Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

210 comments

Text messaging (5, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068151)

Can we add text messages to this please?

I'm tired of paying per-message to receive spam.

What about Slashdot comments? (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068191)

Make $700/hour working from home no experience required

Reply STOP to unsubscribe

Re:What about Slashdot comments? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068373)

Make $700/hour working from home no experience required

Reply STOP to unsubscribe

Exactly how does this work? Each spam comes in on a different number.

Re:What about Slashdot comments? (4, Interesting)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068761)

The reply number is a $10.00/month "subscription" a la Jamster, but without the annoying ringtones. Good luck getting your cell carrier to give 2 shits about removing the fraudulent charges.

What? No corruption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069379)

When the U.S. government does something good, you know it is because it benefits rich people.

Re:What about Slashdot comments? (5, Informative)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069497)

AT&T **always** has removed text charges I complain about. And I call and complain about a 9 cent charge I didn't want. I don't even have a text plan, and don't text anybody. I keep telling them to block all texts always no matter what, but whenever one shows up on my phone, I get charged for it. Again, it has, fortunately, been super easy to call AT&T and complain, every single time.
Pretty sure they're paying the support staff a lot more money for the time spent on the call to reverse a 9 cent charge. If everybody did this, I'm sure cell companies would lose enough money to get their act together.

Re:Text messaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068227)

Fairly sure it doesn't count against you unless you open it. Also text STOP back.

Re:Text messaging (3, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068589)

On a smartphone, if you received it, you "opened" it.

And texting back STOP (paying for another message) is probably about as effective as replying UNSUBSCRIBE to an email. Great way for spammers to get verification that your number is legit!

Re:Text messaging (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068351)

Can we add text messages to this please?

I'm tired of paying per-message to receive spam.

I too and sick of my mobile going off to inform me I won a prize or am approved for a loan or some other BS. Do keep in mind these scumbags aren't the sort who will honor any legislation or directive. Mobile carriers should be enabling a crowd-based blocking feature - enough people report a number as robo-calling or scamming and it can be blocked by an opt-in program. (Yeah, too intelligent, hasn't got a chance, but I can dream)

Re:Text messaging (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068475)

If you use a service like Google Voice, you can have this. The spam filter in GV works quite well -- and you can even have messages emailed to you as text instead of listening to the audio for the numbers you screen but don't block.

If an actual carrier had a service like this, it would prove to be hugely popular, and might even steal a large customer base from the competition.

play with them / eat up there time (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069323)

play with them / eat up there time. Next time I hear that free cruise call I may want to tell them that you have called the $2 a min with a $5 min cost per call support line and then start asking them alot of PC questions.

Re:Text messaging (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069549)

Why isn't there a setting to just allow texts from numbers in the address book?

Re:Text messaging (5, Interesting)

BenFenner (981342) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068411)

I wouls say you could simply disable text messages (entirely!) at the provider level.
But then you get this shit in the mail:

http://www.supercars.net/gallery/132464/1542/873030.jpg [supercars.net]



That's right dick-heads. I disabled text messages. All of them. Even the ones from you. It took me three months of calling, but I finally did it. You think I want your spam mail in my mail box?!

Re:Text messaging (3, Interesting)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068631)

I'd love to display text messaging entirely (and have in the past) but people who legitimately try to text me don't get a notification that I have it blocked. Their messages just disappear into the ether.

And I've seen several account verification systems (banks and the like) that require text messages as a out-of-band response channel.

Re:Text messaging (1)

evangellydonut (203778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068461)

with Apple's release of Messages and maybe some scripting or Automator knowledge, it just became infinity easier to spam cell phones...

Re:Text messaging (4, Informative)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068585)

Glad I don't live in the US - The whole paying to receive calls and messages is unheard of here (NZ) and as far as I am aware, most other countries around the world. . Unless roaming and then I believe universally you are pinged with exorbitant cost.

Re:Text messaging (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068603)

turn ALL texts off.

what, are you a teenager or something? seriously.

turn them off. all carriers (even pre-paid which is what I use; I hate contracts!) support blocking of texts. both sending and receiving.

email works. I never understood paying for 'text' when you already have text and its easier to de-spam than the in-band BS they call sms.

Re:Text messaging (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069105)

I'd love to disable text messaging entirely (and have in the past) but people who legitimately try to text me don't get a notification that I have it blocked. Their messages just disappear into the ether.

And I've seen several account verification systems (banks and the like) that require text messages as a out-of-band response channel.

Re:Text messaging (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069421)

If I turned off texting, communication with the granddaughter would go down 99%.

Re:Text messaging (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069519)

Agree. Call me if you need to talk, we can get it solved in 2 minutes on the phone rather than 15 minutes of me trying to type on a small touch screen. I'll talk when I'm driving with my blue tooth, but I'll ignore you're text and likely forget about it. Send me an email and I have it on all my "devices" and can get it almost anywhere at anytime, and just as fast as an SMS.

Re:Text messaging (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069645)

turn ALL texts off?

great solution grandpa. This isn't the 90's anymore, texts aren't just for teens.

Re:Text messaging (3, Insightful)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069755)

>what, are you a teenager or something? seriously.

I am 29. I didn't text much at all (once in a month was rare for me) until I got a phone with a real keyboard (n900), and started dating. When we are apart (most of the time; we are in different states), my girlfriend and I communicate mostly via sms, then phone calls, then IM, then email.

Forward it to your carrier's spam address (4, Informative)

Peter Simpson (112887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068801)

For AT&T it's 7726 ("spam" on the keys). They appear to be using the information provided to go after the spammers. Plus, if you forward it, you (and they) have a record so you can apply for a refund of the SMS fees on those messages.

Re:Forward it to your carrier's spam address (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069123)

Thanks, had no idea about this. But of course the business model of receiver-pays has every incentive for AT&T to encourage spam.

Re:Text messaging (2)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069101)

Sending Spam text messages is the same as sending spam emails, literally. Every carrier has a gateway that allows you to email to a number and have it received as a text. here is a listing of gateways [wikipedia.org] . It is a little harder to target as you need to match the number up with the carrier.

I have done some work on web apps that sent text message alerts to users. In my experience, a few carriers blocked mass text emails as spam, but a number of them let everything through. Of the ones that blocked the spam, it was trivial to get them to add this particular nonprofit's emails to the white-list by calling the carrier. I imagine some social engineering could get them to white-list true spam.

Re:Text messaging (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069159)

Most carriers let the customer block email-sent text messages. I'm complaining about text messages that come from phone numbers (not from email). These can't be blocked short of blocking text message servicing entirely.

Re:Text messaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069209)

What sort of shit plan do you have that you have to pay to receive text messages?

Re:Text messaging (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069443)

Verizon is like this.

Re:Text messaging (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069397)

And voice messages. You can't find out who called and you can't block them.

Mobile phones (0)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068157)

This only makes sense, considering that most people probably use their mobile phone as their primary phone these days. It really pisses me off when I'm in the store and my phone rings with a robocall telling me my car warranty is nearly expired.

Re:Mobile phones (3, Funny)

danlock4 (1026420) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068437)

At least your car doesn't ring with a robocall telling you your phone warranty is nearly expired... you're in the store and suddenly a voice on the store's intercom system announces your license plate number and says, "your car will be towed if you do not shut off its alarm within five minutes; it's been wreaking havoc in the lot for 20 minutes already!"

Happy February from the Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068159)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy February from the Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068393)

cosmonaut?

Just wait, they'll add yet another clause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068167)

And that clause will consent to everything for the end of time.

Bypass login/registration (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068179)

Full article is behind a login wall, here's a workaround:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577225922293962202.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]

Re:Bypass login/registration (4, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068211)

Bahhh... turns out they're using a referral check from Google News, follow the link here to get around it. [google.com]

change of heart? (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068181)

Two months ago, legislation was due to be voted on that permitted robocalls to cell phones [chicagotribune.com] . Now the FCC imposes new laws, which are essentially the laws as they were intended when passed in 1991. The real question is, will anyone actually enforce them? I already got a call to lower my energy bill and an important call about my current credit card account this evening, both on my cell.

Do Not Call and reporting to the FCC? Hasn't done squat to slow down these phone number jacking, robocalling, dinner-interrupting, law dodging a-holes.

Re:change of heart? (1)

pinfall (2430412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068219)

But if one of a million visitors to your website posts malicious content, expect the federal dns treatment.

Re:change of heart? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068419)

But if one of a million visitors to your website posts malicious content, expect the federal dns treatment.

I'm sorry, but due to the presence of a word in your post which is in one of the films we own the rights to, as per Digital Millenium Copyright Act (as we and our lackeys choose to interpret it) we shall be forcing this site to shut down indefinitely, further we will freeze all financial accounts, telecommunications access to your residence, issue a character assassinating bulletin to Newswire and one of our company drivers will back over your mailbox and/or leave tracks on your lawn.

Re:change of heart? (2, Interesting)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068473)

I do collections for a living. You'd be surprised at how many people start screaming how they're gonna sue me because they're on the Do Not Call list. News flash, kids. Collection calls are NOT covered by the national DNC list.

Re:change of heart? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068645)

'collections' is mostly a scam. there are a few honest places; but when I get calls that are phishing and trying to scam me saying that I owe money (on what card, again? sorry, I don't even have that card!) your whole industry is known as a scammer industry.

you guys are scum and you get what you deserve. I'll yell at you just because you exist.

no go away or I shall taunt you a third time.

Re:change of heart? (-1, Troll)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068813)

Kill yourself.

Re:change of heart? (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068829)

Half the time the people calling to collect a debt can't even produce proof that they are legally authorized to collect it.

First response to any collections call should always be, "I would like written proof that your organization owns this debt and are authorized to collect it." A lot of the time, you never hear from them again. I'm not gonna come right out and say they're scammer fucks, but it's funny that said proof almost never, ever, shows up...

Re:change of heart? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069925)

I've never had a problem validating a debt ever. Before I take a job at a collection agency, the first question I ask is, 'Do you get copies of the original bill with the new business coming in?' If they say no, I go somewhere else where they do get the 'paperwork' for the debt. Yes, the law says you can dispute a debt, no problem, and a copy of the original bill is considered proof that the debt is owed. With a doctor bill, it's considered an itemised bill with the billing codes (collectors aren't supposed to know what the procedures done were, HIPPA law you know) along with a copy of your signed release for treatment is validation of the debt.

I don't 'do' credit card debt. Bad checks & medical debt, not credit card. Most credit card debt is 'old' debt, way past the statutory limit for pursuing a lawsuit to collect it. I don't work those ever. Too much hassle.

Manufactured consent (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068207)

... By using this website, service, or product, (henceforth known only as The Service) you grant The Company the right to robocall using any telephone network or communications medium at our sole discretion. Any attempt to subvert, co-opt, or bypass this provision will render use of The Service illegal, and we reserve the right to take any legal measures available to us to end your use of The Service. An electronic signature is as valid as a physical one for the purposes of enforcing this section of the End User Licensing Agreement.

Re:Manufactured consent (2)

twotacocombo (1529393) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068279)

So provide a number that is valid, but goes nowhere. Everyone you know chips in the for the cost of a single POTS line, which is minimal, and a phone is never attached to it. Nobody has to hear it ring, there is no answering machine, and it's a legal, legit number. As far as anyone who calls it is concerned, you're just never home.

Re:Manufactured consent (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068353)

"Sir, I will need another number, according to our records there are apparently 1675 people living at that residence"...
Not a bad idea but with the way companies are building up databases detailing individuals, I am sure they could check to see that that number is not located at the residence you gave them, OR that a ton of people seem to be listing the same residence etc.
They need to put a minimum fine that is very hefty on each illegal call, so if someone is caught robocalling someone against the rules, they pay enough to make it no longer a viable option...

Re:Manufactured consent (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068515)

So just get a Google Voice/Skype account and don't hook it up to an actual number.

Re:Manufactured consent (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068871)

So provide a number that is valid, but goes nowhere.

That's kinda what I do. I've been giving businesses that want my phone number (but don't need it for anything I deem worthy) my landline home phone number for years, and that line's been out of service since 2005.

I feel bad for whoever has that number now, though.

Re:Manufactured consent (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069659)

just fill out the form as 411XXXXXXX .. you would be surprised how few people check inputs.. 911 is what most people would do .. but that can get you in trouble as if they could show you put it intentionally then it would be abusing 911 and isn't a good idea.. but 411.. that's just information look-up.. and the local bell loves to answer questions on it.. and around here is ~1.25$ per call.

Hi, this is Rachel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068225)

... from cardholder services

Re:Hi, this is Rachel (2)

djhertz (322457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068255)

First it was at home, then my cell, then my work, and now on Slashdot?! Make it stop! For the love of God make it stop!

Re:Hi, this is Rachel (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068557)

This one's currently being run out of a call center in Austin, Texas. Does anyone know where Texas stands on all this? The NE US has already imposed state-level legislation shutting down these scumbags where they used to operate.

Re:Hi, this is Rachel (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069453)

I hate this! I get these calls all the time. Give it up already!!!!!!

Businesses? Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068237)

It's the campaigners I want to stop calling me.

Re:Businesses? Meh. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068727)

It's the campaigners I want to stop calling me.

If you think they're a nuisance now, wait until October.

DMA phone number (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068303)

Here's the phone number of the Direct Marketing Association. You can call them to let them know your feelings about this topic.

212.768.7277

Credit Card Services (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068325)

Let's specifically target that phone spamming group. Give us an easier/better way to track and report phone calls from them. Actually do something to stop them.

Re:Credit Card Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068375)

Let's specifically target that phone spamming group. Give us an easier/better way to track and report phone calls from them. Actually do something to stop them.

Yes, and the "Lower you interest rate." calls, too. 503-457-1085.

The way I see it, if I'm on the DNC list and someone violates it to call, aren't they breaking the law and thereby are criminals?

Re:Credit Card Services (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068751)

The way I see it, if I'm on the DNC list and someone violates it to call, aren't they breaking the law and thereby are criminals?

I haven't followed it closely, but I've seen a couple of news stories about law enforcement busting habitual violators.

Don't know whether it was civil or criminal. I think some substantial fines were involved.

Re:Credit Card Services (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069345)

At least twice a month, I always get called by 920-602-0879 on my cell stating that I've been pre-approved for debt consolidation or some such crap. When I called the number back, it says the mail box of "services" is full. Gee. Imagine that.

I want to block these cocksuckers!

Just 1 Word for This... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068339)

There's just one word for this: YEAH!

Re:Just 1 Word for This... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068765)

There's just one word for this: YEAH!

Actually there are two words for it, but I'm trying to watch my language.

Link to WSJ and not FCC? (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068365)

A paywall?

Are you effing serious, subby?

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls [fcc.gov]

--
BMO

Re:Link to WSJ and not FCC? Follow-up (1, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068417)

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls [fcc.gov]

For those who could not be arsed to click the link in the preceding page.

It explains everything without having to look up the law itself.

--
BMO

Re:Link to WSJ and not FCC? Follow-up (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068457)

Well, this signature thing is going against 25 years of habit. I shall remove it.

Re:Link to WSJ and not FCC? (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068815)

He gets a kickback for that.

more useless rules that they won't enforce (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068395)

The FCC didn't give a shit three years ago, when the car-warranty scammers were robo-calling every phone number, including cell phones. How many thousand complaints did they get over that one? No, the FCC didn't do jack until the robo-callers called a US senator. That got them shut down.

Or look at the recent SOPA/PIPA debate, and the ensuing MegaUpload takedown. No SOPA/PIPA? No matter!

Why should I believe these new "rules" have any real meaning, for either the FCC or the miscreants?

Re:more useless rules that they won't enforce (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068671)

the new rules still leave exceptions for 'non profits' and of course, political callers.

those are the ones we want blocked THE MOST.

this is a useless law. it serves no one but 'looks pretty' on someone's resume.

Re:more useless rules that they won't enforce (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068771)

The FCC didn't give a shit three years ago, when the car-warranty scammers were robo-calling every phone number, including cell phones. How many thousand complaints did they get over that one? No, the FCC didn't do jack until the robo-callers called a US senator. That got them shut down.

Thus proving that senators aren't entirely useless.

I'm done with telephones. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068429)

I hate them.

From the blocked caller ID to the robo calls. I'm just over it.

We should shift everything to some kind of VOIP system entirely bypassing the whole network while giving everyone superior service. it's not like the telephone company isn't already doing VOIP internally to move calls around. And this way instead of having stupid phone numbers we can have more recognizable screen names... caller ID that can't be blocked... and ideally a call filtering system that lets people get calls they want reject those they don't and send everything else to sorted voice mail.

This is the 21st century. Phones were great in the 20th. Enough. Same thing with the postal service. Deliver at most once a week. Anyone that needs mail delivered more often then once a week can fedex it.

Re:I'm done with telephones. (3, Informative)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068663)

VOIP is great . . . until your Internet connection goes down. Our land line has gone down once, for a couple of hours, since 1997. We've lost Internet connectivity for days at times.

Re:I'm done with telephones. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068799)

There's no reason why VOIP can't be just as reliable.

In any case, I'm sure a telegraph line is more reliable then a telephone line... and I know a horse is more reliable then a car.

So... choose.

Which century do you want to live in?

I'll take my car which at some point here is going to have an electric drive that doesn't suck. And stick as much as possible to digital communication systems.

The internet network is still relatively new at least in the mind of the telecommunication's industry. They first need to gear up to give everyone enough bandwidth. Then they can start building in more redundancy and more reliability.

Re:I'm done with telephones. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068949)

and I know a horse is more reliable then a car.

Haven't known many horses, have you?

They're very delicate animals - they can die from drinking water that humans are perfectly fine with, as an example.

Plus there's the whole "so dumb they can be run to death", unlike, say, a mule, which won't put up with crap like that from their rider.

Re:I'm done with telephones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068769)

And your VOIP answering machine can say:

Please paypal $5 to xxx@xxx to allow this call to go through or leave a message after the beep...

File a complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068443)

http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

just a reminder (2, Informative)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068469)

your friendly political campaigns efforts to use robocalls to discourage minority voters from attending polls [theroot.com] , slander their opponents before the the big vote, or piss you off before supper sleep or sex will remain unaffected by this regulation. should you wish to file a complaint please direct messages to the round smelly bin in your home, or in petrol form to the windows of the appropriate politician accordingly.

regards,
commission of communications.

This won't change anything (1)

jtara (133429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068571)

This won't change a thing. The companies that are the worst offenders are already breaking the law, and don't care. They won't care any more if some new penalty is added. They fake caller ID and don't observe the Do Not Call List. Most of these aren't even legitimate marketing calls, but some kind of scam or another. They're breaking the law in so many ways it isn't even funny.

Fortunately, you can avoid these calls today by using a cell phone. For some reason, they do avoid making calls to cell phones. I imagine not because of the stronger laws, but because the cell phone companies (speculation, on my part) DO block these callers somehow.

I need to get rid of my home phone. I haven't used it in ages, and it just forwards to my cell. When my home phone rings, then I see an incoming call on my cell, I know it's just an annoying marketing call.

Re:This won't change anything (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068743)

I'm annoyed enough that I'm working on a hardware solution.

bring in my old friend the arduino, a modem with caller-id (over serial port) and a net connection to do realtime lookups. oh, and a relay at the main POTS connection; a DPST relay to connect the 2 wires or leave them disconnected.

the idea is to leave them disconnected to the downstream phones so that they never ring unless the switch is closed (relay). the relay gets closed if the call is on the whitelist in your EEPROM or if the operator (you) ok's the calls by seeing its display. if its known to be a bad guy (the net lookup shows a high spam score) it just never answers and you never hear the ring. I think that's probably the best way to deal with it.

I looked and did not find a standalone solution like this. lots of pc based solutions but nothing embedded that does realtime net lookups on badnumber.com (just made that up; there are sites that have user contrib feedback ratings you can use).

note, this is 'hard' on cellular but its pretty easy on landline.

I intend to build this. the only real hard part is finding callier-id modems that are true rs232 and not some winmodem nonsense.

Re:This won't change anything (3, Informative)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069681)

Verizon land lines already have a whitelisting system. I use it. In fact I wouldn't keep a land line at all without it. Unfortunately the whitelist only allows 10 numbers. They have a blacklist system too and both can be active. Now I only ever get calls from people I know. Occasionally I have to turn it off because I am expecting some commercial oriented call and that's when I am reminded about why I use whitelisting 100% of the time. Cell providers should have the same system. Whitelisting and blacklisting should be standard features in the modern world.

Re:This won't change anything (1)

johnthorensen (539527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069709)

Just hack a standalone callerid box. Most of the callerid chips interface over spi, i2c, or the like. No need to involve a full-on modem.

Re:This won't change anything (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069715)

USR5686E

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=USR5686E&_sacat=0&_odkw=USR5637&_osacat=0&_from=R40 [ebay.com]

http://www.usr.com/support/5686e/5686e-ug/tech-ref.html [usr.com]

just look for about any actual External hardware modem from the past 15 years.. (do remember you have to have the service from you local bell)

Re:This won't change anything (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069513)

I get more of these calls on my cell phone than our land line since we finally got around to submitting the landline number to the government no-call list a couple of years ago.

Re:This won't change anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069951)

This won't change a thing. The companies that are the worst offenders are already breaking the law, and don't care. They won't care any more if some new penalty is added.

Too right. One of the more frequent and obnoxious callers for me lately is an alarm company using human cold-callers. They're blatantly violating do-not call and evidently have someone looking out for them at City Hall considering how many people who haven complained.

And their ads all feature pictures of pompous-looking cops. Go figure.

Politicians excepted, of course (2, Informative)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068633)

I notice that there is no sign of stopping congresscritters, or the survey-takers in their employ, from robocalling. Since that's the vast majority of robocalls that I get I doubt that this is going to make any change in my life.

FYI, it's not enough to tell a phone caller to take you off their list. You need to say, "Put me on your Do Not Call List." They're required by law to do so, and any time they sell or rent their phone list the DNC list is required to go with it. If they tell you they're not required to have a DNC List because they work for some slimeball pretend non-profit that does political work I've found that the following technique works. Say, "If I were to cuss and swear at you then you would put our number on a list of people not to call again. Please put our number on that list." Those two simple changes changed the number of calls that an acquaintence got from 7-8 a night to 7-8 a week.

If you're ever required to put down a phone number, for store discount cards or something, use the same number that I (and a hundred other people do). (321) 123-4567. You'll be amazed at the number of cashiers that think it's really your phone number.

Re:Politicians excepted, of course (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39068993)

You'll be amazed at the number of cashiers that think it's really your phone number

Never worked retail have you? They dont care. It is not their job to make sure the numbers are right. Just that the form is filled in. "See boss signed up 20 people today". Thats it. Do not confuse ennui with stupidity.

Whatta shame (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068667)

I'm really going to be lonesome when I stop getting that "lower your interest rates" call twice a day.

Re:Whatta shame (2)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068961)

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. The miscreants calling you will care about this law almost as much as they care about all of the other laws in place. Passing more laws to stop activity that's already illegal has been tried many times before.

Canada? (3, Interesting)

Dorduan (1411877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39068783)

Assuming that this is implemented properly in US, does this cover people like me in Canada who are called by telemarketers from US?

Re:Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069961)

Probably not. But those calls would only bother you if we spoke the same language, eh?

Let me check my phone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069001)

Robo callers over the last 30 days, all apparently the same "cruise" line asshole:
2533829077
5039028179
5034571122
2062004646
5032009194

And if you google these numbers you'll find that they are American numbers mostly calling Canadians.

BAN THEM ALL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069087)

A blanket ban, particularly against politicians. Yes I know there are some legitimate uses (pharmacy confirmations and such) But just make it an outright ban. And fine the shit out of anyone doing them. Make it a felony to spoof the ID in order to make them.

Canada / US treaty required (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069157)

All that will happen is Canadian/Offshore companies will call the US as US companies now call Canada to get around Canadian rules.

It is now so bad that I don't answer long distance calls where I don't recognize the number.

What is needed is a rapid response/fine structure. Telcos have to block the number the instant they have proof that it is making naughty calls. Not 30 days but 24hours. Also what is stopping these agencies from buying one of these scam offers and then having the FBI track where the money goes and shutting seizing the whole pile?

They don't call me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069237)

I haven't had a call from a telemarketer in years.
I guess they finally got tired of me wasting their time and asking all kinds of stupid questions about the shit they were selling, and then finally saying I'm not interested. I once spent a 20 minute train ride on the phone talking about some fish oil and vitamin pills.
I don't get billed for them calling me though.

Nationwide is on Your Side (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069347)

I don't really have anything to add to this discussion. I just wanted to call out Nationwide Insurance for robo-calling me so I can save money on my insurance. Not only have I never ever ever had anything to do with them, never even been to their site or called for a quote, they came from an 'unknown' number.

I just wanted to give this grievance a little air-time since they're currently running ads on TV. If you share my annoyance with telemarketers, consider mentally associating their jingle with robo-calls. "Nationwide is on your side."

Been done before... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069621)

This has been done already, it's called the Do-Not-Call registry

The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:
- calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship;
- calls for which you have given prior written permission;
- calls which are not commercial or do not include unsolicited advertisements;
- calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt non-profit organizations

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list [fcc.gov]

I've registered ever phone number I've had. I have never had a problem with with advertiser and never get any Robo calls,
other than the library calling for their books back.

Oh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39069689)

Then why have I gotten 7 robocalls from 'Rachel from Card Services' in the last 48 hours?

Nice try, but enforcement is key. (4, Informative)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069693)

I get robocalls from companies I have no business relation with on my mobile phone, which is also on the do not call list. This is currently illegal. When this happens, I dutifully fill out the forms on the FCC complaint site, with all the details. Afterward I am sent a snail mail letter acknowledging the form. Rinse and repeat, but no changes. I still get robocalls from the same number as the complaint. I'm talking 20 or 30 of complaints over six months.

So this new "tougher" rule is supposed to do what exactly? Nobody is enforcing the existing rules, why make new rules? For good PR, I guess.

Re:Nice try, but enforcement is key. (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069775)

I second this post. I have done the exact same with the DNC in Canada. Nada. I heard about one company getting a small fine (small compared to the profit these companies raked in.)
I might have submitted 30 valid complaints. I never even got a letter.

They should just outlaw autodialers completly (3, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#39069703)

They should just make it illegal to use any machine that dials people and plays a recorded message. Anyone wants to reach you (including non-profit organizations, charities, survey organizations, political parties etc), they can employ a bunch of people to ring numbers manually (even if what came down the phone at the other end was a pre-recorded message, if they had to dial the number manually it would be enough to discourage this practice due to the cost of hiring staff to dial)

auto-dialers are one of those inventions the world would be better off without (like the technology Hollywood uses to turn 2D films into crappy-looking near-unwatchable 3D films)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...