, hire a lawyer and sue on behalf of everyone? It's possible to sue foreign entities; often the easiest way is to get a judge to freeze their U.S. assets and distribute them.

    (I know, there are a ton of technicalities that would make this less straightforward than I've suggested, but that's how you find out who's spoofing the numbers.)

  87. Re:The Phone Companies Can Solve Robocalls Overnig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. I live in the US and I've NEVER paid for a spam/scam call that I've received.

  88. Re: Yes we can, but not with asterisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very interesting, are there no local area codes? Or can you have a state1 area code for your mobile and it doesnâ(TM)t matter where in the states you are to receive calls?

  89. Can't be stopped because they didn't start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come WindBourne and his troll army have never found a single lie?

  90. Come now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come, now! Don't tell me that a robo-answerer can't answer a call from a robo-caller and determine whether the robo-caller is a live person or not, by asking questions and soliciting replies, much like a captcha does for written communication. This is one more "fake" news story from a feeble Slashdot editorial board.

  91. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the assertion about guarding your phone number is foolish because robo-callers today don't get it from "lists", they start at XXX-XXX-0001 and work their way up to XXX-XXX-0009

    the real problem is that obviously a lot of idiots fall for the scams, i.e., robo-callers wouldn't be in the business unless they were making real money doing it

  92. how come I get no Robocalls? by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

    I get no robocalls. I have the same number since 20 years, or so. In that period I have received no robocalls. I also have received no calls from companies I had no business relation with.

    The companies I had a businesss relationship with (i.e. I bought something from them in the last year) stoped the moment I asked them to.

    So ckearly it IS possible to stop these type of calls. I also never heard any of my friends having any issues.

    Disclaimer: I live in Belgium. I also work ata company and we do robocalls to our own customers who are late with payments. Sometimes we have the wrong number, so yes, unwanted robocalls do exist.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:how come I get no Robocalls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Robocalls are not a problem!" says Robocaller.

  93. Robocalls by ledow · · Score: 2

    You can't begin to stop them while you're not enforcing laws to do exactly that.

    Even then you can't stop them completely but you can certainly punish them historically. The UK ICO has gained powers last year to not only fine those companies (as it always has) but to now push those fines to the company directors even if the company goes bust (the trick was: dial a million people, wait until you're fined, shut up shop, start a new company with the same people and phone lists).

    We have a do-not-call list called the TPS. Though not perfect it stops UK-based companies dialling UK-based households. I signed someone up to it who was having serious amounts of junk ringing all times of the day and they went from 2-3 calls a day to nothing. Maybe one a month, from someone in India.

    The way to stop the remainder is easy: Hold the telecoms companies responsible. They have caller-ID records, they have traces, they know exactly who actually put those calls in, which provider they came from, and have the power to cut the contracts of those people who facilitated that call, they also know who facilitated the propagation of fake caller-ID and in a position to eliminate falsified Caller-ID. They don't do it, because nobody has made them.

    It won't *stop* such calls being attempted. However, there is a way that stops such calls ever getting through, and you can do it yourself, and you don't even need to get your telecoms provider to sell you additional "call blocking" services (you think I'm going to pay you to NOT put obvious spam that you're allowing to happen through to me?). You turn your phone ringer off. Then you set your contacts to ring.

    Bam. Problem solved. Now, to ring you, people have to be on your whitelist.

    It's at this point people say "Yeah, but what if you're a company / self-employed and need random, unannounced people to ring you any time of the day or night to find work". Then you have an insoluble problem, my friend. You can limit the problem by using automated office services (it costs a pittance to hire a company to provide a business phone number where a real person the other end answers the call, takes down the caller's details and pass it on to you, or tries to ring you from the second they realise it's a genuine caller, while sounding like you have a enormous company with a posh receptionist), voicemail, or just finding a different communications medium (I haven't phoned a company except to complain in years).

    Robocalls are easily fixable. You just need a regulator with a vague interest in doing so, legislation to stop the industry gaming the system, and then a small series of technical measures to prevent it interfering with the average person's life.

    Case in point: I've had the same phone number for nearly 20 years. I used it for both business and personal use over that time, exclusively (I've not had any other number that I've ever used). I don't have any fancy call blocking. I'm on the TPS. I get a stray call once in a blue moon (anecdotally, my work colleagues in the same office get several a week). I don't answer anything from anyone I don't know. They ring once, don't get an answer (because it rings silently) and then that's it... end of. It'll be another month or more before anyone I don't know tries to ring again.

    P.S. Political robocalls are basically illegal without explicit prior consent in the UK. Always have been. We also do not pay for receiving calls (even on mobiles) as some places do, so the cost is all on the sender and not on us. If the cost were on us too, we'd be up in arms.

    Since GDPR, there is also a huge axe to hold over their heads about where they got your number from, and whether they can prove explicit consent (they can't just say "well, we got your number from a list from one of our commercial partners" - which partner, when, what authority do you think that gave YOU to call me, did I explicitly say YOU could ring me or even handle that information, who gave that partner explciti consent to share

  94. Don't bring a man to a robot fight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I let my smartphone block calls from unwanted callers. There are plenty of apps that are networked to recognize unwanted callers and block them.

  95. It is actually trivial to abuse this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trivial to abuse and get your competitors blocked.

    Also trivial to just change to a different number.

    You think you need expensive high speed data to robocall? Laughabe, even for a WindBourne comment.

  96. says the only nation where this is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (apologies to the Onion)

    Look at other countries where the caller (and not the recipient) pays for the calls made. I haven't received a single robo-call in my life.
     

  97. They can't be stopped with the current PSTN design by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    The PSTN was never designed with this problem in mind. You have to remember we didn't even have caller ID back in the day. The entire phone system needs to be re-designed to deal with this problem. I suggest we make India pay for it.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  98. Why guard your phone number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't dialers just brute force every combination?

    Personally, I think they should just charge 1 cent for every call.

  99. This is why I still pay for a "land line" by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I still have what they call a "land line" although it is actually a VOIP line that I get from AT&T via their Uverse service. Other cable TV providers offer similar lines. I have it set up at the cheapest cost possible and my call minutes per month are limited. I don't remember but the limit may be 300 minutes. That's fine because I only have one person in my life who ever calls me on that number. It's an old friend who lives in a distant part of my state and once or twice a month he might call for a brief 10-15 minutes to say hi and stay in touch.

    So why do I still have the land line? Simple. I can give it out to anybody who demands a phone number. I use the Nomorobo service (it's free on land lines) to stop spam calls and it works really well. So now I have a phone number that I can give out to anybody who wants it and it can't receive text messages and spam calls almost never get through. For businesses that demand a mobile phone number, I usually just don't do business with them. If you have to be able to send me a text message for me to buy your stuff, then I will probably go elsewhere. Fortunately that rarely happens. It did mean that I couldn't join the diners reward program at Chilis though. I had a conversation with a waiter there about how I wasn't interested in joining because I wasn't willing to give up my mobile phone number so they could text me and he told me that other customers had told him the same thing. Getting a first text from them is a required part of activating the program so using my land line number won't work.

  100. I put blame Squarly on the telphone companies. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I understand why businesses want a telephone number, so they can contact you if there are problems with service, and so they try to insure your bill gets paid.

    The Robocalls and other Telemarketing problem is really the fault of the Telephone/Telecommunication companies being too lazy with their service.
    1. They have the technology to log every call you made to send you an itemized bill.But not to give the receiver of the call the ability to see where the call is truly coming from. I understand the legit use of Caller ID Spoofing. At work we send automated Appointment Reminders for Doctors Visits. The company that send the calls out for us is about 500 miles away from us, but if someone calls back we want the right people to answer the phone. (With our organizations name, to insure the right number was called). However such things shouldn't be done willy-nilley but with some levels of authentication of the phone number holder, and perhaps a modest fee for the administrative expense.

    2. Unlimited call plans. Much like the debate on ISP's capping or throttling heavy Internet users, with Unlimited Internet Plans, because some people get abusive with it. We should do this with telephone calls. Really get rid of Unlimited, and replace with plans, that encourage proper telephone use, and not mass robocalling.

    3. (OK not fully the Telephone company, and breaks my assertion that it is squarely on the telephone company) But the politics loophole, is damn annoying. What was probably sold to the public, as a way for the officials to alert the public about a major problem, has became a wall of phone calls during reelection season.

    4. Trying to work with the Do Not Call registry. Heck the best thing a telephone company can do, is with basic data analysis determine who is a robocall or telemarketing company. Ping it against the Do Not Call Registry, and let the phone number ring 4 times, before going to your phone. This will mean the less calls the telemarketing company can deal making their operation more expensive (unless they obey the Do Not Call Registry) and not bug their customers with unwanted calls, because most calls hang up after 4 or 5 rings.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  101. Re:The Phone Companies Can Solve Robocalls Overnig by pepsikid · · Score: 1

    Oh lookit you, brave defender of the monopoly telcos.
    If you ever answered one of these calls or paged through a voicemail they left; you paid something.
    If your phone ever rang or buzzed for one of these calls, that's a minor, but real expense.
    If any of these robocalls ever held your attention, that's a bit of your life you can't have back.

  102. Can be done easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Introduce a do-not-call registry, where people are entered unless they opt out.
    2) Introduce a hefty fine for calling one of these numbers.
    3) If a subscriber receives and can prove he/she has received such a call, he makes a complaint to the regulator.
    4) The regulator goes to the network, and asks for the details of the original caller.
    5a) The network have the details, and hand them over. Fine is imposed, making the business unprofitable.
    5b) The network cannot identify the caller. The fine is imposed on the network.
    5c) The network cannot identify the caller, but can show it originated from another network. The regulator jumps back to (4), but posing the question to the originating network.

    If they can bill for calls, then they can track calls. I know there are myriads of reasons why a non-genuine caller ID would be presented - this would force the networks to somehow track it, that is all. Let them figure it out rather than take their word for it being too difficult.

  103. The reason is that the cost is nothing. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    They should turn it into a source or revenue for the phone companies. When a phone call completes, have an option for the recipient to charge them $1.00. The phone company keeps half.

    Even if it was a penny it would probably work...

    ^^^^

    This is it.

    The reason that there are a billion robocalls a day is that there is no cost to making a call. They don't pay for the resources they use.

    Even a penny a call would stop the robocalls dead. Even a tenth of a cent would stop them dead.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re: The reason is that the cost is nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Bill Gates want to do the same with email, to reduce spam?

  104. Make caller ID non-spoofable by nine-times · · Score: 1

    I feel like the solution is to prevent people from spoofing caller ID. If it's a physical phone, the phone company should be able to verify the physical path to some extent. If it's a VoIP number, put some PKI in place that requires connection be signed somehow-- something like DKIM for VoIP.

    It's not a complete solution, but you're not going to solve the problem if you can't create some system of accountability.

  105. Wrong approaches to the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off it can be stopped. The problem with these calls is that they come from computer systems using the Internet but eventually they have to go to your phone. So how do you stop them? Well, the phone companies don't want to hear this but here it is.

    First, you put the responsibility on the phone company that accepts any phone call from another non-telecom company. They must verify that the caller-id is valid. Off topic: BTW, isn't caller ID a product that you are billed for but is clearing defective and shouldn't we sue them for this?

    Second, if the final leg, your phone company doesn't verify that the caller-id is valid you fine them $$$ for EACH phone call. The telecoms will VERY quickly require companies that use SIPS are registered with them and are legit. They will stop accepting non-validated, non-registered phone calls from illegal operations.

    Third, the trickiest problem is international phone calls and internation laws need to be changed to accommodate the problem Caller IDs for all calls out of the U.S. should be referred to as simply "Not Verified" or "Out of Country". For U.S. companies that us call centers that are outside of the states this is only a small issue as they can register where their calls come from and properly identify them.

    How many times do you get a call from a city in your state? I know I'm popular by getting calls from "San Diego, CA" and that the enter city wants to talk to me. :)

    But as your telecom company wants to charge you for a defective product in Caller-ID, and they don't want to invest in solving the problem but rather spend it on buying your elected official don't expect anything to change.

  106. How other countries deal with this by Blue23 · · Score: 1

    Not a solution for all robocalls, but a partial one for using up your mobile minutes. My understanding is that some countries issue mobile numbers from different blocks then land lines. And have enforced laws. So it's trivial for a robocaller to identify and remove mobile numbers, and real penalties if they don't. The robocallers police themselves to make sure they don't call mobile and hit hit with penalties and fines.

    Now, this doesn't help out-of-country callers, but those at least probably have some costs per call which should reduce the number compared to domestic calls. Even the foreign call center ones probably currently have the calling being done domestically and then connecting you to an open line with a person if someone picks up - that's how to have a lot more robocallers going then agents to cut down on your human costs.

    --
    LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
  107. Bullshit by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Robocalls can be stopped, it's just that the phone company doesn't want to stop them.

    We can stop a DOS attack, right? How is this any different? One PBX somewhere suddenly starts launching a flood of calls. Disconnect that line upstream. Boom - done.

    It's your fucking network - don't tell me you can't fix this.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  108. America vs the civilized world by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    So, I hold telephone numbers in a few countries as it makes sense as part of my business.

    Only my American phone receives more than one spam call occasionally.

    Consider that my normal phone is registered in one of the richest countries in the world per-capita. My normal phone should be a target. However, the local phone company blocks all calls from numbers which have been reported as sources of spam... or it blocks calls coming from numbers which are obviously spoofed... meaning the "reverse path forwarding check" fails for the number.

    So, if for example these companies were using Skype, each time a number gets reported, Skype loses the ability to make calls in this country using that number. as such, if Skype loses enough numbers, it can no longer make calls in this country. So, Microsoft makes a genuine effort to ensure that their numbers are not being blocked.

    So far as I can tell (and I have SIM cards from middle east and third world countries like Greece), only America has the problem that they can't get this problem under control. I can't speak about England though, I would imagine that as with so many other things, England is equally bad as the U.S.

    It's amazing that the FTC and FCC can't investigate and put and end to these scams in the U.S.. If nothing else, the American tax payers deserve to have wide spread commercials informing the people "Any company making these calls is in violation of the law and any information you gather (including recordings) can help put a stop to them".

  109. NOMOROBO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is your friend...free for home phones, monthly fee for cells.

  110. Just don't answer:800 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    800 numbers use a different ID system than what everyone else uses.

  111. Don't give your # out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't give your phone # out".

    That's stupid. Do you honestly think they are using a list of phone #s?
    They call a #, no one answers, they move on.
    Anyone can call any # at any time.
    They don't care if the # is real or not.

    Maybe they quit calling after X times and no one picks up or the computer voice tells them the # is not is service.

  112. Tel-Lynx if you still have a land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thing goes between your phone and the phone line.
    CSV file white lists #s or blocks them.
    Any other #, a computer voice tells the caller to Enter 0 to 9.
    Robo calls can't do that.
    Phone doesn't ring.
    All calls go into a log.

    You can even block area codes. No ring.

  113. Until then by Cowardly+Lurker · · Score: 1

    I agree with many of the proposed solutions, I hope they come to fruition sometime soon.

    Until then, all calls that are not from my contacts go straight to voicemail. If you don't leave a message, then I guess it wasn't that important.

  114. perhaps open hunting season? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps just all year open hunting license for organizer and participants in this proceder?
    No question asked, up to 3 heads per hunter per month.

  115. Everyone work together to ruin the equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Answer the call, wait for the human, the waste as much of the Human's time as possible!
    Ask them how they are doing. Give them random numbers for CC.
    Chat for a while, ask them if their mother knows they are lying thieves.
    That makes the cost of the call go from a cent to almost a dollar.
    IF we ALL do it, it ruins the equation.
    Have FUN.

  116. phone companies could fix this by Odinsleep · · Score: 1

    the only one that can fix the problem are the people that make money from the calls, the phone companies. as long as the phone companies make money from this it will continue. and saying the phone company does not know the true origin of the call is a lie.

  117. Oh Yeah? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    I have a device called Tel-Lynx, which is a call screener and reliably stops any call without a human being, and announces the ones it hasn't been programmed to allow through immediately. Of course one can program this into one of the Open Source phone systems or a microprocessor, it was just a matter of time for me - too many projects and too little Bruce. Tel-Lynx is sort of clunky, for example it doesn't provide net access to your voicemails or a web interface to approve numbers. But no nusiance calls.

  118. As I said before regarding email spammers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this will continue until they start dying for doing it.

  119. Re:The Phone Companies Can Solve Robocalls Overnig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phone companies have nothing to do with this. This is a VOIP issue. When it gets shut down, the scammers and spammers move to different service. I personally was hounded by this problem thanks to WHOIS. I spent a month filing complaints with registrars and VOIP providers. The scammers and spammers lost accounts and moved on to new companies. Software is portable. They spent a few dollars on new host, new registrar, and new voip provider so they can send me same messages and make same calls.

    The problem is that technology is very cheap. We need to go back to technology being in the hands of a select few. The masses cannot be trusted. Technology should only be available to those who understand it and can be trusted to use it properly.

  120. Bull fucking shit by shentino · · Score: 1

    It's very easy to stop robocalls with a combination of two things:

    1. Hold people accountable for the calls they make.

    It would be very easy for phone companies to disincentivize spam calls by charging them for it. The receiving phone company should be allowed to bill the sending phone company for spam calls. Or if necessary, bump it up the food chain and have a government utility middleman do the collection on behalf of the receiver. And whoever fails to do their job on the way down the food chain of watching the proverbial hen house should get stuck eating it until they collect from the next guy along the way. Make people accountable, or failing that anyone who protects them.

    2. Criminalize caller ID spoofing at a federal level.

    This makes sure the first part works and punishes people who put on disguises to get around it.

    If you try to duck out of the first method of getting stuck with the burden of spamming, then you're cheating the accountabiliity process and deserve penalties. Making it a crime will also pierce any corporate veils and make sure that the human actors responsible for it are the ones that get nailed for it. It will also allow police and the like to investigate it as a crime instead of as a mere civil matter.

    ----

    Make sure people who try to duck out on their rightful blame get burned, and you'll have a much easier time wrangling the finances to put the burden where it belongs.

  121. Simple and effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least for me. White list existing contacts. Reject everything else to voicemail. ask the caller to leave the usual; name, number, reason for calling. If they really want to contact you, they will leave the asked for info. Keep your contacts up to date.

    Then you don't get the interruption and you can quickly scan the voicemail at your convenience. Not perfect, but it cuts down on the most annoying factor for me, the interruption of getting the call.

  122. Caller Announce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With our technology, we should be able to setup call announce.

    Call a buddy.
    Prompted to say name: "John Doe"
    Rings phone. Call from John Doe. 1 to accept or 2 to send to vm.

    Google Voice has these options. If they don't announce themselves, it goes to VM.

    These options have been around for decades. They aren't implemented because businesses like to sell your numbers.

  123. Bullshit by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    This is so much bullshit. The telecoms arn't doing it cause they can't be bothered to, for a variety of reasons.

    All the calls I've recieved have been from "local" numbers. I refuse to believe that it's that difficult for them to come up with a hashing function that takes a number, figures out the telecom that "owns" that number, and see if the incoming route is from that telecom. If not, it's fake. Done. It's an O(1) operation.

    The only hard part is keeping the database updated as phone numbers get shuffled around, but even that isn't that bad, provided they just freaking work together and commit to a standard protocol.

  124. I heard this before cept it was called EMail spam by Jombieman · · Score: 1

    Back in the dark ages of the internet (90's) there was this thing called EMail where mail servers trusted everyone. Then unscrupulous people started abusing the system. Any IP address could send email via any trusting server to millions of address's for next to nothing. Servers allowed open relay, didn't check for valid email reply to address's, reverse check domain mx records, etc ... Then smart people started to implement solutions to stop the spam. Mail server configurations were changed. Open relays disappeared, Website submission forms were fixed. Reply to address's were validated, MX records were checked. Many other tricks were implemented, some active, some passive. Antispam examination of email contents improved. No one change eliminated the problem. But each change in turn helped reduce the flow. Today, I get less much less than %1 spam even though I have the same email address that I have been using for almost 20 years. Now voice communications is facing a similar problem. With the introduction of voip service providers, it is to easy to initiate a voice call from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world for next to no cost. The traditional phone carriers, for the most part, are able to do very little. The voip carriers are exempt from many of the restrictions that the traditional carriers face. In the days of analog, it was next to impossible to "hack" into the system. Today anyone with a little knowledge, a computer and an internet connection is able to "hack" into the voice system. If your using voip for your voice communications, you are not going to get any help from the traditional phone carriers. With the protocols so open, the carriers (traditional and voip) are able to do very little. But, over time, changes will be implemented that will improve the system. Little by little things will improve until, 20 years from now, no one that still uses a phone will remember what it was like "Back in the "20's"".

  125. I'd Like To Answer, Alex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take Regulatory Capture for $1000, Alex!

  126. Dumb advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike credit card numbers, phone numbers are sequential. Someone can just dial your number without you having to disclose it.

  127. Re:Yes we can, but not with asterisk by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    outside of Trumpistan

    This has nothing at all to do with Trump. Knock off the TDS.

    the caller pays a few cents/min to call a mobile phone

    We have more than just mobile phones. We have landlines, too. If it is long distance, the caller pays for both. If it is local, not.

    You can tell the difference between local and long distance, or at least you used to be able to. (With the implementation of ten-digit dialing to allow the creation of more exchanges this is harder now.) The bit you are missing is that you can't tell before hand that you are calling a mobile. You can't tell afterhand, until the bill comes if calling a mobile were to cost the caller.

    This has been how it works here since the system first began. My first mobile number was in the local area code. That was twenty years ago or more. For routing, specific exchanges were assigned to each mobile carrier, just like exchanges cover a certain geographic (city) area. E.g., area code 541 is routed to Oregon. Exchange 367 is routed to the central office in Sweet Home.

    Now we have number portability so it is impossible to know from the phone number whether you're calling a land-line or mobile. Or what state, or what city. (I have a number from a city 2000 miles away for my VoIP line.) Number portability came about through consumer demand, not corporate greed.

  128. This is easy by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    If a phone service provider won't shut down the spammers then that service provider should just be blocked by all the telcos in the west. I very much doubt that countries like India would continue to turn a blind eye on this when telco after telco was blocked from calling countries like the US.

  129. guarding your phone number by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    The professor's article suggests guarding your phone number like you guard your credit card numbers. "

    Here is another quote, professor

    It looks as though there are somewhere between 265 and 293 area codes used in the 50 states.

    2.93 billion is not a big number. Only 10 times larger than the number of people in US.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  130. Waitaminute... by SlideWRX · · Score: 1

    "Ninety percent of those calls will have familiar caller IDs" (from CNN article, referenced in FCC report by third party study)
    That means it isn't just companies selling your number, Someone made a connection to your contact list, either on your phone or on a social network. Gee, who has become notorious for letting all this info slip through their fingers, possibly because the other hand was holding cash? FACEBOOK. APPLE. GOOGLE. How often were apps allowed to upload your contact list?

    Who wants to correlate Spam calls to either Facebook or app whoring?

    I'm not on facebook/social media, and don't download apps like they are, well, the next 'big' social media app....
    I get about one spam a month.

  131. Software solution by aaron44126 · · Score: 1

    There are some services that offer a solution to this, for example, Google Voice lets you turn on "call screening" which requires the caller to say their name and press a button (or something) and then it will ask you if you want to take the call.

    That's a hassle, you have to pick up the phone and listen to hear who is calling. Couldn't your smartphone automatically answer the call, provide a friendly voice prompt asking the caller to key in a random three-digit number sequence, upon success which it would say "please wait to be connected" and then start ringing your phone? This would only be for callers not in your contact list. I wonder if anyone has tried to implement something like this.

  132. Criminalize spoofing by shentino · · Score: 1

    A big part of the problem with robocalls and spam calls is that people can use fake IDs to disguise themselves.

    If there was a way to hold them accountable this would stop overnight. But as long as people can spoof caller IDs to get away with it, it will continue.

    What needs to happen is one set of rules to put the burden on the spammers somehow, or failing that, the phone companies that let it happen on their watch.

    And another set of rules to personally penalize, at a criminal level, anyone who uses fraudulent identification to cheat their way out of being caught by the first set of rules.

  133. another solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it looks like everyone have their wait of dealing with this, here's mine.

    get a voip provider that offer your local number and an IVR (a menu!)

    you but a small greeting message, name the option #1 home phone, #4 to reach my cell phone, #5 for my wife cell phone, etc.

    I never get any robo call and you can give a phone number without fear of giving your cellphone number.

  134. I simply don't answer. by RFjunkie · · Score: 1

    Years ago I quit answering the phone. If someone has something to say, they leave VM. If it's really really important, they send me snailmail. I'm on the gubmint DNC list, but still get ~2/3days and don't care. Smartphones ain't that smart, so I leave it on silent w/a fully black display(saves a lilbit o' battery) until/unless I want it. Sure, I can see where getting a lot of spam calls would suck, esp. if your phone controls you. Me, I'm very un-Luddite, but I refuse to submit to my phone. Heh ;)

    --
    Olphart at play. Ruck FepubliKKKans. Welcome to the Worldwide Idiocracy, y'all.