Once I got it set up, I started receiving e-mail that was directed at the company in question.
I once owned the.com version of the name used by a.net ISP. It was pretty funny trying to explain to a Granny why her email to her grandkids was being read by someone else. She just didn't get the concept that X.com and X.net were two very different things. I was also on the Microsoft Developer's Mailing list -- as someone at the.net site who gave them the wrong address. Ignorance of the difference between.com and.net says lots about Microsoft Developers.
I eventually got tired of the problem and sold the domain to a large company and let them deal with it.
Did you follow up and look up the WHOIS info on the domain to see if it indeed had been registered just right then?
Or it had been registered already, just didn't have a web server running on the naked domain name IP address. Nothing says that "example.com" and "www.example.com" must resolve to the same address, nor does anything require "example.com" to run a web server at all.
These days.Com is a rather generic entity, similar to.net, and simply implies a web presence.
What you infer is not actually implied.
The.biz tld implies a smaller company or startup,
Again, what you infer is not what is implied. Unless the registrar for the (.com) or (.biz) domains have strict, enforced rules about who can register in those TLD, you can't infer what you are inferring.
I think they should return to such, BTW. My uni has apparently registered a name in SPAIN (.es), even though the really short name it makes is not spelled correctly. AND they're using it as the signup site in a process to force employees to register for 2FA, because too many employees are falling for phishing emails. Trying to explain that the reason employees are falling for phishing emails is because the uni is repeatedly using non-university domain names for sites that employees need to log in to is a waste of time. Like our timesheet system, the IT help desk system, the sharing of documents, signing documents, and now signing up for 2FA. "Employee, you need to go to i3iwg.goo and sign in to sign up for mandatory 2FA for your university account..." Uhhh, ok. I'll get right on that.
There oughta be some kind of term limit in place if you don't actually use a domain for a period of time.
I think a point being made in this discussion is that it is hard to determine that a domain isn't being used. I have a domain that I've held for twenty-five years. It has a DNS entry, and it has an MX record to a mail server. Is it "in use"? Is that all it takes? Then your "term limit" is so trivially met that it is meaningless.
and doing an name lookup will not resolve to any IP address.
If it is a domain for email it better have at least an MX record (or whatever the IPv6 equivalent is), even if it has no A or AAAA. That's "resolving".
If such domains are not in use, how is email sent and received through them?
If the name does not resolve to any IP address, how is email sent to it?
just some nasty emails saying they were insensitive to the pain they just had.
Being a grown-up means you have to make plans for the future, not just live day-to-day from your parent's largesse. That's part of life.
Like a plan so that missing just one paycheck doesn't mean you starve and are evicted. Yes, a lot of people live that way. That doesn't make it the right way.
In a few weeks the paid would be gone, as they get there checks.
Where will the paid go? Will they be there picking up there checks? How insensitive of you to expect people to go pick up there checks, you should take the checks to them so they can pick up here checks.
If you car shows a "check engine" light when your tire pressure is low it may have been built by Microsoft.
Your car shows "check engine" for all kinds of stupid problems, including a "loose gas cap". Replace "low tire pressure" with that and you've got exactly the problem you are ranting about.
In other words, Microsoft is not unique in this kind of useless warning.
SMS should not be both factors in 2FA. That's what the '2' means -- two DIFFERENT factors. The whole reason for 2FA is so that someone cannot spoof or intercept one of the two and get access to the resource.
I, for one, welcome our Cylon overlords. I could spend hours just watching the patterns of lights on Lucifer's head. Almost like a lava lamp. And that light-up spine on the babe-bots...
Yup, let's use the.00000001% possibility of this actually happening to someone and continue to live with the actual problem that is seen in EVERY FUCKING CLASSROOM.
You simply cannot understand the difference between "this is not a problem" and "this is not the right solution to the problem", can you? Hint: I'm saying just one of the two.
I'm also saying that the idea that "we have cadaver dogs" to solve the problem with banning cell phones is an arrogant, insulting, disgusting idea. "It's ok that people will die because they can't communicate because we can locate their bodies after they start to decompose." How sick is that? Or do you not understand what a "cadaver dog" does?
You clearly can't imagine what it was like before cell phones.
Oh, please. Come up with a better argument.
There's no reason someone would have to sit and wait for the teacher to return. In an emergency, someone would contact the office...
In an emergency, time is critical. In the past, before everyone had a cellphone in their pocket, taking the time to send someone to find a wired landline was necessary. Today it IS NOT. The time saved can save lives. And the idea that someone is going to run from a classroom to the school office so they can call the cops about an active shooter is just ridiculous.
do you really think the kids would just sit there?
Why not? They've been turned into passive observers who, according to the OP, are not responsible for their own safety. It's the teacher. But no, I don't think they will. I think they will take the time to go to the office and convince someone there that they need to call 911, then run back to the victim, then run back to the office to pass on victim status, then run back to the classroom, then run back to the office... why do that when there could be an ON SITE communications device that links the site of the emergency with emergency responders?
And your active shooter straw man is just ridiculous.
Really? It doesn't happen? Then boy are they wasting a lot of time teaching kids how to react.
while 100% of the school population deals with idiots in the classroom addicted to, cheating from, and interrupting normal classes with phones because the snowflakes and helicopter parents go into convulsions w/o them.
You will note that I've never said that kids distracting themselves with cell phones isn't a problem. I've said that a blanket ban is not the solution. Please differentiate.
Sounds more like your personal convenience is worth more than the desires of hundreds of millions of people.
Were the desires of "hundreds of millions of people" to be not to get calls from me with fake caller ID, then you'd be right. But since I'm not calling millions of people with fake caller ID, you are not.
If you had half a brain you would just turn off the ringer on that second phone and change the voicemail to say "this phone number is not being monitored, please call me back at the number I gave you".
If you weren't a flaming asshole you might think for a minute that maybe a MODEM line doesn't have voice mail? And that just turning off the ringer (which I do, moron) doesn't stop people from calling a number that will never get to me, nor can it be answered by someone else in the room who doesn't have access to that line. Since you took an insulting tack, I did the same in response. Helped a lot, didn't it?
But no, everyone else has to suffer
The number of people who would suffer if the second line I use carried the caller ID of the main office line is exactly and precisely ZERO. Shut the hell up if you don't know what you are talking about.
An ndash helps to distinguish a collaboration of two scientists from a single researcher with a double-barrelled surname.
You're trying to claim that 1911 and 1912 collaborated on something, so it's right to use anything but a standard hyphen when indicating the range of years?
such as some metric-challenged American writing 32KB instead of 32 kB
There is a difference between KB and kB. One is "1000", one is "1024". Just as there's a difference between B and b.
Now perhaps you're geeky enough to think I should have written 32 kiB, instead. Wrong!
No, I'm geeky enough to think you should have left it alone, because either one can be right. Since the number is a power of two, I'd lean toward K being right -- as in 32KB of RAM. Nobody makes a 32kB RAM.
kilobyte has the abbreviation kB,
Depends on whether it is a metric kilo or a binary kilo.
Of course, this is the kind of thing would so decimate the telemarketing industry
No, it would just remain overseas where a lot of it already originates.
What would be decimated is the idea that someone can call you to tell you something important without being charged an arm and a leg, an unpredictable amount to boot. Like your child's teacher calling from his personal cell phone to talk about a problem. Or your neighbor calling to tell you that your water line is broken and your front lawn is flooding.
If you can predict the phone numbers of everyone who might have a valid reason to call you so you can whitelist them all, you've got a very small circle of life.
Imaging Gramma's reaction when her phone bill shows up with $900 in charges because she called her grandkids and they hadn't remembered she changed her number and put the new one in some online "whitelist" somewhere. Or she calls them from the vacation spot she's at...
The way Caller ID was originally implemented, the Caller ID information is transmitted along with the call as a set of ultrasonic tones,
Uh, no. The way it was originally implemented, and is still done for landline phones, is as standard Bell 212 tones -- just like an old modem. Those are sent between the first and second ring. That's why if you answer the phone as soon as it rings the first time you will lose CID info.
It cannot be ultrasonic because you'd lose CID if you ever get DSL, which is "ultrasonic" (for a nonstandard definition of ultrasonic).
1. food allergy, etc. The teacher is the one responsible for classroom safety and calling for help.
It's always "someone else" who is responsible for your and your classmate's safety, isn't it? ANYONE who sees the problem has the responsibility to do something about it. Teacher stepped out of the room, I guess you just have to wait for teacher to come back before you can call for medical help, huh? You're a sheep.
2. glucose monitor. That would be a legitimate medical exception, and arrangements are already in place for those circumstances.
Really? Most schools don't do the phone baggies yet, but they've already got "arrangements in place" to deal with this issue. Knee-jerk idiots who think this is a good idea because other schools are doing it are going to really "think about the children" and realize that it's a stupid idea? Or are they going to "think of the children" and protect them from themselves?
3. Does not apply in Australia, but a legitimate concern in the USA.
Australia is special? Wow.
What training is supplied to students for "active shooter" situations?
Run Hide Fight. Run if you can. Hide if you can't. Fight if that doesn't work. Part of Run and Hide both is then to call out for help. Help the cops find the shooter and deal with him. "Somewhere in the school" is a pretty big place, and the cops cannot just run willy nilly around the building. Being able to tell them "room 133, one shooter, shotgun" is a BIG help in getting the problem stopped. Even if the student starts by saying "shooter in Jefferson High", there's a trained grown-up on the other end of the line who can calm him down and get good info.
I'd be telling students to get down, under cover, shut up, and act dead -
And that's exactly how they are more likely to become dead. A shooter walks into a room and sees a dozen students "acting dead", you think he's stupid enough to think he's already shot them and will just go away? That's stupid. Thank God you are not the one teaching the proper response.
not pulling out the phone and going "beep beep beep" then screaming "HELP! SHOOTER AT JEFFERSON HIGH!"
Oh for fuck's sake. The phone isn't going to go "beep beep beep". Mine doesn't. If yours does, get a better phone. Or set it up properly. And nobody is going to scream anything. That's just moronic. You don't need to scream to make a phone call. Maybe in Australia you do. Fucking stupid.
There are simply too many reasons why disabling phones because some people can't deal with them is the stupid option. Maybe over there in the Australia you seem enamored with nobody ever has an emergency and never needs to call for help, but I doubt it.
I've been there and seen situations first hand.
In any case, you do what you want over there. We'll try to deal with things responsibly over here.
If you're calling from your real number, the recipient will get that number as a callback.
Define "real number". The number I call people from on the second line is a real number. It's the WRONG NUMBER to call back. I thought that point was obvious. For many reasons, the number attached to a line may not be the right one to call back to, and having no number is sometimes the correct option.
Find another way - the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with all this crap
In other words, your personal convenience is more important than any reason someone else has to hide their CID. Got it. Anonymous cowards are often selfish like that.
Perhaps the system needs to be modified to allow setting a "call back" ID while not allowing the caller ID to be hidden.
If a number shows up in caller ID that will be the number people call back, even if you are EXPLICIT in your messages that they should call you at some other number. I have a second line at work that I can use so I don't tie up the main published office line. I have lost count of the number of times someone has tried calling me on that line (which usually has the ringer turned off because it is/was a modem line) instead of the number they already have for me in their contact list. They get really pissed when I ask them how they got that number and why they are calling it.
Having an invisible "call back ID" will just mean more of the same.
There are valid reasons to allow caller ID to show another number, and valid reasons for it to be hide-able. Any solution to this problem needs to take those concerns seriously, and not just wave them away.
There are no "new numbers". Any "new number" you get is likely to have been owned previously by a teenager who gave it to all his friends and entered it on thousands of websites, etc. It's even likely, these days, that the reason the number is available is because the previous user got so tired of crap calls that HE decided to "get a new number". With number portability, even changing carriers doesn't require a number change.
It's like buying used underwear because the ones you have are dirty.
By the way, non-spoofable CID doesn't solve the problem of robo-calls, it just makes identifying the source easier. When the source is outside the US, then US law is going to have a hard time doing anything about them, and US carriers won't have any way to.
Oh, yeah, the correct solution to inappropriate cellphone use in a classroom is to ban them so people who could be rescued in an emergency will die, and a cadaver dog can come locate them. Right.
It is much more likely that the student in the closet with a phone will be calling 911 to feed information to the cops about the location of the shooter than his mom is going to call him at just the wrong moment. And even if she does, she'll either go straight to voicemail because the phone is in use, or the phone will be in DND mode and nobody hears anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Once I got it set up, I started receiving e-mail that was directed at the company in question.
I once owned the .com version of the name used by a .net ISP. It was pretty funny trying to explain to a Granny why her email to her grandkids was being read by someone else. She just didn't get the concept that X.com and X.net were two very different things. I was also on the Microsoft Developer's Mailing list -- as someone at the .net site who gave them the wrong address. Ignorance of the difference between .com and .net says lots about Microsoft Developers.
I eventually got tired of the problem and sold the domain to a large company and let them deal with it.
Did you follow up and look up the WHOIS info on the domain to see if it indeed had been registered just right then?
Or it had been registered already, just didn't have a web server running on the naked domain name IP address. Nothing says that "example.com" and "www.example.com" must resolve to the same address, nor does anything require "example.com" to run a web server at all.
These days .Com is a rather generic entity, similar to .net, and simply implies a web presence.
What you infer is not actually implied.
The .biz tld implies a smaller company or startup,
Again, what you infer is not what is implied. Unless the registrar for the (.com) or (.biz) domains have strict, enforced rules about who can register in those TLD, you can't infer what you are inferring.
I think they should return to such, BTW. My uni has apparently registered a name in SPAIN (.es), even though the really short name it makes is not spelled correctly. AND they're using it as the signup site in a process to force employees to register for 2FA, because too many employees are falling for phishing emails. Trying to explain that the reason employees are falling for phishing emails is because the uni is repeatedly using non-university domain names for sites that employees need to log in to is a waste of time. Like our timesheet system, the IT help desk system, the sharing of documents, signing documents, and now signing up for 2FA. "Employee, you need to go to i3iwg.goo and sign in to sign up for mandatory 2FA for your university account..." Uhhh, ok. I'll get right on that.
There oughta be some kind of term limit in place if you don't actually use a domain for a period of time.
I think a point being made in this discussion is that it is hard to determine that a domain isn't being used. I have a domain that I've held for twenty-five years. It has a DNS entry, and it has an MX record to a mail server. Is it "in use"? Is that all it takes? Then your "term limit" is so trivially met that it is meaningless.
A domain can exist for the sole purpose of sheltering subdomains.
Those snowflake subdomains should get a thicker skin and learn to live on the Internet like the rest of the domains.
and doing an name lookup will not resolve to any IP address.
If it is a domain for email it better have at least an MX record (or whatever the IPv6 equivalent is), even if it has no A or AAAA. That's "resolving".
If such domains are not in use, how is email sent and received through them?
If the name does not resolve to any IP address, how is email sent to it?
just some nasty emails saying they were insensitive to the pain they just had.
Being a grown-up means you have to make plans for the future, not just live day-to-day from your parent's largesse. That's part of life.
Like a plan so that missing just one paycheck doesn't mean you starve and are evicted. Yes, a lot of people live that way. That doesn't make it the right way.
In a few weeks the paid would be gone, as they get there checks.
Where will the paid go? Will they be there picking up there checks? How insensitive of you to expect people to go pick up there checks, you should take the checks to them so they can pick up here checks.
I am outraged you are mocking such a serious issue.
If you car shows a "check engine" light when your tire pressure is low it may have been built by Microsoft.
Your car shows "check engine" for all kinds of stupid problems, including a "loose gas cap". Replace "low tire pressure" with that and you've got exactly the problem you are ranting about.
In other words, Microsoft is not unique in this kind of useless warning.
Imagine you buy a new car, after a month it wont start with a message on the dash saying "Ops! Something went wrong!" and nothing else.
You mean like a "check engine" light?
SMS should not be used for 2FA. Full stop.
SMS should not be both factors in 2FA. That's what the '2' means -- two DIFFERENT factors. The whole reason for 2FA is so that someone cannot spoof or intercept one of the two and get access to the resource.
I, for one, welcome our Cylon overlords. I could spend hours just watching the patterns of lights on Lucifer's head. Almost like a lava lamp. And that light-up spine on the babe-bots...
Yup, let's use the .00000001% possibility of this actually happening to someone and continue to live with the actual problem that is seen in EVERY FUCKING CLASSROOM.
You simply cannot understand the difference between "this is not a problem" and "this is not the right solution to the problem", can you? Hint: I'm saying just one of the two.
I'm also saying that the idea that "we have cadaver dogs" to solve the problem with banning cell phones is an arrogant, insulting, disgusting idea. "It's ok that people will die because they can't communicate because we can locate their bodies after they start to decompose." How sick is that? Or do you not understand what a "cadaver dog" does?
You clearly can't imagine what it was like before cell phones.
Oh, please. Come up with a better argument.
There's no reason someone would have to sit and wait for the teacher to return. In an emergency, someone would contact the office...
In an emergency, time is critical. In the past, before everyone had a cellphone in their pocket, taking the time to send someone to find a wired landline was necessary. Today it IS NOT. The time saved can save lives. And the idea that someone is going to run from a classroom to the school office so they can call the cops about an active shooter is just ridiculous.
do you really think the kids would just sit there?
Why not? They've been turned into passive observers who, according to the OP, are not responsible for their own safety. It's the teacher. But no, I don't think they will. I think they will take the time to go to the office and convince someone there that they need to call 911, then run back to the victim, then run back to the office to pass on victim status, then run back to the classroom, then run back to the office ... why do that when there could be an ON SITE communications device that links the site of the emergency with emergency responders?
And your active shooter straw man is just ridiculous.
Really? It doesn't happen? Then boy are they wasting a lot of time teaching kids how to react.
while 100% of the school population deals with idiots in the classroom addicted to, cheating from, and interrupting normal classes with phones because the snowflakes and helicopter parents go into convulsions w/o them.
You will note that I've never said that kids distracting themselves with cell phones isn't a problem. I've said that a blanket ban is not the solution. Please differentiate.
Remember, when you resort to personal attacks and name-calling, you weaken your own argument, not the other person's.
Calling an idea stupid is not a personal attack. Calling a passive behaviour behaving like a sheep is not a personal attack.
See, I thought your original post had some flaws,
And then I corrected you on that. The best you can do to the corrections is complain that an attack on your opinion is a personal attack.
Perhaps you're not so secure in your own position, when you have to lash out at those who disagree.
Perhaps you are not secure in your own, when you cannot respond to correction with anything but the idea it was a personal attack.
When you can come up with something that shows that banning cell phone access isn't a stupid, dangerous option, please try again.
Sounds more like your personal convenience is worth more than the desires of hundreds of millions of people.
Were the desires of "hundreds of millions of people" to be not to get calls from me with fake caller ID, then you'd be right. But since I'm not calling millions of people with fake caller ID, you are not.
If you had half a brain you would just turn off the ringer on that second phone and change the voicemail to say "this phone number is not being monitored, please call me back at the number I gave you".
If you weren't a flaming asshole you might think for a minute that maybe a MODEM line doesn't have voice mail? And that just turning off the ringer (which I do, moron) doesn't stop people from calling a number that will never get to me, nor can it be answered by someone else in the room who doesn't have access to that line. Since you took an insulting tack, I did the same in response. Helped a lot, didn't it?
But no, everyone else has to suffer
The number of people who would suffer if the second line I use carried the caller ID of the main office line is exactly and precisely ZERO. Shut the hell up if you don't know what you are talking about.
An ndash helps to distinguish a collaboration of two scientists from a single researcher with a double-barrelled surname.
You're trying to claim that 1911 and 1912 collaborated on something, so it's right to use anything but a standard hyphen when indicating the range of years?
such as some metric-challenged American writing 32KB instead of 32 kB
There is a difference between KB and kB. One is "1000", one is "1024". Just as there's a difference between B and b.
Now perhaps you're geeky enough to think I should have written 32 kiB, instead. Wrong!
No, I'm geeky enough to think you should have left it alone, because either one can be right. Since the number is a power of two, I'd lean toward K being right -- as in 32KB of RAM. Nobody makes a 32kB RAM.
kilobyte has the abbreviation kB,
Depends on whether it is a metric kilo or a binary kilo.
Of course, this is the kind of thing would so decimate the telemarketing industry
No, it would just remain overseas where a lot of it already originates.
What would be decimated is the idea that someone can call you to tell you something important without being charged an arm and a leg, an unpredictable amount to boot. Like your child's teacher calling from his personal cell phone to talk about a problem. Or your neighbor calling to tell you that your water line is broken and your front lawn is flooding.
If you can predict the phone numbers of everyone who might have a valid reason to call you so you can whitelist them all, you've got a very small circle of life.
Imaging Gramma's reaction when her phone bill shows up with $900 in charges because she called her grandkids and they hadn't remembered she changed her number and put the new one in some online "whitelist" somewhere. Or she calls them from the vacation spot she's at ...
The way Caller ID was originally implemented, the Caller ID information is transmitted along with the call as a set of ultrasonic tones,
Uh, no. The way it was originally implemented, and is still done for landline phones, is as standard Bell 212 tones -- just like an old modem. Those are sent between the first and second ring. That's why if you answer the phone as soon as it rings the first time you will lose CID info.
It cannot be ultrasonic because you'd lose CID if you ever get DSL, which is "ultrasonic" (for a nonstandard definition of ultrasonic).
1. food allergy, etc. The teacher is the one responsible for classroom safety and calling for help.
It's always "someone else" who is responsible for your and your classmate's safety, isn't it? ANYONE who sees the problem has the responsibility to do something about it. Teacher stepped out of the room, I guess you just have to wait for teacher to come back before you can call for medical help, huh? You're a sheep.
2. glucose monitor. That would be a legitimate medical exception, and arrangements are already in place for those circumstances.
Really? Most schools don't do the phone baggies yet, but they've already got "arrangements in place" to deal with this issue. Knee-jerk idiots who think this is a good idea because other schools are doing it are going to really "think about the children" and realize that it's a stupid idea? Or are they going to "think of the children" and protect them from themselves?
3. Does not apply in Australia, but a legitimate concern in the USA.
Australia is special? Wow.
What training is supplied to students for "active shooter" situations?
Run Hide Fight. Run if you can. Hide if you can't. Fight if that doesn't work. Part of Run and Hide both is then to call out for help. Help the cops find the shooter and deal with him. "Somewhere in the school" is a pretty big place, and the cops cannot just run willy nilly around the building. Being able to tell them "room 133, one shooter, shotgun" is a BIG help in getting the problem stopped. Even if the student starts by saying "shooter in Jefferson High", there's a trained grown-up on the other end of the line who can calm him down and get good info.
I'd be telling students to get down, under cover, shut up, and act dead -
And that's exactly how they are more likely to become dead. A shooter walks into a room and sees a dozen students "acting dead", you think he's stupid enough to think he's already shot them and will just go away? That's stupid. Thank God you are not the one teaching the proper response.
not pulling out the phone and going "beep beep beep" then screaming "HELP! SHOOTER AT JEFFERSON HIGH!"
Oh for fuck's sake. The phone isn't going to go "beep beep beep". Mine doesn't. If yours does, get a better phone. Or set it up properly. And nobody is going to scream anything. That's just moronic. You don't need to scream to make a phone call. Maybe in Australia you do. Fucking stupid.
There are simply too many reasons why disabling phones because some people can't deal with them is the stupid option. Maybe over there in the Australia you seem enamored with nobody ever has an emergency and never needs to call for help, but I doubt it. I've been there and seen situations first hand. In any case, you do what you want over there. We'll try to deal with things responsibly over here.
If you're calling from your real number, the recipient will get that number as a callback.
Define "real number". The number I call people from on the second line is a real number. It's the WRONG NUMBER to call back. I thought that point was obvious. For many reasons, the number attached to a line may not be the right one to call back to, and having no number is sometimes the correct option.
Find another way - the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with all this crap
In other words, your personal convenience is more important than any reason someone else has to hide their CID. Got it. Anonymous cowards are often selfish like that.
and then eventually fork it and slow the pace down
Yeah, they called it Usenet2, and it was a smashing success. Has anyone heard of it?
Perhaps the system needs to be modified to allow setting a "call back" ID while not allowing the caller ID to be hidden.
If a number shows up in caller ID that will be the number people call back, even if you are EXPLICIT in your messages that they should call you at some other number. I have a second line at work that I can use so I don't tie up the main published office line. I have lost count of the number of times someone has tried calling me on that line (which usually has the ringer turned off because it is/was a modem line) instead of the number they already have for me in their contact list. They get really pissed when I ask them how they got that number and why they are calling it.
Having an invisible "call back ID" will just mean more of the same.
There are valid reasons to allow caller ID to show another number, and valid reasons for it to be hide-able. Any solution to this problem needs to take those concerns seriously, and not just wave them away.
or just get a new number.
There are no "new numbers". Any "new number" you get is likely to have been owned previously by a teenager who gave it to all his friends and entered it on thousands of websites, etc. It's even likely, these days, that the reason the number is available is because the previous user got so tired of crap calls that HE decided to "get a new number". With number portability, even changing carriers doesn't require a number change.
It's like buying used underwear because the ones you have are dirty.
By the way, non-spoofable CID doesn't solve the problem of robo-calls, it just makes identifying the source easier. When the source is outside the US, then US law is going to have a hard time doing anything about them, and US carriers won't have any way to.
We have cadaver dogs for this.
Oh, yeah, the correct solution to inappropriate cellphone use in a classroom is to ban them so people who could be rescued in an emergency will die, and a cadaver dog can come locate them. Right.
It is much more likely that the student in the closet with a phone will be calling 911 to feed information to the cops about the location of the shooter than his mom is going to call him at just the wrong moment. And even if she does, she'll either go straight to voicemail because the phone is in use, or the phone will be in DND mode and nobody hears anything.