aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA
1 recommendation |
aaronwt
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 8:53 am
Finally!It's about time!! | |
|
| |
What's the use.E-Mail spammers continue to spam, even though there's a law against that.
Telemarketers call, either live or with automated dialers, even though there's a law (Do Not Call list) against that.
Does anyone really think this will make a difference? I doubt it. | |
|
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144
1 recommendation |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 9:09 am
Re: What's the use.said by burgerwars:E-Mail spammers continue to spam, even though there's a law against that. The law only applies to US people/companies, so it was kind of a worthless law considering the origins of a lot of spam. said by burgerwars:Telemarketers call, either live or with automated dialers, even though there's a law (Do Not Call list) against that. Before I went cellphone-only, I noticed a significant drop in telemarketing calls after registering in the Do Not Call registry. The same thing with junk mailings when I registered in the DMA's registry. said by burgerwars:Does anyone really think this will make a difference? I doubt it. It won't eliminate the practice, but I do believe it will minimize it. | |
|
| | | Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 12:04 pm
Re: What's the use.To bad this doesn't apply to companies who only provide "Toll Free Call" as the name in Caller ID. I would consider that an attempt to deceive, otherwise they would say who they are. | |
|
| | | | ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 12:51 pm
Re: What's the use.said by Jim Kirk:To bad this doesn't apply to companies who only provide "Toll Free Call" as the name in Caller ID. I would consider that an attempt to deceive, otherwise they would say who they are. I noticed that Directv comes up as "800 Service". | |
|
| | | | | Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 2:44 pm
Re: What's the use.said by ptrowski:said by Jim Kirk:To bad this doesn't apply to companies who only provide "Toll Free Call" as the name in Caller ID. I would consider that an attempt to deceive, otherwise they would say who they are. I noticed that Directv comes up as "800 Service". That's one I've seen as well. Almost all of them are annoying as hell since they never leave a voice-mail and just continue to call until you answer and tell them to f' off. | |
|
| | | | sream Premium Member join:2002-08-17 Kalamazoo, MI |
to Jim Kirk
That has to do with cname. Unrelated to this. | |
|
| | |
to burgerwars
the difference is now we get an additional tax/fee! Horray! | |
|
| | |
to burgerwars
said by burgerwars:E-Mail spammers continue to spam, even though there's a law against that. Telemarketers call, either live or with automated dialers, even though there's a law (Do Not Call list) against that. Does anyone really think this will make a difference? I doubt it. One must keep in mind what one registers for. Also the origins of the telemarketing calls. If you register a firearm, that immediately puts you on to calling lists for the NRA and Republican organizations, because of the assumed connection. Be VERY careful when placing your legitimate phone number on to any kind of registrations. Political organizations are typically exempt from the do not call lists, they wrote loop holes in to the laws in the first place. | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY
1 recommendation |
Why am I less then impressedNo spoofing oh joy and happy. Wait a minute what is this about "it shall be unlawful for any person within the United States......"? So that means that "India is calling" (mostly at dinner time) phone services is not covered. Sorry Congress this isn't going to keep your sorry asses in office we are still going to vote you bums out. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 9:08 am
Re: Why am I less then impressedsaid by Transmaster: Wait a minute what is this about "it shall be unlawful for any person within the United States......"? Yes. I saw those words too. So, the cold calling scammers will just move their calling operations offshore. I hear Haiti's economy needs a pickup after the earthquake. | |
|
| | |
Re: Why am I less then impressedIt's not like they can enforce it world wide. They are not going to extradite people from India for telemarketing. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
said by FFH5: I hear Haiti's economy needs a pickup after the earthquake. You need Jamaica, Haiti doesn't speak english. | |
|
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
Re: Why am I less then impressedsaid by patcat88:said by FFH5: I hear Haiti's economy needs a pickup after the earthquake. You need Jamaica, Haiti doesn't speak english. Creole might be just as understandable as some of the mashed up English I have heard coming from God only knows where. | |
|
| |
to Transmaster
Another loophole:
"in connection with any real time voice communications service"
Recorded messages OK? | |
|
| | |
Re: Why am I less then impressedsaid by fifty nine:Another loophole: "in connection with any real time voice communications service" Recorded messages OK? It's still being sent over a real-time voice communications service. The voice being recorded doesn't change that. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to Transmaster
i bet people telling me that my car warranty is about to run out will still spoof caller ID since they ignore the DNC anyway. | |
|
| |
to Transmaster
said by Transmaster: So that means that "India is calling" (mostly at dinner time) phone services is not covered. Those offshore calls enter the US at some point. Setting the standard as this law does, it would be a small step to expect US exchanges to detect a call which originates from offshore but spoofs a US area code. I think it's a step in the right direction. Just because fraud is already illegal doesn't prevent us from clarifying what is considered fraudulent behavior (such as pyramid and ponzi schemes) instead of leaving it to the court system to sort out as simple fraud. Mark | |
|
| |
to Transmaster
said by Transmaster:No spoofing oh joy and happy. Wait a minute what is this about "it shall be unlawful for any person within the United States......"? So that means that "India is calling" (mostly at dinner time) phone services is not covered. Sorry Congress this isn't going to keep your sorry asses in office we are still going to vote you bums out. The government of the United States cannot dictate policy to governments around the world. The law will end up being edited to refer to the originating company being on US soil. It may take a while, but one must remember this is a multistep process. You cannot expect any government to ever get every possible corner of an issue covered the first time around. | |
|
|
Google voiceSo will this mean that GV can no longer spoof when calling to IPKall numbers, in order to save the reciprocal compensation fees? | |
|
| |
Re: Google voicesaid by fifty nine:So will this mean that GV can no longer spoof when calling to IPKall numbers, in order to save the reciprocal compensation fees? i wonder this too. i often use my google voice number to call people i dont want calling one of my personal numbers. this way they can still call and get voice mail. | |
|
| | Tig join:2006-06-29 Carrying Place, ON |
Tig
Member
2010-Apr-17 11:49 pm
Re: Google voiceI don't think your intent is to defraud or deceive when you do this as long as you spoof your own number. I spoof my work number when making business calls from home. I do this for the simple reason that I want business calls to flow through my place of business. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 9:14 am
PointlessIt is already illegal for someone to misrepresent themselves in order to defraud people. If people are who do this are not being prosecuted, then that is a failure of law enforcement. | |
|
| |
Re: PointlessWell, let's not forget that legislators measure their contribution to society by how many laws they pass, so, for them, this is another checkmark in their "plus column". Whether a law has any real effect, or gets enforced... ever, is beside the point. Sad, huh. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 9:23 am
Re: Pointlesssaid by mod_wastrel:Well, let's not forget that legislators measure their contribution to society by how many laws they pass, so, for them, this is another checkmark in their "plus column". Whether a law has any real effect, or gets enforced... ever, is beside the point. Sad, huh. Indeed. This is just another form of "double secret probation." I just wish more people felt this way. Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced. | |
|
| | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: PointlessYou either forgot, or didn't really need to, bring up one other point that I think is valid and goes hand in hand.. the "offsetting the cost" to the consumer.
I sometimes wonder if these bills are enacted in order to have that nice side effect of a new "fee" as well. I mean, seriously, what is the cost of having a law on the books that law enforcement can have to their disposal? (But like you said, there are already laws for this purpose)
But really... we need another fee for congress simply saying "stop spoofing?" How about passing the costs of this off to the offenders in court in the way of fines? | |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 10:13 am
I wonder..would this law apply to private phone networks also? or is this just a PSTN thing?
and, regardless of the previous question, how in the hell are they going to enforce this?! as it is you have no idea who is really calling and if the caller id info is spoofed there is NO technical way to figure out who is calling. at least not for a lay person. | |
|
|
Two problems with this law1. Doesn't actually outlaw spoofing, ONLY spoofing with intent to defraud or deceive. Intent is the hard thing to prove. Good luck all you Attorney Generals out there.
2. Canada. No law. Many US telemarketers are already using Canadian telecom companies for this purpose. There are no laws in Canada covering CallerID spoofing. | |
|
| |
Re: Two problems with this lawsaid by franknalco:1. Doesn't actually outlaw spoofing, ONLY spoofing with intent to defraud or deceive. Intent is the hard thing to prove. Good luck all you Attorney Generals out there. 2. Canada. No law. Many US telemarketers are already using Canadian telecom companies for this purpose. There are no laws in Canada covering CallerID spoofing. I agree on point 1, but I am glad that wording is in there. If not, the law could be interpreted to also outlaw sending alternate caller ID. For example, all of my VoIP lines are set to send the main number as the CID, despite them having different direct dial numbers. I like it this way. Point 2, there just isn't anything the US Government can do about calls originating from another country. Just like they can't do anything about spammers who send from other countries. Despite our new "global economy", countries are still only allowed to govern themselves. | |
|
| 1 edit |
to franknalco
said by franknalco:2. Canada. No law. Many US telemarketers are already using Canadian telecom companies for this purpose. There are no laws in Canada covering CallerID spoofing. Incorrect. From the CRTC's "Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules", Part III, Point 25: "A telemarketer initiating a telemarketing telecommunication shall display the originating telecommunications number or an alternate telecommunications number where the telemarketer can be reached (except where the number display is unavailable for technical reasons)." Now, this may only apply to calls intended for Canadian phone numbers, but I know the Canadian laws still apply to calls originating from international sources if there is any Canadian business presence in the process at all. So if a Canadian company hires a US call centre to call Canadian numbers, the Canadian company is still liable for the US call centre's actions under Canadian law (at least as far as the telemarketing laws). Same goes for international companies with a Canadian presence. It won't stop people who are doing it for illegal purposes, but it does stop (otherwise) legitimate businesses who go overseas to try and get around the telemarketing laws. I would not be surprised if the US law operates in a similar fashion. | |
|
| | |
Re: Two problems with this lawSince the Canadian law applies to telemarketers, or to those whose initial purpose of the call is to telemarket, I suggest this leaves a rather very large hole by which many spoofed calls may be delivered legally - even to your fellow countrymen. Further, according to Canadian company Spooftel.com, it is the self-acclaimed largest number spoofing company in the world. It is rather accepted knowledge here in the US that many telemarketers in the US use Canadian telecom providers (and often Canadian telemarketers) because of the low inter-country rates and tariffs for calls, and the failure of Canadian officials to aggressively pursue complaints against those Canadian companies. | |
|
| | franknalco |
to bt
Since your law only applies to a telemarketer, or more specifically to those whose initial purpose of the call is to tele-market, that leaves a very large hole for spoofed CID calls to be delivered legally - even to Canadians. Perhaps that is why the canadian firm spooftel.com is the largest caller-id spoofing company in the world. And it is a fact that many US companies are hiring telemarketing and telecom providers in Canada for the ability to spoof cid to calls that terminate in the US without worry well into the future. And that is the point, I think. The new US law seems to apply only to calls that originate within the US. It is to be seen whether any American companies will be held liable for the tactics of a Canadian company they hire. | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to franknalco
The point to the WHY they drafted this law was simple... I really doubt "Helga Smith" was calling me to sell a vehicle warranty or credit card debt consolidation to me. The intent to deceive is very clear in the eyes of the law. A "for business" venture randomly assigned someone else's phone number and caller ID name in order to deceive you into thinking you were answering a call from someone that it wasn't so they could engage in a business transaction. | |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2010-Apr-15 10:29 am
Good Luck With ThatSPAM has been illegal for some time yet it continues. All the scammers need to do is move their operations out of the United States to a country in the NANP such as Canada or the Caribbean, which already runs scams to get you to call back to what looks like a normal number yet incurs high charges. Caller ID will still work and they won't be on United States soil. | |
|
Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS Premium Member join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX |
This law won't stop the Card Services scammersSo, the likes of Heather, Rachel and others will continue to call people annoy the hell out of them. | |
|
rudnicke Premium Member join:2004-10-23 Rantoul, IL
1 recommendation |
rudnicke
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 10:52 am
PhoneI don't even answer the phone anymore. No matter who calls. It's just not worth it. | |
|
1 edit |
it's just more un-enforceable expenseok so lets go further, why not ban spoofing physical address and phone numbers in domain-name and IP block registrations. ...oh thats right, cause there's nobody to actually enforce it. Everyone in Congress seems to forget crooked people don't play by the rules. - oh, wait, most of the crooked people are in congress - damn. I hope this rule also applies to their own political auto-dialer nonsense, so I can repeatedly call it back and tie up the line to prevent it from calling me | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: it's just more un-enforceable expenseIt's not necessarily about those who PLAY by the rules... you're right, though. Crooks, most crooks, don't play by the rules - this is why gun laws are about as effective as building the hoover dam out of straw.
What this does do is this:
Crooks - won't play by the laws/rules, but it gives you something to charge and punish them with IF/When they get caught.
Amateur cooks - it may sway them and make them think twice about actually doing this any more if they aren't smart enough to stay a step ahead of law enforcement. It could stop a certain level of this activity. Believe it or not, some of these people that were dialing out were very low tech, idiot, 1 bedroom apartment operations - they were just great at annoying millions of people.
The honest people - it just keeps the honest people that much more honest and gives those a sense of additional (false) security that all their woes will simply go away now. | |
|
qxork1 Premium Member join:2010-04-15 Gainesville, FL |
qxork1
Premium Member
2010-Apr-15 11:02 am
There's also this...Inside the bill is also an authorization for the FCC "to collect fees from the telecommunications industry sufficient to offset the cost of its regulatory program." That cost estimate is starting at $1 million/yr. Right now it's still just a bill... but for more on that, check out the VoIP Tech Chat article at » bit.ly/calleridact The only other concern I see is the unknown "political" entities exempted from this. | |
|
|
Ioweyou
Anon
2010-Apr-15 11:56 am
Could I Care Less?I have all the names and numbers of my friends, family and co-workers that I want in my phone. If someone calls me and my screen doesn't say "John" or "Mary" or the name of who's calling...VOICEMAIL!
After listening to the message if I determine it's someone I want to call back then I will, if not...DELETE! What is so hard about that?
Are they trying to protect Grandma again? Give me a break. | |
|
| ••• |
fireflierCoffee. . .Need Coffee Premium Member join:2001-05-25 Limbo |
I don't see this helping."It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States"
That would seem to pretty much guarantee they'll just move to Canada or another country (at least those who haven't already). . . | |
|
| |
Re: I don't see this helping.lol, Some of ours (Canada) moved down to the states.
A few months ago started getting a lot of calls from Ohio and West Virginia trying to sell me warranties on cars/phishing. | |
|
alana join:2009-10-20 Lake Geneva, WI |
alana
Member
2010-Apr-15 5:39 pm
I found something interestingBefore I saw this article, I set up for an employee who is working out of our office in IL so his outbound caller ID is his Seattle number. I tested it to my cell phone and all was well.
What is interesting is when I was showing a co-worker how I did it and set my office phone outbound caller ID to be her home number. I then called another phone (calling 10 digit outside). It caller ID'ed was with her husband's name. We are in a different area-code (847 vs. 815), but I'm pretty sure in the same LATA. Our Telco is a CLEC in the AT&T area. I am pretty sure her number is owned by AT&T.
I then changed my (office) outbound caller ID to match my home number. I did the same test and it caller ID'ed with my name. I have Comcast as my provider.
Does anybody have any idea how this is happening? I find this interesting. Is caller-id sent on SS7? | |
|
| ••••• |
60373562 (banned) join:2004-04-13 Glendale, AZ |
60373562 (banned)
Member
2010-Apr-15 6:07 pm
BogusWhat do you mean it's about time?
Why are laws only applicable to citizens and not government?
Seriously? The police are exempt from lying about who they are? | |
|
| Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now.... join:2001-01-25 Gainesville, GA |
Re: Bogussaid by 60373562:What do you mean it's about time? Why are laws only applicable to citizens and not government? Seriously? The police are exempt from lying about who they are? They can lie as long as they are observers. Otherwise it is entrapment. | |
|
|
ace
Anon
2010-Apr-15 10:58 pm
Oh goodI'm glad this is now taken care of, just like the spam problem. | |
|
| |
Re: Oh goodsaid by ace :
I'm glad this is now taken care of, just like the spam problem. yes and the do not call list... Haaaah | |
|
Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now.... join:2001-01-25 Gainesville, GA |
do thisget a 1800 number spam everything alive. laugh that 1800 numbers are protected from disclosure of identity of owner and watch people rage. | |
|
| |
DeeplyShroud
Anon
2010-Apr-16 2:45 pm
How to solve spam and unwanted calls.Simple way, and I've been saying this for decades. WHITELIST. If you're not in my phone directory, you won't get through. If you're not on my email address book, you won't get through. Better email authentication would be nice too. Server A is spoofed to send mail: user@servera.com Server B receives the message: To UserA@ServerB.com Server B queries Server A to see if that message ID was sent. Since it's spoofed, the message is not verified and dumped into the black hole of unwanted bits. Do this and the entire spam problem goes away. Why? Because of the whitelist and verification. Will it be more inconvenient? Sure it will. You'll have to ask your family and friends to add you to their email address book and phone directories, but at least you won't be bothered at dinner time by some idiot wanting to put aluminum siding on your house when you live in a 25 story apartment building...... (happened to me. Was nice to see the trucks pull up, look, and pull away.) | |
|
Tig join:2006-06-29 Carrying Place, ON |
Tig
Member
2010-Apr-17 11:44 pm
Good first stepBut this just moves scammer jobs overseas. But seriously, the thing I like about VOIP is the call screening. Rules can be made, even using wildcards to redirect these calls to places such as back to the telemarketer's head office, an out of service message, or perhaps a fax machine at the CRTC. | |
|
|
Good for......Good for shady cold callers, and stalkers.
- A | |
|
|
|