  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | 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
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | 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. | |
|
| | | | | 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
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
 ·Choice One Commu..
| Re: What's the use. said by digitalfreak: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".
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: What's the use. said by ptrowski:said by digitalfreak: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. | |
|
| | | |  sreamPremium
join:2002-08-17
Portage, MI | That has to do with cname. Unrelated to this. | |
|
| | | | the difference is now we get an additional tax/fee! Horray! | |
|
| | | | 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 | 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. 
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
|  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | 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. | |
|
| | | | 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
kudos:1 | said by ThrowDemsOut: 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 impressed said by patcat88:said by ThrowDemsOut: 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.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | | Another loophole:
"in connection with any real time voice communications service"
Recorded messages OK? | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
|
| | | 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 voice So will this mean that GV can no longer spoof when calling to IPKall numbers, in order to save the reciprocal compensation fees? | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | |
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Pointless
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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? | |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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
·Optimum Online
| 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.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | 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. | |
|
 rudnickePremium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
kudos:1 | Phone I don't even answer the phone anymore. No matter who calls. It's just not worth it.
--
One Big Ass Mistake America | |
|
1 edit | 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  | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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. | |
|
|
| | 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. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Could I Care Less? Wow... poor Grandma... she's not worth protecting? Hrmmm... me thinks your thinking is a bit flawed. Often times, these very scammers target seniors.. I guess they're not worth protecting someone huh?
Also, you made a very good and clear point about your cell phone but not everyone uses cell phones.. there are STILL millions of land lines out there in operation.. again, too, I guess that means nothing as well?
I will say, however, that how you use your phone is the same way I use mine, as do many others... MAINLY I think that is was due to the fact you have to pay for each precious minute you use on your phone so you think twice about turning on a conversation. Not so much at home.
On a side note.. it is funny that we are talking about call screening issues these days... you'll notice that it's almost 50 times harder to get people to answer their phones these days anyway. I think, personally, since the invention of the internet, texting, IM, Facebook/MySpace, that people in this country are largely done with "the telephone"... seems most people don't really want to answer it any more.
Personally.. I don't even have voicemail anymore. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| They will start calling cell phones I have already gotten a few telemarketers calling my personal cell phone. Certain companies see that the DNC list is killing telemarketing companies, so they began selling cell phone numbers too. They are annoying, and are worse than land line callers, cause they have less laws to abide by. They can still caller ID spoof if there is no intent to defraud, meaning if they intend to sell you a product A and are actually selling you product A(even if product A is a illegitimate product, as long as its not misrepresented), then there is no intent. This goes down as another one of those completely useless laws that will do no good to anyone, and | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: They will start calling cell phones You're a little confused I think on this one.... there is a slight difference between the telemarketers and the spoofer/scammers.
The Telemarketing business, actually, can now call cell phone numbers - they've been given the pass. You must register your phone on the DNC.. simple. SOME will either by accident, or not, still get past the DNC list.. it can happen too when you're in that black hole period of registration until effective date.
However, these people spoofing caller ID are not really legitimate telemarketers. The car warranty thing is shady.. they call you and tell you that your warranty is about to expire.. that's deception.. they will hit SOME people who are about to expire and it makes that group of people believe it's legit, when it's not. While it IS legit, when they get the target group that DOES have an expiring warranty, they CAN be led to believe that this is a legitimate call. Credit card calls where they can "lower your rate" calls.. again, same story.. they call to make it sound like your cards are able to have their rates lowered. Again, it's deception marketing - not legitimate.
THEN you have an actual telemarketer... you'll get people trying to sell you carpet cleaning services, glass repair, etc... those are valid, non-shady attempts to sell services that are real, local, and tangible. There is a difference.. and, this group of marketers don't spoof their caller ID becuase they're legit. The other group, above, does it in order to cover their tracks from easily being traced.
Here it is, plain and simple - if you're offering something legit and isn't questionable, then why do you need to hide? A valid telemarketer will follow the rules and while you may hate the calls, good marketers try to follow them becuase they don't want the heat.. they just want to sell their goods.
Personally, I think telemarketing should be banned all together. My belief is that my phone is a conduit into my home or private life. I don't believe it's a revolving door for anyone to simply use as they see fit. *I* pay to have the service on, not them, and I don't believe that telemarketing should be legal, period - INCLUDING politicians and non-profit fund raising.. we have a postal service that seriously is in need of revenue.. use it instead. In the case of mail to the home, the cost is PURELY on them.. but yea, telemarketing is dependent on ME paying a bill for them to take advantage of. Telemarketing industry people will say that to ban the industry practice would be to destroy jobs... oh well.. not my problem they developed an industry around annoying people and the people want it stopped. I just don't believe in saving an industry that is intrusive, unwanted, or something that we have to spend tax payer money to place systems on line to stop it from happening (DNC lists) etc..
So yea.. easiest way to stop this is to simply put an end to telemarketing. Politicians won't go go for it becuase they're always protecting political speech - ie: their OWN money sources. | |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
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). . .
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
|
| | | 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
Crystal Lake, IL | 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? | |
|
| | | Re: I found something interesting Caller ID parameters are sent via SS7. But some providers will ignore or overwrite certain flags or values. | |
|
| |  bigunkGort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA | Re: I found something interesting said by freejazz_RdJ:Caller ID parameters are sent via SS7. But some providers will ignore or overwrite certain flags or values. SS7? Every time? | |
|
| bigunkGort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA | How did you change your outbound CID? I know a few ways to do it, but they require hardware/software to get there, and I do enable it for clients that own the numbers they want to send outbound (So, while they are spoofing, they're technically not). Feel free to IM me if you don't wanna tell the whole world.
--
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusionary, illogical minority, which is rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, who holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." | |
|
| | alana
join:2009-10-20
Crystal Lake, IL | Re: I found something interesting bigunk - No problem copying the whole world....
We have Cisco CallManager and on the directory number page, you change "External Phone Number Mask" to the number you want. This is the number passed to your telco (a CLEC in our case). As somebody said, what they do with it varies. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the home telephone service is in his name its his name that will show up on the CID.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | 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 IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | Re: Bogus said by DrThodt: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. | |
|
| | Oh good I'm glad this is now taken care of, just like the spam problem. | |
|
| | | 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 IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | 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.
 | |
|
| | | 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.) | |
|
|
| | Good for...... Good for shady cold callers, and stalkers.
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
