John Oliver tackles robocalls by flooding FCC with spam calls:
"The host of HBO's Last Week Tonight has come up with a new way to encourage FCC commissioners to take a harder stance on robocalls: by robocalling them. On his show Sunday evening, Oliver debuted a system ... that robocalls FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and fellow commissioners every 90 minutes.
Can we call it treason? I don't think so, this guy is foreign, from U.K. Time to deport?
John Oliver Fights Robocalls. by Robocalling Ajit Pai and the FCC:
Comedian John Oliver is taking aim at the Federal Communications Commission again, this time demanding action on robocalls while unleashing his own wave of robocalls against FCC commissioners.
In a 17-minute segment yesterday on HBO's Last Week Tonight, Oliver described the scourge of robocalls and blamed Pai for not doing more to stop them. Oliver ended the segment by announcing that he and his staff are sending robocalls every 90 minutes to all five FCC commissioners.
"Hi FCC, this is John from customer service," Oliver's recorded voice says on the call. "Congratulations, you've just won a chance to lower robocalls in America today... robocalls are incredibly annoying, and the person who can stop them is you! Talk to you again in 90 minutes—here's some bagpipe music."
[...] When it came to robocalling the FCC, Oliver didn't need viewers' help. "This time, unlike our past encounters [with the FCC], I don't need to ask hordes of real people to bombard [the FCC] with messages, because with the miracle of robocalling, I can now do it all by myself," Oliver said.
"It turns out robocalling is so easy, it only took our tech guy literally 15 minutes to work out how to do it," Oliver also said. He noted that "phone calls are now so cheap and the technology so widely available that just about everyone has the ability to place a massive number of calls."
It would be a shame to waste all that time between phone calls doing nothing. Maybe John Oliver could be persuaded to add a 100 more people and maybe another 435 people while he's at it?
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday March 16 2019, @10:33PM (17 children)
Anyone else remember that old "do not call list" and promises to stop robocalling, solicitors, and other telespammers?
Is that even still around? It certainly does not do a mother fucking thing. What a joke. The phone company is a joke, and our lawmakers are a joke. Not a funny ha-ha type joke. The type of joke that makes you want to throw up and move to Mars.
I've noticed it seems like the number of pay services to block spam calls is increasing. Of course, those require you to buy the latest smartphones and don't work on trusty, reliable, audible, "oooooooolllllld", normal telephones. The fact is the phone company makes money by permitting telespamers.
Oh, Rachel from Cardholder services is calling me for the fifth time today, got to go!.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 16 2019, @10:45PM (11 children)
Makes no difference when they call from the Ukraine or India.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday March 16 2019, @10:55PM (10 children)
One word: Whitelists.
There is exactly one person outside the USA that I wish to hear from; my stepmother in Greece. I should be able to put her number in my phone and never, ever, have to deal with a call from the Ukraine or India — no matter how many times they try to call me, or when they do.
This is one of a class of problems with a very, very long history of being completely solved.
The fact that we can't solve it on our end (at the phone) is a clear indication that the telephone companies don't want us to be able to solve it.
In addition, the fact that robocallers can spoof the number they are calling from is also a clear indication that the telephone companies don't want us to be able to solve it.
--
A dyslexic runs into a bank and shouts:
Air in the hands, motherstickers!
This is a fuckup!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 16 2019, @11:41PM (3 children)
Isn't trying to coerce a government official a jailable/transportable offense?
Anyway, this is mostly a non-problem for me. If I see they're faking my prefix, I ignore. If I don't know the number, I'll give them a chance to leave a message. Anything else would be of incremental benefit, such as only ringing if the caller is known.
I don't get any SMS spam, why? Text messages cost money?
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:31PM
Nah. You just contribute to their "re-election" fund. Or make sure their cousin Lou in east bumfuck gets a nice stock tip or land deal.
Making these types of things easy is built into the system. It's no accident, either.
--
You can't fix stupid. But you can elect it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:33PM
And you see this, how?
--
Are you drunk?
☐ Yes
☐ No
✓
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @09:31PM
Most victims of most shady schemes are the young and the old because they don't know what they don't know, are more trusting by nature, and have the ability to get funds on short notice. In both of those cases, SMS spam isn't very effective. Younger people don't really text, they use social media, and the elderly are easier to manipulate with conversation and more like to have texts trigger red flags.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 16 2019, @11:54PM
yep that totally works! /s
The phone system assumes trust. We do not have that. They just spoof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:24AM
the telephone companies don't want us to be able to solve it.
People keep buying their stuff anyway, so why should they care? They don't see the demand, I mean, sure, the editorials raise a fuss, but the bottom line? Things are lookin' good. *Maintain speed and course*.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:45AM (1 child)
I'm sick of people telling me to "just whitelist" the numbers I'll accept. Do any of you other fuckers have kids? Don't you know that, unlike the previous generations, they RELY on being able to contact their parents now and then when plans change and friends bail on them. AND, they sometimes do this from a different phone than their own because batteries often die when you need them most. No one is a perfect planner. I can't ignore calls. It could be my kids. Once, my daughter called me from her track meet to let me know she finished early. From her friend's phone, the German exchange student. Yes, I asked why she didn't use someone else's phone.... have you ever been in a track meet or swim meet or anything like that? Boring as hell. Wait, wait, wait, run for three minutes, wait, wait, wait... They had all run their batteries down. And no, kids, especially teenagers, don't have a lot of self control when only 10% battery is left and there's another hour to go. Track meets are one thing. It's generally a safe space. But they also go to parties, to concerts, to poetry readings at small cafes downtown. The goddamn phone used to be a useful and important thing. Now it's just one more advertising vehicle. You know what, I'll bet those rich mutherfuckers have their own goddamn private phone network they use, like cable TV and PBS used to be. No more, Forget Orwell's 1984. This is Animal Farm, and we're the goddamn animals. We live in the slop, while the masters of the world live it up in the big house of the fruits of our labors. I guess every generation has its pigs. Some tend the herd better than others. This generation has a pretty shitty pig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:26PM
Sure. But us "other fuckers" have thought the problem through. At least, those of us who understand how phones and the phone system work.
Again, the tech is there (and has long been there, and is trivially simple) to address your concern. Just add one more feature to this: when a number isn't whitelisted, then:
Seriously, don't give the phone companies any credit here for "giving" you access to your kids while "having" to also give access to every random asshole who wants to scam you (and your kids, and your SO, and your grandparents, and your roomies.)
They could completely and easily solve this problem, while also protecting you from scammers. But they don't want to because those scammers are pushing money at them.
The phone companies are evil fuckers. The scammers are evil fuckers. They're working together to invade your life. That's all there is to this. It's in no way the fault of people who are trying to illuminate the solutions (IOW, not my fault), and when you call me a fucker for doing so, you're playing right into the hands of both the aforementioned evil fuckers.
But Wait! There's More!!!
Your elected representatives could, if they weren't evil fuckers:
--
(√(-shit))²
Shit just got real
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @01:48PM
In 2019 I still can't put a regex on incoming call numbers to block specific known pests such as calls from India
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday March 17 2019, @08:31PM
That's my answer to robocalls as well. If a name doesn't show up on my phone I simple don't answer it. If it's not a salesman, a scammer, or a pollster they'll leave a voicemail.
If everybody did that, robocalls would stop.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday March 16 2019, @10:47PM (2 children)
Like anything that restricts assholes from imposing an unsolicited load on others, any such mechanism must be designed to default to "opt-in", with opt-out an actively made choice by the
victimconsumer.Any system that's not designed this way is/was intended to fail.
There are hundreds of millions of people in the USA. There must be 3, maybe even 4, of those who want to experience the unfettered joy of being informed that their non-existent warranty on their vehicle has run out several times a day.
For those people, the ability to opt-in to unsolicited calls is an absolute must.
--
Diapers and Politicians should be changed often.
Both for the same reason.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:11AM (1 child)
Can I please have a phone plan that charges the caller a buck a call credited to my phone bill, unless I specifically waive the charge from my end?
Such as my dialing "#0" during the call. Dialing it from the other end does nothing.
This technology seems to be available for the sex-chat industry.
I just need the ability to selectively waive the fee much like a merchant can validate a customers parking chit.
This way, we protect the free speech right of. the robocallers to call anyone they want, while allowing the rest of to monetize the unwelcome interrupts.
As business would say... "Win-Win!"
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Wednesday March 20 2019, @04:41AM
Just do what this guy does (it's an old story, but it still is funny):
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23869462 [bbc.com]
Quote from the article:
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday March 16 2019, @11:17PM
Lemme guess: almost as good to stop robocalling as clicking the Unsubscribe link to stop spam?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:36AM
This, right here, is the true root of the carrier's reluctance to voluntarially solve the problem.
No matter that phone calls are dirt cheap, the carriers still charge something. And the advertising departments making millions of robo-calls end up padding the carriers bottom lines by some amount. And right now, the profit from carrying the robo-callers outpaces the loss from regular customers leaving because of robo-calls.
Until the profit incentive is changed (such that it costs significantly more in fines to carry the robo-callers than the robo-callers pay) nothing will change.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 16 2019, @11:59PM (5 children)
"Can we call it treason? I don't think so, this guy is foreign, from U.K. Time to deport?"
WTF is this comment about? When Oliver did this, it was within the laws created by Ajit Pai and the FCC. He has a team of lawyers that go over things like this to make sure it's 100% legal, and legally there's not a thing the FCC can say about this - except to legally change what counts as a robocall and to actually make policy that would forbid it. (Forbid it in general as well, not just a "you may not call us specificially" amendment to their otherwise horrible law that has been the direct result in a massive jump in robocalling.
And that's why the stunt was done. To explicitly point out to the FCC why their law is bad, why it doesn't work, and why they should really get their asses out of their collective anus and make a proper ruling that benefits citizens. You know, their JOB.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:11AM (1 child)
John Oliver is on very strong ground, because his robocalls are "petitioning the government" -- protected by the 1st amendment.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:45AM
Your comment got me thinking, (I can tell from the amount of acrid smoke in the room...) Trump wasn't allowed to block Twitterheads he didn't like or agree with, does that mean Pai can't block or otherwise limit, or eliminate his exposure to these Robocalls, through either normal or exotic means?
This is a delicious idea, so how do we redirect the Robocalls we receive now to ol' Ajit and cohorts...I'm sure he would benifit greatly from "Don't hang up! Your Google account has been compromised!", "This is Windows calling." "This is the IRS, you are in violation."
and my personal favorite, "We have been trying to reach you, your bank account has been locked!"
My wife got one yesterday, It went something like this, "This is Mali, can you hear me?" No. "Oh, can you hear me now?" I told you no. "OK, let me try this, can you hear me now?" NO and quit fucking yelling! "Oh, I'm quite sorry, can you hear me no......." wife hangs up laughing her ass off.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday March 17 2019, @01:49AM
Look at the idiot that submitted the 1st sub.
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=32297 [soylentnews.org]
Any treason around here starts at the top and tinkles down to minions like Pai.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:33AM
To explicitly point out to the FCC why their law is bad, why it doesn't work, and why they should really get their asses out of their collective anus and make a proper ruling that benefits citizens. You know, their JOB.
Like it or not, they answer to the president and congress, or they lose their JOB.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mykl on Monday March 18 2019, @01:24AM
Our poster is a real method actor. This:
Is pretty much exactly what I'd expect Trump to write if he submitted it himself. Well, I found it funny anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:03AM (1 child)
Telephone companies have the actual origin of calls.
That information has value though, and why provide that when you can provide the faux-N number instead and charge the same fee?
Then you can charge scammers a fee to insert any faux-N number they want and get a second fee.
Then you can make money selling scammer blocking services. Then reset and start the game again with cell phones and digital/voip lines. Add in the services to make the incoming number match your local exchange so the call appears to originate nearby combined with healthcare providers selling detailed medical histories to criminals and you get the medical billing fraud calls I'm getting that appear to be from local numbers but are actually VOIP spoofs.
So, did Oliver use the E-stalking services to get the real personal numbers of those FCC folks? Were they spoofing the call origins to make the call appear to come from a local pharmacy or some other source where you'd want to answer the call? Because it's not really the same thing if he's didn't work all of that in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:57AM
I'm sure he didn't to stay out of legal trouble, but, knowing how the internet works, I'm pretty sure a handful of vigilantes did.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:14AM (3 children)
is why does he do it every 90 minutes? It should be every 10 minutes, with a spoofed phone number so asshat Ajai has to wonder if the incoming call is valid or not.
When it comes to people I'd like to tar and feather Ajit is way ahead of the Donald. Both are corrupt as fuck.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:29AM
Because they are trying to stay within the realm of "petitioning" (protected) and not stray into "harassing" (illegal).
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday March 17 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
Why is it illegal for me to misrepresent myself to a business, but they can spoof their identity to get me to take their call?
If I make an "agreement" with a caller that they accept penalty of perjury for placing calls using fraudulent info, they weasel out that their call placing technology did not recognize it. Why doesn't that same paradigm hold for me if I rattle the cage of a businessman, and I missed a clause in his contract.
"By placing this call. You agree under penalty of perjury that all information is true and correct. Wilfully submitting incorrect informatation subject to $10,000 fine. Continuation of this call applied constitutes acceptance of these terms."
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @04:40AM
The problem there is the word "wilfully". It is very hard to prove wilfulness.
Instead the law should be such that any false information, willful nor not, brings down the fines hammer on the head of the person placing the call.
I.e., you pull an 'oops, sorry', you get fined too. You'll learn to be triple extra careful the next time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Appalbarry on Sunday March 17 2019, @12:37AM (3 children)
Still baffled why my Android lets me mark and block spam text messages with on tap, but offers no way to block spam calls.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cykros on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:33AM (1 child)
Well, mine lets me block calls, mark calls as spam, and lets me know when a call is from a suspected (by other people or Google itself) spam caller. But then I've got a Pixel 2. So, either it's only in a newer version of Android than you have (I'm running Android 9 with the March 5, 2019 security patch), or for whatever reason, it's been disabled by your particular phone manufacturer.
Either way, I think my next phone will be a Pixel 3 or 4, because this is functionality I'm not giving up any time soon. Especially considering I've got a recycled number, so the irrelevant calls have always been bad, even before Ajit Pai came along.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:53PM
LG G4, Android 6 with no hope of ever updating.
I long ago stopped trying to guess what was an Android problem and what was LG. Though I have to say that Android seems to become less usable with every new flavour.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:15PM
Figured a hack for this one a long time ago. Make a new contact called "Block List" and set the number of rings to zero or use the nothing ring tone. Go to your call log, click the call that was spam, add it as a contact and pick your new Block List contact.
Newer Android does support real number blocking but it's an additional click. Go into your call log, click the info "I" and then click triple dots. There is the Block Number option.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @02:20AM (1 child)
"Can we call it treason? I don't think so, this guy is foreign, from U.K. Time to deport?"
ajit pai?
john oliver?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:38AM
I hear there's a lovely American-run Cuban resort where the fellow could be accommodated in a style he deserves.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 17 2019, @03:54AM (4 children)
Caller ID: Scam Likely
Is that just an iPhone thing?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by cykros on Sunday March 17 2019, @05:37AM (1 child)
No, my Pixel 2 from Google does it too. It seems to be most third party Android phones that are lacking this functionality, and it may simply be a matter of running outdated Android, which they all tend to do. I briefly considered moving away from the Pixel line when the Pixel 2 had no wireless charging, but they added it for the Pixel 3, and now more than ever I value always having the most up to date version of the OS. You'd not accept your computer telling you that you have to run software that was deemed insecure 9 months ago, so why do most people accept that line of horse excrement from a device that they carry around in their pocket with a microphone, camera, and GPS?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @01:50PM
I could root this device but if I brick it then I have to shell out for a new one.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 17 2019, @06:04AM
I thought this was implemented at the cellular provider level. [t-mobile.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:19AM
My ancient 2G Nokia on T-mobile does it. It's a pity that 2G is becoming spotty in some places where I spend a lot of time, but it still works at home.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday March 17 2019, @11:21AM
Somebody send John Donalds number!
And Ivanka's, Jared's, Donny Jr.'s, Stevie Bannons (just for the hell of it), and any and all who make up this current administration.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.