SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An appeals court threw out part of a Federal Communications Commission regulation aimed at reducing automated telephone solicitations, weakening a 2015 effort to squelch the scourge of so-called robocalls.
The rule was aimed at calls generated by auto-dialing devices. But its language was too broad, and could be construed to prohibit calls from any smartphone, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in a unanimous opinion Friday.
[...] Unwanted calls, including robocalls, are the top consumer complaint to the FCC, with more than 200,000 such comments received annually, according to the agency. Some private analyses estimate that U.S. consumers received about 2.4 billion robocalls per month in 2016.
[...] Because under the FCC's rule "any uninvited call or message from the device is a statutory violation," regular smartphone users could face a $500 penalty for calls -- such as inviting a person to a party -- without first getting consent to contact them, the judges said.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:56PM
Oh, no, the wicked FCC is helping support robocallers!
OK, maybe that part of the law needs to be fixed. I mean, smartphones are addictive, but this isn't the answer.
I know this doesn't work for everyone, but I set my phone on 24 hour do-not-disturb then whitelist only my contacts. Bingo! No more robocallers, telemarketers, surveys... all that crap, just gone.
Yes, I know "but...". That's why I said "I know this doesn't work for everyone". Look! It's right up there. Just 53 words back. Have you forgotten already?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:02PM (5 children)
And so it is! What's wrong with that?
If I didn't give you my phone number to call me, to my mind, you have no right to call me.
Yes, I'm paying extra to my phone provider to have both my landline and my mobile numbers kept out of any phone book. I'll let aside I see this extra fee as sorta extortion - privacy should be on by default - if I'm paying for my privacy, then damn'd right violating it brings in a financial damage aspect into it.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
It should be relatively simple to address this, so that wrong numbers and "that drunken jerk who *someone* brought to your last party finagled your phone number so he could worm his way onto the guest list for the next one "cuz you got all the cuties at yo' parties! Especially that brunette with the cute glasses [your wife]. I'd love to bang her!" and suchlike can be addressed ("don't fucking call me, asshole!" and onto the blacklist they go) without resort to criminal penalties.
Just modify as follows:
"any uninvited or unwanted call or message of a commercial nature from the device is a statutory violation,"
Easy peasy. Next!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:24PM (1 child)
So political and religious propaganda is ok?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:35PM
Yup.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:36PM (1 child)
T-Mobile labels some calls as likely scams, I'm curious how they go about that, I assume it's either by the volume of calls from a number or because they know it's a spoofed number.
I remember one time getting a phone call from the same phone that it was calling. At some point, the telephone companies need to be held accountable for allowing people to use spoofed numbers to call people. Or, perhaps, just connect those calls to virtual answering machines that respond with a seemingly reasonable voicemail prompt, but immediately delete the message they leave.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday March 20 2018, @06:16PM
I have an entry in my phone's address book for someone named "Scam Robot". I forgot what the initial call was about, but the contact has accumulated additional phone numbers as calls are identified and categorized.
If I search my address book for "spam" I get a partial list of ingredients for a Monty Python skit. (That is, there are duplicates.)
Anyway, I haven't seen any scams labeled by T-Mobile, but the re-use of phone numbers has allowed me to build my own labeling system.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:06PM
I'm not a particularly phone-oriented person. I rarely give out my number, never into any webforms. As such I rarely get unwanted calls. If it ever becomes a problem, it's easy to install any of the many "whitelist" apps. https://apkpure.com/search?q=whitelist [apkpure.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:41PM (5 children)
I've been following this case very closely and was getting really worried that a ruling the other way.
If they had, I would, sadly, no longer receive calls from fine folks over at 'Cardmember Services' who are just so diligent at wanting to reduce my interest rates, or those wonderful customer service reps at Mariott Hotels who (even though I never stay at their properties) who just have to give me a free vacation.
And that conscientious Steve (or is it Bob?) leaving voicemails (not sure why the phone doesn't ring though) reminding me about the $250,000 credit line that we talked about last week (my memory is so bad, I never remember those conversations -- so glad he's there to remind me) and what a great deal it would be for me.
Those hateful people at the FCC just want to destroy business in this country. It's especially heartening to know that these folks know what a bunch of anti-business jerks the FCC are, given that they ignore (and rightly so) the Do Not Call List and flout it in the face of state attorneys general.
The courts are siding with the good guys for once. And we'll all be better for it!*
*This message sponsored by and © 2018, Direct Marketing Association. All rights reserved.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:29PM (4 children)
too bad i can't block all that shit on my home phone. there is no app for that. and like hell I will pass it through google or something because of someone elses idea of how to get privacy installed. i bought a phone that i can add numbers to a block list, but there is no actual white list for it... so that block list is getting pretty full
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:40PM
We here at the Direct Marketing Association understand your concerns.
Which is why we give you the opportunity to opt out of calls from us.
Please post your name, address (no PO boxes please) and telephone number here and on any other sites that you frequent.
We will be sure to remove you from all mailing/calling lists around the world. Believe me, it will be the best blocking ever in the world.
We here at the Direct Marketing Association *love* you and only want to make your life better!*
©2018, Direct Marketing Association. All rights reserved.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by shipofgold on Sunday March 18 2018, @10:47PM (2 children)
Actually, the app for that is Asterisk which runs nicely on Raspberry Pi. I setup Asterisk and an ATA to filter the incoming calls. Asterisk is configured to send whitelisted numbers through to ring the house phones. Numbers not in the whitelist get a message "Please press 9 if you are not a computer".
A simple captcha that works like a charm...robo callers never press 9. If they don't press 9 they go to voicemail so I don't miss anything like school recordings. Of course this will stop working if the unwashed masses start doing this as robo callers will get voice recognition and figure it out.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday March 19 2018, @08:39AM
Would you be able to expand on this - particularly the hardware part?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 20 2018, @12:24AM
Absolutely a good idea. What's more, you can download an ISO of an Asterisk implementation [asterisk.org] and configure it for your needs. Easy peasy. Hardware requirements/recommendations [voip-info.org] are also available.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help with *mobile* phones. Granted, you can set up white [google.com] (and black) lists on mobile phones, but it's still annoying to have deal with that bullshit.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:28PM
.
.
.
.
.
[click]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:39PM (1 child)
All they need to do is to hold telecoms accountable for what spoofed numbers do if they can't identify the caller. And if phone users were offered the option to only have the phone ring for calls in their phone book.
Those two measures alone would more or less kill the industry that makes money through unauthorized calls. Personally, it's beyond me why Google doesn't allow Android users to silence any calls from people not in my phonebook, it's not exactly rocket surgery.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DavePolaschek on Monday March 19 2018, @01:39PM
Set your default ringtone to silent. For everyone in your phone book, set the ringtone to [something not silent].
There, I fixed it for you.
Oh, you'll probably have to set your own number to a silent ringtone, though. 90% of the spam calls I get are from (MYNPA) MYNXX-ABCD and close to half are coming from my own phone if caller-ID is to be believed.