dslreports logo
 story category
Caller ID Spoofing Soon To Be Outlawed
House passed new bill, soon to pass in Senate
Congress has passed a law that bans all spoofing of caller ID identification, be it via traditional phone service or VoIP. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010 (pdf copy here) was passed in the House of Representatives this week, and was primarily aimed at scammers who use spoofed phone numbers when pitching bogus wares (you're probably familiar with the extended auto warranty scams by now.) The language of the bill:
quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection with any real time voice communications service, regard- less of the technology or network utilized, to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, with the intent to defraud or deceive.
The bill of course contains an exemption for police or federal agencies should they be using the tactic in law enforcement. The VoIP Tech Chat blog (in addition to including a handy video) notes that the bill also requires that the government "collect fees from the telecommunications industry sufficient to offset the cost of its regulatory program" (in other words, you).
view:
topics flat nest 

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

1 recommendation

aaronwt

Premium Member

Finally!

It's about time!!

burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA

burgerwars

Member

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

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

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.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

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

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

sream to Jim Kirk

Premium Member

to Jim Kirk
That has to do with cname. Unrelated to this.

rlychk
@suddenlink.net

rlychk to burgerwars

Anon

to burgerwars
the difference is now we get an additional tax/fee! Horray!

Superpower
@rr.com

Superpower to burgerwars

Anon

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.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 recommendation

Transmaster

Member

Why am I less then impressed

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.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Why am I less then impressed

said 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.
switchg3ar
join:2008-07-01

switchg3ar

Member

Re: Why am I less then impressed

It's not like they can enforce it world wide. They are not going to extradite people from India for telemarketing.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I hear Haiti's economy needs a pickup after the earthquake.
You need Jamaica, Haiti doesn't speak english.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Re: Why am I less then impressed

said 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.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to Transmaster

Member

to Transmaster
Another loophole:

"in connection with any real time voice communications service"

Recorded messages OK?
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01

Necronomikro

Member

Re: Why am I less then impressed

said 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.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to Transmaster

Premium Member

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.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy to Transmaster

Member

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

superpower
@rr.com

superpower to Transmaster

Anon

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.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Google voice

So will this mean that GV can no longer spoof when calling to IPKall numbers, in order to save the reciprocal compensation fees?
mgamer20o0
join:2003-12-01
Norwalk, CA

mgamer20o0

Member

Re: Google voice

said 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

Re: Google voice

I 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.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Pointless

It 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.

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

Re: Pointless

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.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Pointless

said 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.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Pointless

You 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?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

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.

franknalco
join:2005-01-27
Littleton, CO

franknalco

Member

Two problems with this law

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.

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Re: Two problems with this law

said 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.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

1 edit

bt to franknalco

Member

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.

franknalco
join:2005-01-27
Littleton, CO

franknalco

Member

Re: Two problems with this law

Since 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

franknalco to bt

Member

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.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to franknalco

Premium Member

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

Good Luck With That

SPAM 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 Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

Doctor Four

Premium Member

This law won't stop the Card Services scammers

So, 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

Phone

I don't even answer the phone anymore. No matter who calls. It's just not worth it.
supergeeky
join:2003-05-09
United State

1 edit

supergeeky

Member

it's just more un-enforceable expense

ok 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
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: it's just more un-enforceable expense

It'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

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
@comcast.net

Ioweyou

Anon

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.

•••

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier

Premium Member

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). . .
militiamen
join:2007-07-02
Canada

militiamen

Member

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

I found something interesting

Before 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

Bogus

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?

Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA

Augustus III

Member

Re: Bogus

said 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
@torpid.org

ace

Anon

Oh good

I'm glad this is now taken care of, just like the spam problem.
RiverMerger
join:2007-12-19
Hinsdale, IL

RiverMerger

Member

Re: Oh good

said 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 III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA

Augustus III

Member

do this

get a 1800 number

spam everything alive. laugh that 1800 numbers are protected from disclosure of identity of owner and watch people rage.


DeeplyShroud
@noanet.net

DeeplyShroud

Anon

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

Good first step

But 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.

FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

FastiBook

Member

Good for......

Good for shady cold callers, and stalkers.

- A