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 ×

194 comments

Hah! (4, Funny)

metlin (258108) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345001)

Aptly named SPIT, I see! ;-)

Way to go.

Re:Hah! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345016)

What's next? SPam over Engineering Resource Management systems? I think we need some new terminology!

Re:Hah! (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345127)

Shouldn't that be SOIT?

Re:Hah! (4, Insightful)

Volmarias (705460) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345238)

I have to say, this may end up turning out as a blessing in disguise. It's bad enough that most people have to deal with spam, but when you can effectively completely fuck a businesses telephony over anonymously and with little trouble, you'll end up seeing legislation. I guarentee you that.

I'd love to see a bayesian filter for voice data.

Re:Hah! (1)

pavese (543540) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345334)

:tired:

Re:Hah! (1)

pavese (543540) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345350)

But lol... :P

gmail 4 u (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345003)

Re:gmail 4 u (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345034)

Hey, thanks man!

Cease and desist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345143)

This is so fucking lame. What is your major malfunction? Try something new for a change.

Why so surprised? (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345004)

So long as enough people are responding to spam to make it profitable, if you build it they will spam it.

Re:Why so surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345044)

Well, of course people spam because it (more or less) works. But we should try to take reasonable measures to discourage spamming.

Re:Why so surprised? (4, Interesting)

oGMo (379) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345078)

So long as enough people are responding to spam to make it profitable, if you build it they will spam it.

I don't think that's how it works. I don't think anyone responds to your typical spam; rather, they harvest working emails and sell those to less-than-scrupulous companies. That's where the real profits are, so it doesn't matter if people respond or not.

I could be wrong though.

Re:Why so surprised? (3, Interesting)

quigonn (80360) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345118)

The response rates for spam mails are extremely low, but it's still more profitable than "traditional" commercials and ads, which means you get the same amount of customers with less investments. AFAICR, there's been a study about that about a year ago, but I can't find any link or reference anymore... :-/

Re:Why so surprised? (2, Insightful)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345286)

It's more profitable to sell by spam if you don't have a real product.

Re:Why so surprised? (4, Insightful)

TheOtherChimeraTwin (697085) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345123)

And I think it works like this: the spammers sell spamming services to companies who think spam is a good way to sell services. As long as the spammers can sell services to somebody (even if doesn't work very well), there will be spam.

Hint to spammers: You don't actually have to send out the spam, just say you do and pocket the money. Everyone will be happier. (Including your clients who mostly get a blackeye and aggrevation out of your services.)

Re:Why so surprised? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345131)

Real spammers get paid based upon click through/purchase rate. There is money to be made unfortunetly.

Re:Why so surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345377)

the spammers sell spamming services to companies who
think [sic] spam is a good way to sell services.

Sounds a lot like pr0n sites. Around, around you go ... where the links go ... nobod HEY more flesh!

Re:Why so surprised? (1, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345101)

I don't see the difference between this and what we have already. At least with VoIP we can have software install to ignore most of it.

Basically whitelist everyone you know. If you don't know them they get forwarded to voicemail and you can check their phone number before you listen to their message.

Easy enough to block them. If they have no caller ID information auto-block.

Re:Why so surprised? (1)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345105)

I wonder what would happen if it became a crime to respond to spam...

Making it a crime to BE scammed is almost funny in my book.

Re:Why so surprised? (2, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345366)

First, define "respond". A few years ago, I "responded" to spammers a *lot*, but these days they don't include 800 numbers where I can provide them with my assessment of their character flaws.

-jcr

Re:Why so surprised? (1)

register_ax (695577) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345280)

I was wondering what the case would be like if you were to pounce on the issue before it came common. Like the correlation of mail spam to email spam was difficult with the introduction to computers and the unsavvyness of of its users would IP phone be different with people ready? I'm thinking how nations all over the world will be embracing this, will a significant increase in participation make it more unlikely to occur if we are made aware of the implications.

I'm just saying that as of now it is pretty much dry ground with nary a spam in sight. But if it should start up, would we, as a world, be in position to attack the spammers in force (I'm thinking active agression), or would it be more passive aggression like they say in the article. Maybe this time around we'll be better prepared technically, as well as psychologically? ...

Hehe (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345006)

LOL @ SPit

Publicly behead spammers. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345008)

You know it makes sense.

Re:Publicly behead spammers. (4, Funny)

hasdikarlsam (414514) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345172)

That would just cause more spam, you realize.

"S33 A sPamner beh3aded! Your credit card here!"

Re:Publicly behead spammers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345181)

Bleeding Heart Liberal!

Re:Publicly behead spammers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345243)

I was thinking more of drawing and quartering, but with cars instead of horses. There are 2 schools of thought on this method: idling cars for more pain or full throttle for maximum gore. Or just have a gladiatorial "Spammer vs. Truck" event.

Re:Publicly behead spammers. (1)

flat235 (724288) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345313)

Sorry friend - not funny... Maybe if they beheaded your mother? Or your daughter?

TD

please don't spit (1)

kiwipeso (467618) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345010)

I have to pay for traffic, why should I pay for the traffic caused by spit?

spit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345013)

lol, what's next? sperm? spam over ewww...nevermind

Re:spit? (1, Redundant)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345329)

SPam: Electronicly-generated Retail Messages

a dry mouth... (-1, Offtopic)

plog (816386) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345014)

will not save you

abandon your voice
and despair

Names for tools? (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345017)

Personal Telephoney Objectionable Object Immediate Eradication

SPam Eradication Wirelessly

Highly Unwanted Reduction Logic

Re:Names for tools? (1)

irokitt (663593) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345110)

So when will the Internet become a Spam Eradicating Measures Enducing Network?

Re:Names for tools? (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345252)

You forgot Voice Over Mediocre Internet Telephones

Now Hear This.... (3, Funny)

EodLabs (722242) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345031)

Not even blind people are safe from SPAM now....

Re:Now Hear This.... (4, Interesting)

privaria (583781) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345166)

From what I've read, blind people are more impacted by plain ol' email spam than anyone. It takes a lot more time for them to listen for a screen reader start reciting off the latest anatomical enlargement offer than it does for a sighted person from scanning the text and just hitting "delete."

As somebody once said... (5, Funny)

quigonn (80360) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345032)

When a media is used to send spam to other people it is alive and well. When it is used to transport pr0n it will have a prospective future.

Re:As somebody once said... (1)

freakmn (712872) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345374)

I don't know if that will work too well over a voice only line...

Its been said but it needs to be said again... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345033)

I'm going to become rich when I invent a way to stab people in the face over the internet.

Re:Its been said but it needs to be said again... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345171)

I'm going to become rich when I invent a way to stab people in the face over the internet.

Goatse!

At least (3, Insightful)

Apreche (239272) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345036)

At least with this one type of spam I know that the spammer is paying big bugs in bandwith to make it work. Just maybe we'll be lucky and it will turn out that voip spam isn't profitable and we will be free of it.

Re:At least (3, Interesting)

lexarius (560925) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345161)

Someone will be paying for lots of bandwidth, but the SPITers won't be paying most of it. Viruses, trojans and zombies oh my!

Re:At least (3, Insightful)

iamatlas (597477) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345210)

At least with this one type of spam I know that the spammer is paying big bugs in bandwith to make it work.

Hold yer horses there Mr Rose-Colored Glasses: Spamers aren't exactly known for their ethical consuption of paid-for-out-of-pocket bandwidth. I'm sure it would be trivial to turn zombied computers into SPIT-bots.

Re:At least (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345380)

At least with this one type of spam I know that the spammer is paying big bugs in bandwith to make it work.

No, all the poor shmoes who have zombified PC's will be paying for the bandwidth.

-jcr

Screening calls? (4, Informative)

October_30th (531777) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345038)

I already screen my cellphone calls. If the caller ID is "unknown" (which is the case for most telemarketers) or if it is a foreign number that I don't recognize, I won't answer it.

If telemarketers leaving voice mail becomes a problem, I'm sure that's quickly addressed by the service provider (=store no voice mail from abroad or from unknown numbers).

Might not work for much longer (2, Informative)

Fruny (194844) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345132)

Remember these stories about caller ID spoofing?

* Caller ID Falsification Service [slashdot.org]
* Caller ID Spoofing Firm Gets Death Threats [slashdot.org]

I'm sure people can be fooled into answering calls apparently originating from their own phone number...

Re:Might not work for much longer (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345261)

They can... sure. CallerID is not a security mechanism... but the point is, right now, CallerID works well for this.

If a commercial venture is spoofing CallerID, that could be fraud.

Re:Screening calls? (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345267)

isn't it illegal to telemarket cell phones in the US?

i mean, not that it stops anyone really... do not call lists, can spam acts... all for tax dollars! but... not good for much else.

Woo Hoo Cares (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345041)

Well, I for one, think I will just work myself into a tizzy until I reach critical mass and expload.

Clever acronyms (3, Funny)

Mateito (746185) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345042)

So, what's next?

SPam Ethernet Wires?
SPam over Low Amplitude Telephony?
SPam Over Older Generation Ethernets?

Something tells me that this is about to get sillier...

Re:Clever acronyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345076)

I'd go with:


Spam Hijacking Internet Telephony.


Wouldn't that be an appropriate acronym for this?

Re:Clever acronyms (2, Funny)

vhold (175219) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345082)

SPam Routing Over Underdeveloped Trees

Re:Clever acronyms (1)

Mateito (746185) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345102)

SPam Random Undesirables to News Groups.

I've been spit upon by the democratic party (0, Offtopic)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345055)

I received about 10 automated phone calls from some hotly contested positions in the Washington State primary. (democrats only, no republicans.)

Re:I've been spit upon by the democratic party (0, Offtopic)

dgagley (468178) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345087)

I, also in Washington, have had quite a few. But some of mine have been Republican.

Optimistic (3, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345061)

I don't see the same people that respond to spam, as the same people using telephoney. I will predict that the profit margin to people that respond will be too low to make this worthwhile until VOIP becomes more mainstream like email. (I can dream can't I)

Hopefully SPIT dosen't go this far... (2, Funny)

wizatcomputer (798648) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345066)

RING, RING

Hello?

Hello! We have some wonderful Costa Rican Properties for sale. For more info, please visit wearetryingtoripyouoff.info. Or, if you are lacking in a certian area, you can receive generic drugs from us directly. Just go to the same site. (In a fast, hurried tone) To remove yourself from out call list, please call the following number: 8003287448 Thank you!

Re:Hopefully SPIT dosen't go this far... (3, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345178)

That will be very difficult.
  • First, today's spam has a link that says "http://somelegitsite.com", but the href is "http://1.2.3.4/uniqueID" to make you think you're going to a legit site, but really sending you elsewhere. Hard to do with voice contact, or, rather, audio contact.
  • Second, they would never use a toll-free number. That would not only cost them money rather than you, but be easily traceable. For those who don't mind the traceability, it'll be a 900 number.
Besides, it'll all be automated - no human voice at the other end ;-)

Good luck (5, Funny)

RCulpepper (99864) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345067)

Given that corporations are the biggest users of VoIP right now, and given that it takes a burning-bush level miracle to get in touch with a human person at most large corps, I imagine most of this will be computerized voices yammering at each other for minutes on end. "Thank you for calling Bank of America." A: "Free trial of Viagra, no commitments" B: "For information about your account, press one now."

Auto-attendants (1)

Srass (42349) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345167)

This is more or less the scheme I've got going at home, thanks to Asterisk [slashdot.org] .

Unless I've badly misunderstood the configuration, I'm not allowing any unauthenticated connections, so incoming calls will be from my extensions or my VoIP provider. At that point, they have to prove to my auto-attendant that they can obey simple instructions, something a pre-recorded message probably won't be able to do. If they can't, they get disconnected, without even being able to leave a voicemail.

DUE TO EXCESSIVE BAD POSTING, ANONYMOUS POSTING FR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345070)

OM THIS IP HAS BEEN BANNED. THEREFORE, I, CMDRTACO, INVITE YOU TO RAPE MY A$$.

SO HOW THE FUCK AM I STILL POSTING EH? SLASHDOT FUCKING SUCKS. GET THAT IN YOUR BRAIN FUCKFACES.

filler:--

kjsbfjhadsbfasjd asdljkf sdf as df as dfasdf asd fasd fas df asdfasdf asdf as df asdf as df as

more filler:--

asljdk asd fasdf asdfasdf as df as df asd f asd f asdf adsf asd f asf as df asd f adsf ads fs adf sdf as fs df sad f sadfsadf asd fasd f as dfasdf asdfasf as dfas df asd f sdfas f as dfasd fa sdf asd f asdfsad fasf ads sa s f s df asd fas f s

dfas df asdf asdf

Argh SPIM IS TAKEN UP (1)

vectorian798 (792613) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345075)

SPIM is for running MIPS programs. Not Spam Over Instant Message...find another acronym...

hurray for spit! (3, Interesting)

caldfyr (814077) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345081)

When I get spammed I swear to myself while pounding . If my voip device rings I can swear at THEM for once! When I get a reputation for blowing out eardrums we'll see how often they sell my name.

Then there's SPAT (2, Insightful)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345095)

Spam Over Analog Telephony...

Otherwise known as mortgage brokers and insurance salesmen who call you at dinnertime.

And Of course... (1)

Cryp2Nite (67224) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345206)

SPOTS: Spam over Plain Old Telephone Systems

Which is what I'm getting from all the silly acronyms triggered by this headline.

Enough already.

World Changing Development (4, Funny)

contagious_d (807463) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345098)

Does this mean I will finally get telephone calls?

Was supposed to be Funny! (1)

racas (633636) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345151)

Bah. Accidentally modded as "Interesting". Posting to invalidate...

Re:Was supposed to be Funny! (1)

WellAren'tYouJustThe (705433) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345208)

Well aren't you just the model of integrity?

Re:World Changing Development (1)

wattersa (629338) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345170)

> Does this mean I will finally get telephone calls?

I wish-- I have a cellphone so until they make it legal to telemarket mobile phones I _still_ won't get any calls
:-(

Don't give 'em any ideas (1)

Delusional (574271) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345119)

If I devise a technique to filter, oh, I don't know, undesirable HAM radio advertising, and patent it, can I get this kind of publicity, too?

Sure you can! (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345328)

In fact, we'll show you how to get even more publicity, once you purchase our exclusive list of 76 million VoIP addresses! Act now and get 128 million email addresses with DNS records today!!

Re:Don't give 'em any ideas (1)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345336)

The article say that Spit don't exist yet but probably will as VoIP popularity increase. So you should patent spit, then sue spitters when they appear :)

What? Not yet? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345124)

35+ comments and nothing about spit vs swallow? Come on /., you're just not trying anymore.

Re: SPIT vs SWALLOW (2, Funny)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345154)

Spam Will Always Live Longer Over Wireless

Beep! Beep! Beep! (5, Insightful)

El (94934) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345125)

Sorry, but my bullshit alarm is going off!

He adds that viruses are also possible with VoIP. A virus sent to phones could be used to launch more spit or to bring together thousands of VoIP systems to launch denial-of-service attacks.

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!

Also, how is spamming voice mail via VoIP any different than just calling everybody up POTS?!? This article sounds more like another company trying to promote their "solution in search of a problem." Here's a hint: if spammers spoof their caller id and figure out how to insert random variations in the outgoing messages, this system isn't going to work anyway!

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345139)

Also, how is spamming voice mail via VoIP any different than just calling everybody up POTS?!?

Because the laws that dictate standard telephony services provided by phone companies do not apply to VoIP.

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345191)

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!

Yeah those crazy people! next they'll be saying you can get viruses from pictures! They're all loons i tell you.

I can see it now ... (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345202)

The day the first worm for VoIP comes out, everyone not using the vulnerable product will think an old BBS is calling them or something.

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (1)

hasdikarlsam (414514) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345207)

Yeah right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!

Wrong situation.
The problem isn't with viruses on your phones; it's with zombied Windows machines.

You know it will happen... someday soon, some luser's computer will start sending spit instead of mere spam

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (3, Insightful)

badriram (699489) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345224)

Yes and everyone did think jpeg, pngs and bmps were safe too.

I am not saying it is easy to do, but it is a possibility.

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345255)

i don't know if any of you have worked with VoIP CPE devices but due to the relative low quality they are filled with buffer overflows and many of the mass-produced over seas devices are running hacked up versions of linux so you have a capable platform from which you can carry out further attacks.

Not to mention the fact that most corporate networks prioritize VoIP traffic.

I wouldn't be surprised at all

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345304)

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!

Actually, this is quite possible in a Windoze environment with IP phones. For example, the voicemail system on my office phone sends the WAV files to Outlook as email messages. To listen to the message, one 'executes' the WAV file. If all goes as intended, the WAV plays through my speakers, or can be redirected back to my phone (which then rings and plays the WAV).

Not so far fetched to imagine that with a properly constructed WAV file one could get Windoze to do something undesirable when it is played.

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep! (1)

boredMDer (640516) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345359)

'Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!'

And we used to think:

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our mail messages!.

Then look what OE brought us.

Or:

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our webpages!

IE.

Or:
Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our scroll bars!

Again, IE.

Or:
Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute jpegs!

Microsoft.

If it's technological and has software behind it, consider it to have a vulnerability. What we think can't happen now may very well happen not so far in the future.

Question. (5, Insightful)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345126)

Are you really that suprised?

Read: telemarkerters.

What do they stop at? Nothing.

Not sure... (4, Interesting)

Karpe (1147) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345129)

One of the biggest problem of spam is the inability to identify the source (and why so many people believe that solutions like SPF will help out).

VoIP is end-to-end, so if someone starts "spitting" the network, he can easily be blocked.

Of course, other solutions would be to have white lists for VoIP, but it is weird to think about white lists to telephony, since the idea is that anyone could reach anyone.

I think dubious character companies will try to do it anyway for some time, but with time blocking will keep the problem to manageable levels.

Anybody Blind? (1)

EqualSlash (690076) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345137)

Spam over Internet Telephony is

SOIT not SPIT

Unless they rename it

SPAM PERMEATING/PERVADING INTERNET TELEPHONY

VoIP automated prank calls! (1)

EnormousTooth (678644) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345153)

I can see them now.... "All your voIP are belong to spit!"

Re:VoIP automated prank calls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345198)

That's fucking stupid, much like you.
Please drink bleach and die, faggot.

Can't say you didn't expect it (1)

fawlty154 (814393) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345159)

Can't say you didn't expect this.. However, now that I think about it, I could use another way to buy vi@gra!

Oh Boy! (1)

Lord Graga (696091) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345163)

I can't wait till I start getting the XXX calls... mmmmm....

Spit the dog (1)

mikael (484) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345217)

Looks like 'network' the dog is going to have some competition from 'spit' the dog' [bbc.co.uk] . Good choice in name.

SpamAssassin for your phone? (1)

Sneeper (182316) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345228)

Because its VOIP, we should be able to use software to fight it. How about blacklists of known telemarketers?

It seems to me that the move the VOIP should lessen spam rather than increase it since it puts more power into our hands to fight it.

Phone Spam Legislation (3, Interesting)

Mulletproof (513805) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345236)

It may be over the internet, but at least vocal spam already has precedents in 'do not call lists' and such. I figure the more popular VoIP becomes, the faster this crap will get squshed. It won't take the decades phone spam legistlation took to enact. Everybody is taking a good, hard look at how to crush unwanted solicitations in every form these days.

Breath People! (4, Insightful)

Amigori (177092) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345241)

As the world becomes more and more connected and integrated, I find myself becoming more disconnected. Yes, I have my broadband connection and cell phone, but I can, and do, turn them off when I want to. The increased sense of urgency in the world of having to do everything by yesterday has only encouraged me to turn my electronics off. And its not like the world's going to end if you can't see the latest version of last nights sports scores, your friend can't call you a l00z3r on IM, or check the latest duplicate on /.; although maybe for some [slashdot.org] , it would.

As for spit, I really don't plan on getting VoIP anytime soon as I'm satisfied by my POTS landline. Do I have to pay taxes on it, yes; so what? We pay taxes on everything, including VoIP indirectly. You might not have taxes on VoIP, yet, but I'll bet there are taxes and surcharges on your Cable/DSL bill. The article itself does not have much content past the rhetorical comments regarding growth and registries. And the moment that I get a virus on my telephone is the moment I dig out an old beige mechanical AT&T phone. Seriously, how many features does your household phone need? Caller ID, sure; Call Waiting, nah, if its important, they'll call back; voicemail, get an answering machine and save $5/mo.; etc.

Take a deep breath people and realize that humans and our respected cultures have existed for thousands of years and by turning your electronic toys, at least for a few minutes, you might find peaceful relaxation or learn something that does not have power requirement.

But what do I know, it seems the Slashdot audience lives behind the glow rather than under the sun, so I may be preaching to the wrong crowd. --Amigori

Re:Breath People! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345349)

Or maybe you're preaching to the only right crowd. Remeber, the sick needs healing, not the healthy.

Re:Breath People! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345357)


and by turning your electronic toys, at least for a few minutes,

do you mean turning them ON or OFF? turning MY electronic toy is quite pleasing!

acronym of the day (3, Funny)

ximpul1 (607679) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345326)

Spam Hampering Information Technology = SHIT ha!

Not to worried.... (4, Interesting)

jemenake (595948) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345332)

Fortunately, VoIP is young enough such that they could modify the protocols to nip this in the bud.

Cryptographic solutions would probably be the first place to look. For example, suppose my phone will only look at incoming connections which are begun with some certificate signed by the VoIP service provider (Vonage, Skype, whatever). So, in order to be able to call me, your phone first contacts the provider, requests a certificate to connect to me, and the provider gives that to the phone, and then their phone uses that as credentials to get my phone to not ignore it. Then, all the service provider has to do is watch out for excessive numbers of connections coming from one customer.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this isn't already built into the VoIP systems. After all, we've been trying for some time now to move email into the domain of cryptographic authentication (SPF is just an intermediate fix) to stop spam. So, we've known for a while that this is "the way to do it right", and we also know from the way e-mail is going that it's a major pain to try to change the system to use it after the system is already in place. So, I'd expect that they might already have this capability.

Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10345337)

You pick your handset to answer a call, instead, SPIT comes out of the speakers!?

That's half the proof... (2, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 8 years ago | (#10345364)

..that VoIP is finally "here."

But what about the other half? There's the porn?

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...