Senate Passes Bill Cracking Down On Robocalls (cnn.com) 121
The Senate on Thursday passed a bill that aims to crack down on unwanted robocalls. "The legislation would impose stiffer fines of as much as $10,000 per call on robocallers who knowingly flout the rules on calls and would increase the statute of limitations to three years, up from one year," reports CNN. "It also instructs the Federal Communications Commission to develop further regulations that could shield consumers from unwanted calls." From the report: The legislation would accelerate the rollout of so-called "call authentication" technologies the industry is currently developing, which could cut down on the number of calls coming from unverified numbers. Proponents say the new industry standards -- known as SHAKEN/STIR -- could increase phone users' confidence in their caller ID. The protocols are designed to authenticate callers who are using their rightful phone numbers and to eliminate calls from spammers who are using phone numbers they don't rightfully own.
The legislation passed the Senate 97-1, with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky casting the lone dissenting vote. The legislation must still pass the House and be signed by President Donald Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged House lawmakers to vote on the bill immediately. The legislation's passage follows a move by the FCC last week to clarify that phone companies may legally block unwanted robocalls and can even apply the technologies to their customers' accounts by default. But lawmakers want the FCC to do more.
The legislation passed the Senate 97-1, with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky casting the lone dissenting vote. The legislation must still pass the House and be signed by President Donald Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged House lawmakers to vote on the bill immediately. The legislation's passage follows a move by the FCC last week to clarify that phone companies may legally block unwanted robocalls and can even apply the technologies to their customers' accounts by default. But lawmakers want the FCC to do more.
Gee. (Score:1, Insightful)
"with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky casting the lone dissenting vote"
You mean the anti-vaxxer guy is also a weirdo about regular things too? Chocking.
Astronomical Loophole (Score:5, Insightful)
"who knowingly flout the rules on calls"
Bullshit. That's going to allow them to claim they didn't know, make some "new" subsidiary which is just a new sticker on the backroom door with the server in it, claim they didn't know, make some "new" subsidiary which is just a new sticker on the backroom door with the server in it, claim they didn't know..... and so on and so forth.
Senate gutted the bill for the sake of robocallers and called it a victory for their victims.
One-click transfer (Score:2)
I'd just like a way to forward a spam phone call to a central site with one click or drag, e.g., answer/send-to-voicemail/forward-to-spam-clearinghouse. Does Android or iOS offer this?
Re: (Score:1)
Huawei phones can forward ALL your calls to a central site without you even needing to click once. e.g., answer/send-to-3rd-party-db/phone-home-to-Shenzhen. It's not only a feature, it's an uninstallable feature!
Voters not picking up (Score:2, Interesting)
Impetus for this are the people who are so sick and tired of robocalls that they ignore calls from unrecognized number. Meaning cold fundraising calls every politician make are going unanswered. Why aren't the Koch brothers fighting this. Less little people's money means politicians are more beholden to whales like them. Little people meaning the upper middle class who can contribute $1000 to $5000 for their politician.
Re: Voters not picking up (Score:2)
This was going to win in the Senate regardless of lobbying - why waste the resources there when the vote in the House can be bought for so much less?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't this also work to the politicians favor? It essentially walls off an out-of-band avenue for information dissemination. Coral all the people to centralized places of information where the messaging can be more easily controlled...
$10,000 per call? (Score:1)
Make them pay it to the victims.
And what's this shit?
The legislation would accelerate the rollout of so-called "call authentication" technologies the industry is currently developing
How bogus can they be? Don't answer that... They already have tech to bill the right number. Make them open it up for the rest of us.
We can make this happen with enough demand and good voting, but I guess it's just easier to believe their bullshit and bitch about it between elections
No, the recipient doesn't bill the caller (Score:2)
> They already have tech to bill the right number
No, the recipient doesn't bill the caller. The recipients DID provider doesn't bill the caller. The outgoing transit provider in Whateveristan bills a person (not a phone number). The company billing the caller for outgoing calls doesn't know which DIDs (incoming call numbers) that the person purchased from aome other company.
Take my phone system for example. I have outgoing call service from my office from one company, and wireless ("cell") phone service
Who is "they"? Also, like postal mail, address rec (Score:2)
> If they know who to bill
Who is this "they" you are talking about? Is that the same "they" who is covering up the aliens?
> then they have the number of the outgoing call.
Calls are PLACED to phone numbers and BILLED to PEOPE. Phone numbers don't pay bills, people do. Phone numbers (DIDs) don't place calls, stations do. There is no "outgoing number", there is an outgoing station (handset) connected to an outgoing exchange, which connects to other exchanges.
The company I use to make outgoing calls kno
Re: (Score:2)
When you walk into the post office and mail a package, you need two things. You need the address it is going to, and payment. That's what is required to deliver the package. The return address isn't used. Nobody has any way of knowing if it's correct. The PTSN works the same way. A call goes TO a number, which is called a DID.
> The handset has to have a number
You've never received a call that's a recording?
Never called a place and got a recording?
There is no need for a handset to be involved in a cal
Maybe you know DNS, domain registration? (Score:2)
Are you by chance familiar with registering a domain name and hosting a web site? If so, that should help you understand how the phone system works.
As you know, people who want to connect to your web server use the domain name to reach it. A phone number (DID or direct inward dial) works similarly to a domain name. It names a service the caller wants to connect to.
You can buy a server or VM from the hosting company of your choice. When you get your server, rhe server company gives you an IP, not a name.
RFC 1918 (Score:2)
Your phone probably doesn't have an IP address that's recognized by the outside world. It probably has the same RFC 1918 address that many other devices have - it doesn't have it's own IP assigned to only it. Yet here you are on Slashdot, without having a unique IP.
The IMEI of your phone is similarly not routable - it's not meaningful outside of your own network.
If I knew how old you are I might be able to choose an analogy that makes the most sense to you. If you're over 30, you've probably used a touch-t
Re: (Score:2)
> This is too weird. Nothing you have said so far makes any sense.
I understand your mental model doesn't make sense with how things actually work. I'm curious how you think voicemail or robocalls work, given your idea that a "phone number" (DID) identifies a station (phone). For a robocall, do you picture an anthropomorphic robot picking up a phone, with its robotic hand?
Re: (Score:2)
> The robot still needs a phone number to dial from, so the registered owner of the number (and robot) can be billed.
Just as a point of information, I can make calls all day long with no phone number. I get outgoing service and incoming numbers from two totally different companies. They bill me, a person, they don't send a bill to a phone number.
The thing is, reality doesn't match your guess (Score:2)
The thing is, I actually set up phone systems. I did one for Coca-Cola, for example.
It just so happens that the way the phone system actually works isn't the same as how you guessed that it might work. What you thought about how things could work doesn't change how it actually works. Calls use the ISUP protocol to transit between carriers, not the Anonymous Coward protocol.
In the ISUP protocol, the only mandatory field that has anything to do with the caller is a boolean bit that says whether or not the ca
Re: (Score:2)
> The phone has a number on it.
A) Robocalls don't actually use a phone. There is no robot hand.
B) If you go to a store and buy a phone, you won't find a phone number anywhere in that phone.
Why B? Because like domain names, phone numbers identify services, not devices. There is no server called "google.com", and no phone called "1-800-google".
Re: (Score:2)
So you've changed your mind and decided phones DON'T have numbers, now transit connections have numbers?
> They do use a phone line! Which does have a registered phone number!
It uses an outgoing transit connection.
Why would an *outgoing* transit connection have a Direct Inward Dial number (aka phone number)?
> You're just being an ass... Later...
I'm explaining to you how the phone protocol works.
To make outbound connections, you need a need a transit connection, which is nearly identical to your
Re: (Score:2)
And what's this shit?
The legislation would accelerate the rollout of so-called "call authentication" technologies the industry is currently developing
The technology is called STIR/SHAKEN.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [congress.gov] is the bill. It explains (in their term) what you are asking for.
I don't understand why any write up doesn't give a direct link to the source. It is unacceptable.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The House will pass this, no problem. This and all the other major legislation the House has been passing will just highlight Trump's lies about how Congress can't pass legislation while investigating his degenerate ass.
The question is, will Trump sign it?
Why would Trump not sign it? (Score:3, Funny)
The question is, will Trump sign it?
Why is that even a question - Trump has a phone that he tweets form, you think that phone is not also getting spam calls the rest of us are? Why do you think this bill has such bi-partisan support?
The spam callers are really lucky though, if they had been spam-calling Obama during his administration, they would all be dead from drone strikes by now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can safely guarantee that Trump's phone gets _no_ direct incoming calls, that the phone is blocked except for a Secret Service approved secretary. There is just too much chance of the number being discovered and published if it permitted direct access.
That job could be fascinating. Jonathan Swift described the role in Gulliver's Travels, the "flapper" whose task was to flap a bladder about the heads of nobles and control when they spoke and what they were allowed to see or hear. It would be fasci
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can safely guarantee that Trump's phone gets _no_ direct incoming calls, that the phone is blocked except for a Secret Service approved secretary. There is just too much chance of the number being discovered and published if it permitted direct access.
That job could be fascinating. Jonathan Swift described the role in Gulliver's Travels, the "flapper" whose task was to flap a bladder about the heads of nobles and control when they spoke
Is that anything like a Fluffer?
Re: (Score:2)
The excerpt from Gulliver's Travels is available at the site below. The word was definitely "flapper".
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au... [adelaide.edu.au]
I had to look up "fluffer": that job is apparently to keep male pornographic actors sufficiently aroused. I don't think I'll speculate about whose job that is in the current White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are his daily work assignments!
Re: (Score:2)
I've always found it extremely disingenuous that congresscritters feel they can bulk email anyone who has ever contacted them, but don't ever have an email address you can reply to, only some lame web form they ignorantly call "email."
This illustrates the value in divided Senate/House (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill passing the senate and House with real bi-partisan support illuminates exactly why I favor different parties in control of the House and Senate (don't care which one controls what).
It's the best scenario because stuff that comes from the fringes of either side can't really get passed. Whereas you see here with the call spam bill, when something is actually important parties can still act in unison without hesitation. Well, ok, without endless hesitation...
A divided house/senate prevents a lot of garbage legislation being passed. That's exactly why I supported a number of Democrats running for the House in the last election (both with donations and voting, although donating to either party this days triggers its own wave of identical sounding fear-spam hitting you up for more donations).
All is according to plan (Score:3, Informative)
Trump should have been impeached and convicted already
The man in charge of investigating that very idea said that Trump was innocent.
So as I said, the system is working well because all of the many times and ways the Democrats plan to try for impeachment will fail since the Senate will never agree. The fringes of the D and parties are kept from truly hurting anything or anyone.
Thus all of the fringe loonies who ignore the results of the Mueller investigation are kept in the little padded cells of government
Re: (Score:1)
Trump should have been impeached and convicted already
The man in charge of investigating that very idea said that Trump was innocent.
I don't live in the US, but even I know you are distorting the facts there.
One analyst says [theatlantic.com]: "The president committed crimes." and "The president also committed impeachable offenses."
Mueller's report says [newyorker.com] among other things: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” which is a far cry from your "The man in charge said Trump was innocent."
What about this one: [cnn.com] "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuc
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live in the US, but even I know you are distorting the facts there.
That fact can be used to dismiss your understandable ignorance of how things work here.
One analyst says [theatlantic.com]: "The president committed crimes." and "The president also committed impeachable offenses."
An analyst at The Atlantic? That has the credibility of quoting Alex Jones. An analyst can say anything they want. Doesn't make it so.
Mueller's report says [newyorker.com] among other things: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” which is a far cry from your "The man in charge said Trump was innocent."
In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Mueller didn't even have enough evidence to claim that Trump was guilty, which is what an indictment is. . .a claim of guilt. By not indicting, Mueller said he was innocent.
What about this one: [cnn.com] "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
Ranting about being the target of a witch hunt from behind a clos
Re: (Score:1)
The man in charge of investigating that very idea said that Trump was innocent.
Thus all of the fringe loonies who ignore the results of the Mueller investigation
I know it would be comforting for both of us if the investigation found nothing to back up allegations against the president, but that's just not what happened. The fact is that it said this: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" Either you think for yourself about this fact or you don't. Your choice.
No, I see clearly (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement, while polite, completely turns a blind eye to all the bad-faith legislation and governing that the Republicans have engaged in for the past several decades
Incorrect; indeed I am one of the few here that sees with both eyes open - and so have equally seen the rampant bad-faith legislation and governing the Democrats have done AS WELL over the past several decades.
The ability to see this clearly for both sides, is why I vote as an independent, also why I support hamstringing BOTH parties in favor of gridlock. Can't pass bad faith legislation if you can't pass much legislation at all! As I said, then only truly valuable legislation passes.
It was also a good reason to back Trump, since he's not really a Republican or a Democrat (remember many Republicans dislike Trump as much or more than any Democrat does). Trump has after all been registered both as a Democrat and Republican over time... He is an outsider to DC which is why he's a good choice to run herd over the bunch of cancerous cats that the R and D parties both have plenty of.
Re: (Score:1)
It was also a good reason to back Trump, since he's not really a Republican or a Democrat (remember many Republicans dislike Trump as much or more than any Democrat does). Trump has after all been registered both as a Democrat and Republican over time... He is an outsider to DC which is why he's a good choice to run herd over the bunch of cancerous cats that the R and D parties both have plenty of.
There were also plenty of good reasons not to back Trump, including that he is a senile and incompetent pathological liar with a massive inferiority complex. But I will agree with you that the R's and D's have a stranglehold on American politics and that it is bad for the country. It still has me completely baffled that, of all the people who said they couldn't stand either of the 2 choices in 2016, or only voted for 1 to spite/absolutely loathed the other, so few of them could actually get past the condi
Re: (Score:2)
It was also a good reason to back Trump, since he's not really a Republican or a Democrat (remember many Republicans dislike Trump as much or more than any Democrat does).
Trump was a disastrous choice due to the fact that we now have a conservative Supreme Court, thanks to McConnell's (the single largest obstacle to democracy today) refusal to vote on Obama's SCOTUS pick, effectively stealing it. We can now look forward to generations of conservative decisions.
I was no big fan of HRC, but I voted for her for that exact reason. That, and Trump being a dishonest asshole bullshit artist.
I can instantly make this bill way more popular. (Score:5, Interesting)
The $10,000 fine goes to the recipient of the call.
Re: (Score:2)
The $10,000 fine goes to the recipient of the call.
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I think any politician who got your idea enacted into law would get reelected in a landslide... Yes, even him.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would they fine, exactly?
It's a fairly safe bet that by the time this bill starts getting enforced, spammers will have started calling from places outside the jurisdiction of this bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute... (Score:1)
Isn't the current fine $40,000. So "stiffer fines" means lowering it to $10,000?
One Addendum (Score:5, Insightful)
I would add one addendum to the bill, that the phone companies have to pay if the scammer can't be found. It will incentive them to crack down.
Seriously, can't they just monitor which network interconnect it's coming from and start shutting down that network? If the VoIP service that is being used for these scammers is squeezed, then they will crackdown on their users.
Re: (Score:3)
Phone companies are not private people with zero knowledge of what they're doing. They're allegedly professionals. If they are not, toss them on the pile and replace them with some that are more professional.
Nice idea but .. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are completely valid reasons why the caller ID (technically name and number), SHOULD be different. Simple example is an inbound call ACD queue with virtual extensions. Calls come in and ring agents that could be logged in from a normal phone, so you want the origin caller ID information.
Another example is where you don't want the trunk informaiton either for technical reasons or it simply isn't helpful. Analog trunks for example.
This SMELLS like a solution from Google/Microsoft/IBM "AI", looking for a problem. Phone companies are well aware of who their telemarking / spam customers are.. They are the ones making thousands of calls under a few seconds in length. There's no reason to register for yet another service.
Re: (Score:2)
i am sure the technology will have a way to make exceptions. then all that is needed is for these exception to be supported by law, such as law enforcement investigators. the telcos already know about this (i used to be the Linux server sysadmin for a small independent one ... their president still active in my LinkedIn contacts).
fine the Voice Telecoms (Score:5, Interesting)
A better target... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Rand Paul is sometimes consistent (Score:1)
Something like this illustrates pretty well just how problematic that kind of simplistic thinking can be. Of course, in reality this is just him trying to shore up his cred on a vote that doasn't matter.
Re: (Score:1)
As is usual for new media reporting on laws, they do a piss poor job on pointing out some of the downsides. The law broadens the TCPA which increases the liability exposure without doing anything to limit that exposure growth for individuals or groups that aren't engaging in what would commonly be known as robocalls.
https://www.natlawreview.com/a... [natlawreview.com]
Encouraging federal agencies to step up enforcement of the TCPA without a clear definition of robocalls causes dire First Amendment concerns and will only serve to place pressure on the FCC to broaden, rather than narrow, the statute as part of its pending public notice proceeding.
Yet another CAN-SPAM Act of 2003? (Score:1)
Telling AT&T to accelerate SHAKEN/STIR adoption is like telling Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer to improve murder in
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks, Rand Paul (Score:1)
To show my appreciation, I'm going to forward all of my daily spam robocall messages to Rand Paul's office.
nice headline but... (Score:2)
I have serious doubts this will do anything. The proof will be whether or not my phone becomes usable.
And by usable, I mean whether or not I stop using my known contacts as an effective whitelist - if I don't have the caller in my phone I don't answer.
These robocalls are killing the telephone.
Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement (Score:3)
Look, I am all in favor of just about ANYTHING that will reduce phone spam. But the first thing, "stiffer fines", is UTTERLY MEANINGLESS. $10,000 per call? Why not make it $100,000 per call or $1,000,000 per call? It doesn't matter because there has been essentially zero enforcement and that won't change.
1) It needs to be a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, not civil. This is the most important thing- without it, nothing will change.
2) It needs a method for citizens (victims) to easily and quickly report such calls to someone/something that matters.
3) It needs a body to actually investigate such reports.
4) It needs that body to actually DO SOMETHING after the reports- like bring charges against offenders and convict.
5) It needs to prevent such glaring exceptions for spammers like "political calls" or "non-profits" or "existing business relationships". That last one will be the excuse that really undoes any attempts to stop spam.
6) But most of all, it needs to focus on technology improvements that strengthen and authenticate caller ID so all the above works.
7) And that we can do all the same for calls that originate from outside of the USA.
So, although I am glad to see the recent legislation moving forward, color me very skeptical it will make any difference. Really, based on how quickly these spammers change numbers and physical location and business models and company names, and how seriously incapable government is at actually implementing, executing, and enforcing good law, I think the only solution is technological- giving consumers the power to control their devices and who is allowed to call them.
Right now there is almost nothing that can be done with actual land lines. And although cell phones have apps and such, they don't work well when they can only reject to voicemail (which is irritating to say the least because half the callers leave voicemail, which is almost as bad as the calls, themselves) and because most schemes have to rely on bogus caller ID or giving away all your privacy to 3rd or even 4th parties. Making all this even worse are websites and companies (like GOOGLE) that *insist* on knowing your phone number to do X or Y or Z.
Sorry for the rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Telcos will charge you for this. (Score:1)
I see nothing nowhere nohow that says having your telco block robocalls will be free. I'd welcome robocall blocking, but I refuse to pay for it.
Right now I block all calls from callers outside of my contacts list. I try to be diligent, allowing those I want to call me to do so. Otherwise, anyone that can't get through, that should get through, most likely has my address. They can send me a snail-mail, and help to keep my mail carrier employed.
I've done it this way for several
Another example of fluff legislation from Congress (Score:1)
Re: 97-1? (Score:3, Interesting)
Congrats on showing that you have no idea how this process works. This is the Senate kicking the can down the road for the House to deal with - they know it will be drowned in amendments and poison pills there from members in safe seats, and don't have to risk their statewide office. Everyone gets re-elected because everyone blames everyone else's district but their own.
Worked like a charm on you.