FCC Orders Phone Companies To Block Scam Text Messages (arstechnica.com) 25
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission today finalized rules requiring mobile carriers to block robotext messages that are likely to be illegal. The FCC described the rules as the agency's "first regulations specifically targeting the increasing problem of scam text messages sent to consumers." Carriers will be required to block text messages that come from "invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers." Carriers must also block texts from "numbers that the subscriber to the number has self-identified as never sending text messages, and numbers that government agencies and other well-known entities identify as not used for texting," the FCC said. Carriers will have to establish a point of contact for text senders so the senders can inquire about blocked texts. The FCC already requires similar blocking of voice calls from these types of numbers. The order will take effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register, according to a draft of the order released before the meeting.
More robotext rules may be on the way because today's "action also seeks public comment on further proposals to require providers to block texts from entities the FCC has cited as illegal robotexters," the FCC said. For example, the FCC proposes to clarify that Do Not Call Registry protections apply to text messaging. The FCC said it's further proposing to close the "lead generator loophole" that "allows companies to use a single consumer consent to deliver robocalls and text messages from multiple -- perhaps thousands -- of marketers on subjects that may not be what the consumer had in mind." The FCC "will also take further public comment on text authentication measures and other proposals to continue to fight illegal scam robotexts." The FCC separately voted today to close another gap in its Caller ID authentication rules that target illegal robocalls. The rules already required phone companies to implement the caller ID authentication technologies known as STIR and SHAKEN. But the rules don't apply in every possible scenario, so the FCC has periodically strengthened them. In June 2022, for example, the FCC required carriers with 100,000 or fewer customers to comply a year earlier than these small carriers were originally required to. The FCC said in a statement: "The new rules will require intermediate providers that receive unauthenticated IP calls directly from domestic originating providers to use STIR/SHAKEN to authenticate those calls. Although STIR/SHAKEN has been widely implemented under FCC rules, some originating providers are not capable of using the framework. In other cases, unscrupulous originating providers may deliberately fail to authenticate calls. By requiring the next provider in the call path to authenticate those calls, the FCC closes a gap in the caller ID authentication regime and facilitates government and industry efforts to identify and block illegal robocalls."
More robotext rules may be on the way because today's "action also seeks public comment on further proposals to require providers to block texts from entities the FCC has cited as illegal robotexters," the FCC said. For example, the FCC proposes to clarify that Do Not Call Registry protections apply to text messaging. The FCC said it's further proposing to close the "lead generator loophole" that "allows companies to use a single consumer consent to deliver robocalls and text messages from multiple -- perhaps thousands -- of marketers on subjects that may not be what the consumer had in mind." The FCC "will also take further public comment on text authentication measures and other proposals to continue to fight illegal scam robotexts." The FCC separately voted today to close another gap in its Caller ID authentication rules that target illegal robocalls. The rules already required phone companies to implement the caller ID authentication technologies known as STIR and SHAKEN. But the rules don't apply in every possible scenario, so the FCC has periodically strengthened them. In June 2022, for example, the FCC required carriers with 100,000 or fewer customers to comply a year earlier than these small carriers were originally required to. The FCC said in a statement: "The new rules will require intermediate providers that receive unauthenticated IP calls directly from domestic originating providers to use STIR/SHAKEN to authenticate those calls. Although STIR/SHAKEN has been widely implemented under FCC rules, some originating providers are not capable of using the framework. In other cases, unscrupulous originating providers may deliberately fail to authenticate calls. By requiring the next provider in the call path to authenticate those calls, the FCC closes a gap in the caller ID authentication regime and facilitates government and industry efforts to identify and block illegal robocalls."
IT'S ABOUT TIME! (Score:5, Insightful)
And they have to name responsible parties (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.fcc.gov/call-authe... [fcc.gov]
"The FCC requires that all providers certify in the Robocall Mitigation Database that they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN or have instituted a robocall mitigation program to ensure that they are not originating illegal robocalls. All providers are required to submit to this public database the contact information for the personnel at their company responsible for robocall-mitigation related issues. And those providers certifying to their implementation of a robocall mitigation program are required to include descriptions of the reasonable steps they are taking to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic. Finally, because the STIR/SHAKEN framework is only operational on IP networks, Commission rules also require providers using older forms of network technology to either upgrade their networks to IP or actively work to develop a caller ID authentication solution that is operational on non-IP networks."
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, FBI - the poster above is anotherr robocall scammer.
How long? (Score:2)
So how many decades is the FCC giving these telcos to actually obey this directive?
Re: (Score:2)
They are ordered to do it right away, and to show the FCC means business, penalties will be levied starting in 2090.
What about WhatsApp/Skype/Telegram etc.? (Score:5, Interesting)
I only ever use signal. But I have a bunch of different apps installed on some devices. My phone numbers have been geting a lot of random adds into various groups in apps like skype and whatsapp etc. Most people I know do "Report & Block" .. but I just do "Report" and stay in the group to watch. It's interesting how they work .. guaranteed a lot of people are getting scammed and enticed by the promises. The most common scam seems to be you get "invited to" and added to an "investing group" led by some super wealth financial "guru". Many "people" in that forum praise the guru and say how it's a privilege to be invited to the investment training and guidance group. I'll bet many people fear missing out, and invest based on the testimonies of those bots praising the guru. Not to mention the guru gives some correct-sounding advice on the market. Anyway, I'll bet there are people putting money into these crypto scams for years watching the "value" of their crypto rise .. never trying to withdraw because they think it's gaining in value rapidly and they can retire on it. Also, btw "Report" seems to do nothing. I've never seen WhatsApp bother to block those idiots. I don't understand how by default any idiot can add you to a group and start sending you messages.
Re:What about WhatsApp/Skype/Telegram etc.? (Score:5, Informative)
FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over that since it's all private apps and networks, they only get to regulate text messages because the cell companies carry it and they license the public spectrum.
If there was some oversight over that type of spam I have to imagine it would be the FTC rather than the FCC?
I think that's the case, maybe theres a lawyer here who knows for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take many successful frauds to keep scammers going. They sell the business of scamming to other scammers. As long as there is an occasional success, foolish scammers are willing to continue the business, even if they are losing money. It's why Canter&Siegel, the original commercial spammers, kept going bankrupt and eventually died that way. disbarred as lawyers, divorced, and bankrupt.
Can't Block The Calls So.. (Score:3)
You are going to make a sad attempt to blocking the texts. Like you did the calls. Riiiiight.
Must include political 'marketing' (Score:2)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that 'phone calls from political parties was not subject to similar restrictions. This is wrong. Spam is spam is spam even if it from someone trying to get elected. Unfortunately politicians will not see it that way and will probably vote to continue the exemption.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really about cutting down on scams being perpetrated via phone spam.
Hmm, on second thought, I see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you need to be a member of the party or not; but I've actually considered re-registering as independent for this very reason. What I really want though, is to stop the physical spam but it won't happen because the USPS makes a lot of money like that. Winner of the most ironic award goes to the campaign that sent me a big glossy flyer explaining how they were the environmental candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
... What I really want though, is to stop the physical spam but it won't happen because the USPS makes a lot of money like that.
No, keep the junk mail going. I need it as kindling to light the fire, especially now that newspapers are dying out.
Re:Must include political 'marketing' (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually think that exemption makes sense. Without it, you can be sure that their filters would be really good at blocking messages from certain candidates, while mysteriously terrible at blocking messages from their opponents...
Re: (Score:2)
The exception for political spam is bretty broad, see https://www.fcc.gov/rules-poli... [fcc.gov]. .
Why not simply... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, spam itself is already banned, so you can ban vowels from the damn thing too and it'll be just as ineffective. The problem is not solved by some people in a domed building scribbling the words on a piece of paper "Advertising is forthwith herewith banned." It is solved by enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says the internet isn't a critical communication service?
Re: (Score:2)
Defining "advertising" turns out to be awkward. Also, a great deal of it comes from overseas, though perhaps relayed from bots and "make money from home" desperate victims of the related scams.
Re: (Score:2)
a) You would have to define advertising in a way that is content-neutral.
b) That doesn't stop spam that isn't advertising.
The problem with spam is the intersection of bulk sending with unsolicited messages. The bulk nature makes it efficient enough to send when there's a low response rate. The unsolicited nature means that the sender is externalizing their costs.
The actual content of the message is irrelevant to whether it's spam. Furthermore, a content-neutral ban is not susceptible to First Amendment atta
Discard spoofing instead (Score:5, Insightful)
The technical chicanery in place that allows spoofing is a primary factor in making fraud difficult to trace to its source. I'd not expect this to have any useful effect on what are already criminal and abusive enterprises, with nearly no enforcement of existing laws. The damages are too small to interest any enforcement agencies with the legal authority to trace the abuse. The FBI Computer Crime Lab, for example, does nothing useful with its budget: the evidence is nearly always gathered by outraged people outside the FBI, such as occurred with the Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll by and the tracking of Kevin Mitnick.by Tsutomu Shimomura. Federal agencies legally empowered to act, such as the FBI or the NSA for the related wire fraud crimes. do nothing about these relatively smaller crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I misspoke. I meant the Secret Service for the wire fraud involved in credit or debit card transactions.
If it works, awesome (Score:1)
Now do "ringless voicemail".