Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US House Passes Ban On Caller ID Spoofing

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the posted-by-sir-isaac-newton dept.

Communications 171

smarek writes "The 'Truth in Caller ID Act' passed the US House of Representatives on Wednesday. The legislation is trying to outlaw Caller ID spoofing. In some cases, this spoofing has led to individuals giving out information that has led to identity theft. Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of Caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million. A companion bill has already been passed by the Senate, and the two are on their way to 'informal conference to reconcile any differences.' The bill that results will most likely pass." PCWorld's coverage notes that callers will still be able to block their information entirely, and that the bill may have negative consequences for legitimate phone-related services, such as Google Voice.

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yet another legal solution to a technical problem (5, Insightful)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899498)

People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced. Still, at least the politicians are seen to do something about the problem.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899572)

Still, at least the politicians are seen to do something about the problem.

Which is good for them because it will give them fodder for their television ads around election time, which is good for us because it informs us as to why we should vote for them. :-/

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899612)

People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced.

What, you mean criminals won't follow the law? Say it isn't so!

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899790)

You, sir, have just uncovered the glaring flaw of gun control legislation. Guess what - only criminals use guns to commit murder. If you're willing to commit murder, then illegally purchasing a firearm is child's play by comparison.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1, Offtopic)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900514)

You, sir, have just uncovered the glaring flaw of gun control legislation. Guess what - only criminals use guns to commit murder. If you're willing to commit murder, then illegally purchasing a firearm is child's play by comparison.

The willful ignorance of this self-evident fact tells me that gun-control is more like a religious issue. Statism is definitely on the rise in the USA and has been for quite a long time. Statism is all about expanding governmental size and power for the sake of power alone. A citizenry that can readily defend themselves are less dependent on police protection, and police power is the major vehicle for the expansion of state power. In order to have a steady supply of excuses for expanding government, you must have a dependent, helpless citizenry that fears events which government can try to regulate. Personal physical safety is such a category that is unusually close to home, especially when compared to more abstract economic issues.

The legally-recognized ability to defend yourself from physical threat is also an extremely individualistic quality. There is something of a war against individualism because it is contrary to the homogeneous, conformist, docile, group-think society that readily lends itself to central control. Along with this comes the weakening of the importance of the nuclear family, since that's a unit of society that could have its own customs, traditions, and independent thought and therefore does not lead to the desired homogenization. That's why there is so much emphasis in the media placed on group identities such as membership in a protected minority. It's the exact opposite of regarding people as individuals who should be dealt with on the basis of the content of their character, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated. It's also why any talk of "diversity" is about people who superficially look different and rarely has anything to do with a diversity of ideas and philosophies.

On a more practical note, as soon as they figure out how to keep drugs and weapons out of high-security prisons, then and only then will it be reasonable to discuss keeping such items out of the rest of society. Until then, the correct approach is to harden the targets of crimes. That's why every state which has enabled conceal-carry permits has seen significant reductions in violent crime. Even those who do not carry guns benefit from those who do, because the nature of concealment means that a criminal has no way to know if a given target is armed or not.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900674)

You've missed the bit where identity theft is (presumably) a more serious crime than spoofing caller ID. In countries with gun control, if you are arrested for holding up a shop and have a gun on you, you're probably getting more time for having the gun than for the robbery, making the gun probably not worth it. Also, a gun is somewhat difficult to hide if you're searched, while software to spoof caller ID could trivially be made to vanish without a trace, which further destroys the effectiveness of legal deterrents.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (-1, Troll)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901440)

Except part of the reasons for gun control is to reduce "crimes of passion" where the husband shoots the wife instead of punching her. And have an extra things to charge the criminal with is useful - means you don't have to wait for them to shoot the gun.

Of course in the US, that's all irrelevant anyway. It could be 100% true that gun control would make life better for everyone and it would still be unconstitutional in the US. Of course the constitution is amendable, but good luck with that.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (5, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899662)

People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced. Still, at least the politicians are seen to do something about the problem.

If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI [wikipedia.org] as a standard feature. That's the same system used by both toll-free numbers and emergency services like 911. Unlike CallerID, it's out-of-band and cannot be spoofed by the caller alone. It uses the billing data, the same data that the phone company uses to know whom to charge for the call. By comparison CallerID is a joke.

Of course a lot of the ID theft issues would be greatly reduced if people would use a little sense. That would include never giving confidental information to someone who calls you. If you think that's your bank calling about your account, tell them you are going to hang up and call them back at the number they publish in the phone book or your hardcopy account statements. This simple 20-second step would eliminate a great deal of these problems, no politicians required.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899726)

If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI [wikipedia.org] as a standard feature. That's the same system used by both toll-free numbers and emergency services like 911. Unlike CallerID, it's out-of-band and cannot be spoofed by the caller alone. It uses the billing data, the same data that the phone company uses to know whom to charge for the call. By comparison CallerID is a joke.

I've often wondered this myself. I found out the other day that Verizon Wireless has the ability to block numbers from being able to call you or text you. Family member of mine has been getting harassing phone calls. Of course the block is utterly useless because a simple caller-id block (*67 in the US) will defeat it. The phone company provides the service but can't use the ANI information?

They do the same thing with their "mobile to mobile" calling features. If you block your caller id and call someone who is "in network" they will get charged minutes as though it was an out of network call. ANI is not blocked when caller-id is but they are too stupid to use it for their own billing purposes? WTF?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899932)

They do the same thing with their "mobile to mobile" calling features. If you block your caller id and call someone who is "in network" they will get charged minutes as though it was an out of network call. ANI is not blocked when caller-id is but they are too stupid to use it for their own billing purposes? WTF?

That doesn't sound like stupidity to me... That sounds like profitable evil, in the same vein as the "placing the button that causes your phone to load some crappy WAP page at $.10/KB right next to the button you actually want, and making it impossible to remap/disable". I'm sure that, if people who are out of network were using caller-ID spoofing to appear as "in-network", they'd start using ANI. As long as the net effect of not using ANI means more minutes billed, not fewer, though, why would they change?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900908)

They do the same thing with their "mobile to mobile" calling features. If you block your caller id and call someone who is "in network" they will get charged minutes as though it was an out of network call. ANI is not blocked when caller-id is but they are too stupid to use it for their own billing purposes? WTF?

That doesn't sound like stupidity to me... That sounds like profitable evil, in the same vein as the "placing the button that causes your phone to load some crappy WAP page at $.10/KB right next to the button you actually want, and making it impossible to remap/disable". I'm sure that, if people who are out of network were using caller-ID spoofing to appear as "in-network", they'd start using ANI. As long as the net effect of not using ANI means more minutes billed, not fewer, though, why would they change?

It also sounds like an excellent base for a class-action suit. I don't recall reading anywhere that answering a caller with blocked caller-ID would invalidate the in-network minutes.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Informative)

iSzabo (1392353) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901578)

As a helpful tip; I went into my phone's options and pointed the WAP gateway to localhost, now attempting to reach that page throws errors, and doesn't bill me :)

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (4, Interesting)

adenied (120700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899864)

Using ANI (Billing Number) for all calls would probably be a bad idea. Say you're calling someone you have a business relationship with from your phone at work (technology type doesn't matter here). If billing number was the only thing available, every single call from your company would show up with the same number. Probably your main line that goes to a receptionist. In some situations this is what people want (telemarketers for instance) but in what many view as more legitimate business it would be annoying.

I'd hate it if every time various vendors that I have multiple account managers called my cell phone it just said "AT&T employee" etc. I like knowing who I'm going to be talking to.

Also, this completely ignores some of the other valid reasons for setting a caller ID value that most people outside of the telecom industry probably aren't aware of or care much about. Let's just say it's very useful for testing purposes and it's a great way to send a small amount of data to the entity you're calling if you're not using something like UUI.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

oh-dark-thirty (1648133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900512)

Using ANI (Billing Number) for all calls would probably be a bad idea. Say you're calling someone you have a business relationship with from your phone at work (technology type doesn't matter here). If billing number was the only thing available, every single call from your company would show up with the same number. Probably your main line that goes to a receptionist. In some situations this is what people want (telemarketers for instance) but in what many view as more legitimate business it would be annoying.

I'd hate it if every time various vendors that I have multiple account managers called my cell phone it just said "AT&T employee" etc. I like knowing who I'm going to be talking to.

Also, this completely ignores some of the other valid reasons for setting a caller ID value that most people outside of the telecom industry probably aren't aware of or care much about. Let's just say it's very useful for testing purposes and it's a great way to send a small amount of data to the entity you're calling if you're not using something like UUI.

Customers should be allowed to choose whether their billing (or "main") number is used for outbound caller id, or the individual lines. My company has a plethora of analog lines and none of the carriers we''ve had (AT&T, Verizon, and most recently Broadview) seem to have that capability. In our situation, we don't want people calling (or even knowing about) those 'other' numbers. We are not telemarketers, but we do contact our customers on a regular basis for other reasons besides trying to sell them more stuff.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901850)

If you utilize PRI lines for your business, you can specify by DID number how this is handled. Each can have a different caller ID, some can be lumped together, and more. it's completely customizable. If you using POTS lines, the ID is locked to the physical line, even if your PBX is not, so that either requires complex internal PBX configuration, or a shared caller ID across the pool.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901952)

I like knowing who I'm going to be talking to.

So you pick up the phone and say 'Hi', and they say 'Hi, this is _____.'

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

adenied (120700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899946)

Also to say that it's the same system that toll free numbers and 911 use it to grossly simplify things. 911 gets a lot more than just your billing number. And toll free numbers that go to anything more complicated than a POTS line can be configured to get many different types of data. A common configuration is called "Preferred SID" which means you will get the Station ID (SID, Caller ID, Calling Party Number, etc. It has a lot of names) if it's available and the Billing Number otherwise.

One thing that's true though is that if someone calls a toll free number and prefixes *67 to the dial string, the called party will still get identifying information. In many cases it's the billing number, not the calling party number. But that's starting to get pedantic.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899972)

If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI [wikipedia.org] as a standard feature.

While this is fine for regular consumer uses, I have a hundred users here on the same ANI information - each with different caller ID. When the help desk makes calls, the Caller ID is set to the toll free number we use for it - not the phone number registered by our telco. ANI would not display a toll free number, in any case.

Caller ID is driven by a very real business need. We can't simply drop it.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900056)

With caller ID, you have the ability to say "I'm not telling you who I am, and if that's not acceptable then it's up to you to not answer the phone". Can you preserve that ability if you use out-of-band billing data? Presumably not without modfiying the phone system... so I'm not so sure that's a good trade-off.

I do agree that any solution is going to requier technical change, though I disagree with the strict dichotomy GP alleges between legal problems and technical ones. I would've made the same sort of argument when the no-call registry was created in my home state, but it's been very effective.

Given the history of the telephone system, I think the government role is legitimate in solving this problem; but that role should be through indirect regulation (a way for the government to steer solutions to technical problems) rather than definition of certain acts as crimes (a way for the government to address social/behavior problems).

The government could put standards around what a service must do to be marketed as "caller ID" (or if "caller ID" is an owned mark, then pick some new name and educate the public to look for that instead). Those standards could be shaped to prevent the bad behavior (end user falsifying their identity) without interfering with good things (end user suppressing ID altogether; service provider like Google providing accurate identity information in a way the network didn't originally anticipate). It would then be the phone company's problem to design the technical solution that adheres to the standards, as it should be.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900108)

Agreed, CID is crap. Just make the ANI available to the called party, just like it is to law enforcement. And no, I don't think there is any compelling societal interest in allowing anonymous phone calls -- that's what pay phones are for.

Re:The plain ol phone system will never be secure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900434)

ANI is not foolproof and has errors but you are absolutely correct about the CallerID system.

Also, ID information is almost always sent to the destination switch where the decision is made whether to block the ID or not. The ID is not blocked at the source. If you call from one provider to another, the information may not be blocked. Hell, even your own provider will screw things up. Also, even if the destination switch obeys the block but you go to a voicemail system, the voicemail server will record the callerID and may provide the information on demand to the owner of the vmail box.

If you don't want your abusive ex to know where you are, do not use your home phone to call him/her.

The big problem with the phone system is that it is a bunch of patched together functionality with rules that may or may not be followed by the participating orgs. Even if the rules are obeyed, there is so much room for error because of manual transcription/configuration issues and other garbage in/garbage out problems that I don't believe it is possible to provide ANY reliable level of security.

So you get rid of CallerID and use ANI (which is a bag of hammers too), people can still get spoofed by call forwarding scams and other holes in the system.

Basically, never trust that your phone calls are secure or that the information provided by the system as to source and destination of your calls is true.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900450)

Caller ID is *not* in-band any more than connection routing is.

I have a T1 ISDN link in the U.S. There are 7 dynamic voice trunks on that T1 link. We have a pool of multiple phone numbers.

When the call is being set up, my switch (asterisk) sends out a message indicating the calling number. The contents of this message are taken by our telco's switch at face value, as long as the number is 10 digits long.

This number is recorded in the detailed billing statement we get (for international / overage long distance), but it is not actually used for billing by our telco! Any call going out through our T1 link is billed for by the telco, no matter what garbage is being sent out as the calling number identification.

I can set asterisk to send any number, and that is the number that will be displayed to the called party. I have been experimenting with setting up a local GSM mini-cell to make use of cellphones within the building essentially "free", and obviously if such calls were routed over our ISDN link, the indicated numbers would be those assigned to the cell subscriber, not those of our number pool.

We obviously don't use it for anything nefarious, but I presume that many VoIP trunk providers will do it in the same way. It's somewhat hard for them to really filter the phone numbers on egress, since they may not have full knowledge of all phone numbers assigned to us: for example, we may have an 800 number through another provider that we want to display, or even a bunch of regular numbers via another provider B, that are being routed out via provider A due to -- say -- link loss caused by a backhoe two blocks down the street.

So this is nothing about in-band vs. out-of-band. It is about making the phone system work as you'd expect, vs. making things hard.

The only technical solution would be a realtime database used for egress filtering of calling number identification -- it'd link together all phone numbers assigned to a particular subscriber. And then we again run into problems of what really is a subscriber: suppose you have separate units of a big corporation, that get separately billed for service, and are really considered separate subscribers. Now suppose that for redundancy and continuity of service, the IT/comms people in Unit A and Unit B agree to carry the other unit's data and voice traffic to maintain service in cases of various failures. Now the realtime database needs respond as if both subscribers were one. And so it goes -- it's
not exactly trivial.

Making it illegal to purposefully mislead people is OK in my book.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900592)

Of course a lot of the ID theft issues would be greatly reduced if people would use a little sense. That would include never giving confidental information to someone who calls you. If you think that's your bank calling about your account, tell them you are going to hang up and call them back at the number they publish in the phone book or your hardcopy account statements. This simple 20-second step would eliminate a great deal of these problems, no politicians required.

Exactly. That's what I always do... the problem is that you'd be surprised how hard it is to currently get through to the person who called you by calling a number from a phone book. I had a collections agency call me because of a hospital bill that I incorrectly thought my insurance company had paid. I said I'd call them back and give them a credit card number to pay the bill. It took me like half an hour before I just gave up and told them (when they called me back) that I'd pay the bill when they had a phone book number that worked. Of course in the end I didn't want my credit affected, so I think we finally just mailed a check to an address I could find on-line.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

OldTOP (1118645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901046)

Since there is no out of band channel from the end office to your phone (unless you have ISDN or VoIP), you probably can't prevent caller ID spoofing. As I understand it, caller ID is sent to the called phone as a burst of modem tones. It sees unlikely at this point in time that the installed base of telephone switches would ever be modified to do things differently.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901062)

If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI as a standard feature.

As people have pointed out there are many reasons not to use ANI. But why should it be either-or? Let the caller continue to set their outbound ID to whatever they want, just make the ANI available to the receiver. Maybe with a *69-type special number. They have to look it up for billing anyway.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901678)

As people have pointed out there are many reasons not to use ANI. But why should it be either-or? Let the caller continue to set their outbound ID to whatever they want, just make the ANI available to the receiver.

You know, I don't really care what the caller wants to display on my phone. It's my phone! If they want to call it, it should be on my terms, not theirs. And my terms are: that I know who the fuck is calling me.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

slashhax0r (579213) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901410)

Alot of companies offering SIP trunking pass whatever your outbound caller ID is as ANI. Its spoofable. I noticed it first when using callback and DISA on my cell phone. I have my outbound CID set for my cellphone's number if i'm dialing through DISA...

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899748)

But what would be the legitimate uses of caller ID spoofing? I mean, blocking is still fair game, so this act doesn't really change anything for people without a nefarious agenda. Just wondering, I don't think spoofing was ever possible in my country, at least I haven't heard of it, so I have no idea why it would be useful.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899916)

Google voice: when it calls you to connect a call, it spoofs the ID of the number that is calling it. They could probably get an excpetion for this, but as written it could be an issue.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900828)

According to these [slashdot.org] guys, as written it would not be an issue as the spoofing needs to be done "with the intent to defraud or deceive".

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

desertfoxmb (1122201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900136)

Bail bondsman, police, etc. attempting to locate a fugitive.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902092)

Right, because exceptions are never made for police, ever.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900358)

Well I run several businesses and have different phone numbers for each. Right now, when making an outgoing call, I have different lines setup that pass different caller ids. If they pass a law like this, I will be forced to purchase phone lines for each number just to satisfy this, therefore adding additional costs to my businesses, which I think is BS. That is my legitimate reason for allowing spoofing. Its about time that people in this country start being held responsible for how stupid they are. If you are not educated enough to know the difference between someone spamming you or not through caller-id and giving all your info out over the phone, then you deserve to have your identity stolen. The damn politicians keep wanting to hold our hand throughout our lives instead of just letting us live the way we want.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900664)

But what would be the legitimate uses of caller ID spoofing?

Our communication app at work uses a 3rd party calling service to send out "voice emails" (text-to-speech). It's important for us that the call recipient recognizes the calling number, so the calling service sends out a "spoofed" number (it's the number of the person sending out the voice email). It's likely if the calling service was not allowed to spoof, the phone would not be picked up. This would be bad if it happened to be an emergency communication.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899780)

You're not preventing the problem, you're adding to the list of offenses you can charge people with while you investigate the actual crime.

I think if you're going to have caller ID you should be able to trust it. At the same time, it would be better to educate people that people can sneak into other people's houses or businesses and legitimately be calling from the phone, but not actually being the trusted person. Or picking up someone's cell phone that doesn't have password-protection. It's not foolproof.

If you want to be safe, you have to do things like ask if you can call the person back at a different time, and ask for a number. If it doesn't match what's on Caller ID then ask why it doesn't match. We should spend more time educating people and less time passing laws, but Congress is not an educational organization - it writes laws. "The politicians" are not doing anything about the problem, only one of three branches is, and all three need to be involved.

Meantime, Congress gave additional powers to law enforcement so they can hold someone longer for questioning. Is that good or bad? Depends. What legitimate need would you have for spoofing? Completely shutting off the ID is still an option, but what use would you have for pretending to be another phone number?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900730)

You're not preventing the problem, you're adding to the list of offenses you can charge people with while you investigate the actual crime.

That's my problem with it. I don't share the vindictive urge to nail people with as many charges as possible. Instead, I'd rather see fewer criminals.

I think if you're going to have caller ID you should be able to trust it. At the same time, it would be better to educate people that people can sneak into other people's houses or businesses and legitimately be calling from the phone, but not actually being the trusted person. Or picking up someone's cell phone that doesn't have password-protection. It's not foolproof.

A law against spoofing CallerID does not make CallerID more trustworthy so long as it's still technically feasible to perform the spoofing. This is for the same reason that the laws against fraud have not made phishing sites go away, the laws against illegal drugs have not prevented people from doing drugs, and the laws concerning gun-control have not made it difficult for criminals to obtain firearms. We just don't want to learn this lesson, but that doesn't make it less true.

Meantime, Congress gave additional powers to law enforcement so they can hold someone longer for questioning. Is that good or bad? Depends.

That's universally bad. Law enforcement already has a way to hold someone for a good long time: collect enough evidence to charge them with a crime. If there is no such evidence, law enforcement should kindly fuck off. It's that simple. A few criminals who get away with it or are more difficult to catch means absolutely nothing in the face of the kind of threat that unmitigated police power poses to free society. Think of it this way: if criminal activity causes us to become a non-free society because of the ever-increasing expansion of state power, then the criminals have won because they've done the greatest possible damage to our way of life.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902206)

Stop and re-read my post, noting that I registered neither a "for" nor "against" stance. The closest I came was advocating education in place of laws. Do you disagree with my second paragraph? Or the first half of the third one?

"I'd rather see fewer criminals."

Yeah, we all would. We can repeal laws all day long and have just the original ten commandments if you'd like. I didn't say this was good. At no point in my post did I side with the politicians, and if you think I did it's probably because you fail to understand how government is supposed to operate. Quotes like the one I was replying to "Politicians are seen to do something about the problem," demonstrate massive ignorance about the political process, and citizens are not able to properly take part or guide their elected officials when they don't know how it works.

That's universally bad.

And that's a knee-jerk reaction. Convince me. Why would someone be arrested for caller-ID spoofing in the first place and be held for questioning? Is there going to be a government office comparing the caller ID packets with a live trace and detecting when the two don't match? Chances are they already have enough of a case, and a spoofed caller ID is going to be a giant red flag indicating more follow-up is needed.

Your explanation above did not convince me, it's simplistic "Government is too big" rhetoric. I agree with you. But I don't automatically reject all laws simply because government is too big. My quote ends with "Depends," but that word connected a prior thought with a following thought explaining what it might depend on. Let me ask again. "What legitimate need would you have for spoofing? Completely shutting off the ID is still an option, but what use would you have for pretending to be another phone number?"

Let me try my hand at your answer first: "It doesn't matter, the point is we have far too many laws, and people are probably breaking something every day, and adding one more law which won't stop actual crimes means more otherwise innocent people will be rounded up and charged with simple offenses" and you could go anywhere from here. What kind of people does this law impact?

Again, my opinion is that if caller ID exists, it should be accurate. Given that opinion, which legitimate users of call spoofing does this impact, necessitating re-thinking my opinion? Change my opinion.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899898)

Probably but it is another charge to add to the list of charges they performed. Or if they were found innocent of everything else there is still a charge against them.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899958)

I can't think of a single HONEST use for caller ID spoofing. What legitimate uses are there?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900060)

Google Voice or a similar phone-call forwarding service?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902248)

Setting a call to show a valid number from the calling party is not "spoofing" according to the drafts I've read. They don't use the technical term of "spoofing" essentially being any injection/stripping at all, whether applicable to the current call or not. So setting your home phone to show as your personal Google Voice number that will reach you if they call it back is not spoofing. It's only spoofing if you set your outbound number to something that could never reach you. And even then, the drafts I read would allow that in some cases (say, you were a subcontractor of IBM and they requested you have CID show their main switchboard number, even if the person there wouldn't know who you are or how to connect the call back to you, because even then, the number points back to the organization the caller is calling on behalf of).

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

desertfoxmb (1122201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900156)

Bail bondsman, police, etc. attempting to locate a fugitive without spooking them. A call from Mom is more likely to be answered than one from Bounty Hunter Bill.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900772)

Bail bondsman, police, etc. attempting to locate a fugitive without spooking them. A call from Mom is more likely to be answered than one from Bounty Hunter Bill.

If you have a known valid telephone number then you have already located your fugitive. That's either because it's a landline assigned to a particular physical address or it's a mobile phone the signal of which can be triangulated. No phone call has to be made to use either approach.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

desertfoxmb (1122201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900950)

Bail bondsman/bounty hunters do not have access to cell phone location data. Police do but even then it isn't as good as convincing the fugitive to meet you at a place of your choosing instead of their "hideout" which may be more dangerous.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

desertfoxmb (1122201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901084)

And tower triangulation simply isn't accurate enough. If they're on the lam they most likely have GPS turned off.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902292)

Unless the fugitive's ex's kid answers the phone, at which time you might realize it's not a known valid number for the fugitive.

Calling the number and hearing who answers, then asking if "Joe" (i.e. the fugitive) is around, is a good way for a bounty hunter to learn if he has the correct number. I've only watched one episode of Dog but that makes me an expert on this.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900382)

Fixing spelling errors that the phone company refuses to correct...

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901150)

How exactly can you use CID spoofing to correct LIDB/CNAM spelling errors? Or aren't you talking about the PSTN?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900480)

Outbound calling with a VoIP service that's different from your inbound VoIP or landline service. You want the callee to be able to return the call to the number that reaches you. Not a generic DID number owned by your VoIP provider.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900716)

I can't think of a single HONEST use for caller ID spoofing. What legitimate uses are there?

A Google Voice/Skype/other VoIP service which wants to identify itself as the actual caller, rather than the ID of the owner of the hardware link between the internet and phone network.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901958)

Spoofing implies gaining access to something that isn't actually yours. If you use your cell number as the CID on a VoIP call, that's merely setting your Caller-ID. If you use the local police department's number as the CID, and you call your neighbor and tell him to turn down the annoying noise he blares day and night, that's spoofing.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899964)

Making laws against other aspects of their criminal activities is quite important. If they have trouble getting people on their actual criminal activities, quite often they can be nabbed through their violation of other laws. Al Capone was brought down on tax evasion after all. And if they can get them on their main crime AND associated crimes too, then all the better! And their committing of the CLID spoofing goes a long way to prove intent which serves to better nail criminals by making the prosecution's case all the more strong.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

khrath (782494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900670)

Biggest problem is out of country vendors sending national flagged caller id when calling from outside of the country, in to the USA. They can show any domestic number of their choosing by flagging caller id as national instead of international. They won't be able to do that anymore, so all the out of country scam artists will not be able to pretend that they're a legit business in the USA. Screening off the billing number isn't even an option because of how many things it would break. Anyone with an access t1 that covers multiple clients who have separate privileges would be screwed, because the billing number is what they use to screen off of.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901042)

What legitimate service is there that requires lying about your phone number?

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (2, Insightful)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901412)

How are users of legitimate services inconvenienced by not being able to use spoofed caller ID's?

Personally, I think it not only should be illegal but also, it should be the responsibility of the telephone companies to make sure that it is technically impossible, or at least very hard, to call under a false ID.
That companies and people call with anonymous ID is OK. I simply do not pick up the phone when the ID is hidden. But I should be able to trust that if it says number 123456789 is calling me, it really is number 123456789 and not somebody pretending to be 123456789.

If, as you say, there are good reasons for offering a caller ID spoofing service, I should be offered the option of not letting these spoofers call me since there is no one in the entire world that have any kind of legitimate reason nor the right to call me with a spoofed ID.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901944)

Illegitimate people who will still spoof caller ID will start immediately using the legitimate names of companies that can't use spoofing, meaning then when it says "bank of America" calling, and you'de think to answer because you have an account with them, it could easily be a telemarketer, spammer, or a phishing call.

Caller ID spoofing legislation only works if it's STRICTLY enforced, easily reportable, universally communicated to people HOW to report it, and if they put the manpower behind it to actually go after those people.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1, Troll)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901470)

Aren't you missing the point? They need to make it illegal so they can prosecute the criminals. Sometimes it's this "little stuff" that trips the criminals up. Al Capone and income tax evasion is one example. Many other gangsters who were very likely guilty of murder only ended up in jail because of some other more minor crime.

Re:Yet another legal solution to a technical probl (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901510)

Just as legislation failed to keep telemarketers from calling my cell phone? Not. This was actually a successful measure.

I think a law like this would force the *ability* to spoof to dissipate if anything. I'm all for it - I get pretty cranky when some autodialer calls me at some jacked up hour and doesn't have the courtesy to call me with a real caller ID # for me to even report. I know of one instance where I called the number back and it was some poor hospital who got spoofed getting their phone lines slammed with angry callers.

If Congress legislates Email From: headers... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899514)

And if Congress legislates that in all email messages, the "From:" headers cannot be forged, THAT will stop SPAM. I'm certain of it. Just like this will stop caller ID spoofing.

Re:If Congress legislates Email From: headers... (1)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899746)

And if Congress legislates that in all email messages, the "From:" headers cannot be forged, THAT will stop SPAM. I'm certain of it. Just like this will stop caller ID spoofing.

remember reading somewhere a number of years ago that laws to do just that were considered in a number of US states.

Re:If Congress legislates Email From: headers... (4, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899772)

And if Congress legislates that in all email messages, the "From:" headers cannot be forged, THAT will stop SPAM. I'm certain of it. Just like this will stop caller ID spoofing.

Just require that the Evil Bit [ietf.org] be set to 1.

Re:If Congress legislates Email From: headers... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901220)

And if Congress legislates that in all email messages, the "From:" headers cannot be forged, THAT will stop SPAM. I'm certain of it. Just like this will stop caller ID spoofing.

That is why I see this as a more failed law then anything. The issue with this law is that it's trying to put it's heart in the right place, but this law will only effect calls from within the US. If your calling from outside the US then that law has little to no hold. Its like privacy laws online, the company is limited to the laws of where the hardware and company HQ is located. I see this often here in Canada. We have privacy laws that go above and beyond the US ones, but if I need to deal with a US company then my private information is protected only to the limits of US law, even though I'm in Canada at the time.

DON'T TRUST ANYONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899524)

There, I fixed it.

What they didn't bother to do. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899570)

Justify the bill using the Constitution.

Re:What they didn't bother to do. (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899638)

Interstate commerce, don't ya know? It's the one sized catch all that works for everything from SPAM to the guy growing pot in the basement for his own personal consumption.

Re:What they didn't bother to do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899686)

guy growing pot in the basement for his own personal consumption.

Duh. You think all those Doritos you ate while high didn't cross state lines at some point during production?

Re:What they didn't bother to do. (0, Offtopic)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899660)

So sad, but so try. Why did this have to be posted as an AC?

Re:What they didn't bother to do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899814)

So sad, but so try.

So sad, but so FAIL.

Re:What they didn't bother to do. (0, Offtopic)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899922)

:)

Re:What they didn't bother to do. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899666)

Gosh, Captain Liberty, I certainly can't think of any way in which regulating fraud committed over the phone might be related to interstate commerce...

(Now, there might well be an argument to be made if the caller-ID spoofer could demonstrate that the spoofed call was strictly intrastate; but I'm guessing that vanishingly few of them are.)

This will show the wrascally criminals (5, Insightful)

exabrial (818005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899584)

Clearly, this is the correct solution and will whip those wrascally criminals into shape. There isn't anything this congress can't do!

Fraud (2, Insightful)

roju (193642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899590)

Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million.

It's this already called fraud?

Re:Fraud (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899894)

Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million.

It's this already called fraud?

Yes, but it was committed with a computer or other telecommunications device, which somehow magically makes it a completely different event!

Sometimes I think the Founding Fathers made one egregious omission when writing the Constitution. There should be a requirement that all written Federal laws may take no longer than 5 hours for an individual to audibly and understandably (i.e. not too quickly) read aloud. Once that point is reached, a new law may be created only by first repealing an old one. That's a needed counterbalance to the observation that, once basic things like murder and robbery are illegal and basic tax codes are set up, there's nothing left for a (mostly) year-round Congress to do that isn't absurd, unnecessary, or both. It'd also be a nice counterbalance to the notion that "ignorance of the law is not a legal defense", since this is a bit unreasonable when no individual could hope to ever memorize every last Federal law.

Re:Fraud (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901356)

Yes, but it was committed with a computer or other telecommunications device, which somehow magically makes it a completely different event!

That's because government officials have run out of new things to make illegal that won't get major pushback from the citizenship (eg guns) so in order to make it look like they're still needed, they make existing things illegaler, just so that your hard-earned tax money doesn't go to waste.

Re:Fraud (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900436)

Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million.

It's this already called fraud?

If the intended victim doesn't fall for it, or if the fraudster doesn't even try it (after getting some information from intended victim and decides to move on), it's not so clear if it's fraud. But under this bill, it'll still be a caller ID spoofing crime.

Re:Fraud (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900870)

Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million.

It's this already called fraud?

If the intended victim doesn't fall for it, or if the fraudster doesn't even try it (after getting some information from intended victim and decides to move on), it's not so clear if it's fraud. But under this bill, it'll still be a caller ID spoofing crime.

Since when does a crime have to be successful (i.e. obtain the criminal's intended result) in order to be a crime? For example, say you take a swing at someone but at the last moment they dodge your punch. You are telling me you could only possibly be charged with assault if the punch connected? I have a hard time believing that. Or let's say you forge a check (fraud) and the bank you give that check to immedietely notices that it has been forged. Are you telling me they would not be able to charge you with fraud?

In the face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899608)

I feel this could all be solved with my proposed legislation. It would make all caller id blocking/spoofing illegal, and anybody caught doing so would be placed in a public location, for all who had been called to show up and punch them in the face.

Movie Tech (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899664)

Horray! One more thing to poke fun at while watching techy movies. "Hey, we're in America. You can't hide behind fake 555 numbers anymore."

Google logic gets pretty thin (4, Insightful)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899758)

The caller ID law seems to place these legitimate uses of caller ID spoofing (Google Voice, businesses that send out the main phone number on outgoing lines) in a legal gray area. While they clearly violate the first part of directive by causing a caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, it is debatable whether or not that activity has "the intent to defraud or deceive."

\

It really isn't debatable if the intent is to defraud or deceive. If I call you from my phone through google voice, and the caller ID displays my name and my google voice number which, if called, connects to me on whatever phone I can be reached at, where is the deception? Who's being defrauded? What should the number say, Google, Inc.?

Similarly if I'm at work making a business call on a work phone, how can anyone argue displaying the company name and main phone number be deceptive?

Re:Google logic gets pretty thin (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901006)

You know.. that was kinda my thinking too..

Which number is the 'real' one I have to publish.. My businesses main number (good luck verifying this). My DID number? the phone number on the outgoing phone line from my PBX?

In my last office, we chose to have the PBX send out the DID numbers for business reasons. (so if people hit redial or whatever on their cell phones, it would come right back). Other businesses have other reasons for doing what they do. But we are all, technically, spoofing the Caller ID.

Re:Google logic gets pretty thin (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902344)

But then this is an issue where legal definitions and technical definitions don't match. Stripping your CID info and adding incorrect CID info is technical spoofing. But it isn't "spoofing" according to the law unless there is intent to deceive. So set your DID or the switchboard number or your Google Voice number. As long as the number you send out when you call will reach you, then you are not "spoofing." And you can even send a number that can't ever reach you if you are calling on behalf of someone. A contractor hired to make calls from home using VoIP services that send the CID for the company they are representing is perfectly fine, even if they call that number back and get the main number and the person there would have no idea who the contractor was or how to reach them.

Fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31899804)

I had some knob on Ebay get pissed at me because I wouldn't do business with him (Ebay ID: mmmvincent, if anyone is interested). He spoofed his CID and started calling my house (after getting my number from Ebay). He was careful not to threaten me outright, but made my family very nervous. I called the police and they said it wasn't illegal.

Re:Fine by me (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900008)

After you've told him he does not have your legal permission to contact you, it IS illegal in most states -- it's called "harassment". See this page [privacyrights.org]

Re:Fine by me (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900562)

IIRC, when you are getting 'harassing' phone calls, use *69 after each one and then call the phone company to say you're being harassed.
If it's the same number, the phone company will eventually block the number for you.

In the meantime, they'll tell you to call the police.
The police usually won't do anything until you've received >=3 calls,
but they'll open a file and will start a paper trail.
What happens next depends on your local police and where the calls are coming from.

Re:Fine by me (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900796)

It's *57 to record a trace. *69 calls back the last number that called you.

Re:Fine by me (2, Interesting)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901906)

its *57 in most places, no 69. Also, in most cases, this is something you have to request your carrier to enable on your line (its free, but not automatically enabled, since the trace happens every time once enabled and only "saves" the trace then pressed, it has a cost the them on some small level if you're not using it).

Further, *57 traces can not be provided to you, only your local magistrate, which means you need to sue someone to get it, and even then for the real scammers, this is easily overcome.

Further, Vonage, Skype, and most mobile phones do not offer this feature, only land lines.

Re:Fine by me (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902044)

If the police won't help you, it doesn't much matter whether it's illegal or not.

Re:Fine by me (1)

Geminii (954348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31902352)

Precisely. When it comes to persistent, repeated crimes being committed against you, do you want a legal solution where, IF the police can be bothered and IF they can prove anything, the perp MIGHT be able to eventually wind up in a court room while your life savings vanishes into the billable hours of your respective lawyers quibble about the exact amount of psychological stress you could be said to have suffered, or do you just want a button on your phone which stops the problem in the first place in under one second, for free?

Re:Fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900938)

Newsflash: The bad thing he did was not spoofing his Caller ID.

with the intent to defraud or deceive (4, Insightful)

adenied (120700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899806)

IANAL but I have a lot of experience with telephony and telephony policy. So take this with as many grains of salt as you want.

The key phrase in the House bill is "with the intent to defraud or deceive". There is similar language in Senate bill. There's a lot of reasons to legitimately set your caller ID to something. With ISDN PRI service it's up to the calling party equipment to set the Caller ID. So for something like Google Voice, if they're bridging SIP to the PSTN, you absolutely don't want your caller ID showing up as the trunk identifier or billing number for their equipment. My reading of these bills doesn't outlaw it.

The bills in question are H.R. 1258 and S. 30. I made a comparison document that highlights the differences in each bill the other day. It's located here:

http://dfs.org/comparison.pdf [dfs.org]

Re:with the intent to defraud or deceive (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900076)

So for something like Google Voice, if they're bridging SIP to the PSTN, you absolutely don't want your caller ID showing up as the trunk identifier or billing number for their equipment. My reading of these bills doesn't outlaw it.

Exactly. Agreed. My reading of the bill doesn't outlaw this practice either. I think Google voice will be just fine -- particularly, since (despite popular belief); the courts tend to act sanely... even if somewhat randomly. I think in arguments it would be clear the intent is not to deceive the caller since a return call should probably go through to all my attached devices.

Re:with the intent to defraud or deceive (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901684)

I read it the same way, with the same "IANAL" disclaimer.

When I call you using my Google Voice number, my CallerID will show up on your phone with a number that I own and can be reached at. If you dial that number, you will reach me, or at least my voicemail if I don't like you (grin). No attempt has been made to fool anyone into thinking the phone call has come from anyone else. There's a difference between spoofing a CallerID (which is actually not banned by this new change), and spoofing a CallerID with the intent to defraud or mislead (which is banned).

The caller ID text does not actually identify me by name. I think it shows "Google Voice" or "Level Three" (the local number clearinghouse that routes my number). But there's no intent to defraud or mislead inherent in that. I'm not pretending to be someone named "Google Voice" or "Level Three". If it became an issue, Google could probably bypass that pretty simply by sending no CallerID Text or asking Level Three to wipe out CallerID text .

Of course, there's a very easy way around it if someone decided it applied to Google Voice numbers. Google could also declare all Google Voice numbers to be "CallerID Blocked" (private numbers) and not send the phone numbers in the CallerID field. Anyone with their own switch (800 #'s, 911, etc) would get ANI information, everyone else would get "UNKNOWN NUMBER". It would make Google Voice a whole lot less convenient, but it would neatly bypass this law.

I think this whole "this is bad for business" issue goes back to the huge yawning chasm between what people thought the US Government is trying to do (banning CID spoofing) and what they are actually trying to do (banning CID spoofing with an intent to defraud or mislead).

Maybe the problem is that, in the official published legislation, the term "with intent to defraud or mislead" shows up on the next line, and journalists just read as far as selling headlines tells them to.

There needs to be a law against writing news articles
that have an intent to defraud or mislead.

(how many people will read the above sentence and think that I want to ban news reporting?) :)

Obligatory Republican Response (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900088)

Obama's Socialist Communist Dictatorship Tyrannical Nazi agenda in action. Good God fearing Americans can no longer hide from this administration's death camps! Another slide down the slippery slope........

CallerID blocking (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900904)

callers will still be able to block their information entirely

TrapCall says you won't. :)

Accountability for CID system integrity. (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901288)

Finally, a little common sense kicks in and puts some responsibility onto the CID/POTS admin to maintain their CID/DID systems. Hopefully this will go double for the scamming telemarketers that use blank or spoofed CID idents.

sounds good to me.. no more press 9 to refinance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31901384)

Ill just be happy not getting calls from some gateway to refinance my credit card debt...who I call back to hear its been disconnected. ITs wildly abused by these scumbag boiler room operations. F U Williams G.. lol

Toll Free Call (1)

Microsift (223381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901520)

I hate it when this comes up on caller ID, 95% of the time it's a telemarketer, the other 5% it's my credit card company telling me there's a problem with my card. I don't know why anyone would want to be confused for a telemarketer, but inexplicably my credit card company does.

*YAWN* Wake me when they ban bill spoofing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31901802)

Seems like we get an awful lot of legislation that we don't want, which is often sold to us under the guise of something else.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?