SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Thursday the US Senate voted to approave a bill strengthening the FCC's powers to address the reviled practice of robocalling.
A bipartisan proposal, the TRACED Act, was introduced by Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Ed Markey (D-MA). If passed, it would raise the fines the FCC is permitted to levy on robocallers, and increase the statute of limitations for bringing those cases. It would also create an interagency task force to address the problem, and push carriers like AT&T and Verizon to deploy call authentication systems like the pending STIR/SHAKEN protocols into their networks.
FCC chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly pushed for carriers to deploy STIR/SHAKEN with little apparent movement, and has indicated that if this is not done the FCC will "have to consider regulatory intervention"
It is estimated that last year alone, approximately 48 BILLION robocalls were placed in the United States.
The TRACED Act, which passed with a vote of 97-1, now moves to the House of Representatives. There it will contend with other anti-robocall bills already waiting for consideration.
Earlier this month, Pai proposed new rules to allow carriers to more aggressively block robocalls.
Hopefully lesson 22 will come to our phones.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday May 24 2019, @03:01AM (3 children)
Am I misunderstanding this, or is this another fucking smart phone app?
So what about "simple" cellphone users?
What about plain old telephone service users?
Right, off to the gas chamber, then.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 24 2019, @05:29PM
I'm sure that's how it could be marketed (as it could give, which the FCC has not forbidden, telecoms a new source of rent-seekng^W revenue), an app that lets you know when the source of a phone call doesn't match what its caller id says.
But STIR/SHAKEN has *nothing* to do with smartphones and there's no reason why an app would be required.
Essentially, the STIR and SHAKEN [transnexus.com] protocols implement call authentication between telecom providers. This allows the destination provider (for you, whomever provides your cell service) to verify, when the call is routed to their network, that the actual source matches the phone number provided with the call.
In a reasonable world, the telecoms would have implemented such a system long ago. However, since telecoms make money on completed calls, they've dragged their feet.
There are valid reasons to "spoof" caller id. For example, if a customer service department has geographically distributed agents (say, working at home or at satellite offices), you want calls from that organization to reflect the correct, centralized, call in number. That said, there are plenty of ways to avoid needing to do this.
In any case, there's no *good* reason why telecoms can't (or shouldn't) just block calls with spoofed telephone numbers without any intervention from your phone ("smart" or otherwise).
The Senate bill is a start, but more needs to be done. Until then, I suggest wasting the fraudster's time [inc.com] and/or verbally abusing [soylentnews.org] them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 24 2019, @05:35PM (1 child)
I'd also point out that STIR/SHAKEN [transnexus.com] would make swatting [wikipedia.org] much more difficult, if not impossible.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @06:02PM
That is a nice side benefit. Of course, the MSM may not like that. SWATTing provides so many opportunities for wild headlines - not to mention head shots.