Most active commenters
  • coldpie(5)
  • ahmeneeroe-v2(4)
  • Bender(3)
  • schmidtleonard(3)

←back to thread

379 points impish9208 | 54 comments | | HN request time: 0.51s | source | bottom
1. coldpie ◴[] No.45015453[source]
Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.
replies(8): >>45015557 #>>45015616 #>>45015807 #>>45015837 #>>45015878 #>>45016050 #>>45016070 #>>45018407 #
2. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45015557[source]
Yes! Easy to forget that just because "we" don't fall for them, they're still incredibly harmful to our seniors and other vulnerable populations.

Also hate the scam "work from home for $125,000 per year" texts. They really prey on the desperate.

replies(3): >>45015896 #>>45016259 #>>45016265 #
3. jacobr1 ◴[] No.45015616[source]
How many are based in the US and subject to US-based prosecution?
replies(6): >>45015649 #>>45015650 #>>45015662 #>>45015683 #>>45015780 #>>45015792 #
4. lokar ◴[] No.45015649[source]
That's no longer a barrier to the use of force by the US
replies(1): >>45015773 #
5. mh- ◴[] No.45015650[source]
More than you'd think, from what I've seen.
6. stonemetal12 ◴[] No.45015662[source]
Probably none, but you would think fraud would be illegal everywhere.
7. coldpie ◴[] No.45015683[source]
Why can someone from outside the US make my phone ring? Why can't I opt out of calls sourced internationally? Seems like an easy way to fix the problem. There is no reason for anyone overseas to call me, and if someone US-based does phone spamming, we can prosecute them.
replies(7): >>45015765 #>>45015777 #>>45015802 #>>45015924 #>>45015966 #>>45016278 #>>45016379 #
8. larrysalibra ◴[] No.45015765{3}[source]
You're right, it is an easy technical fix.

Mainland China lets people opt out of phone calls that come from outside of the Mainland...it's a feature one can turn off on an on their mobile plan.

Calls from outside the Mainland always cause a warning to pop up on the receiving user's phone that says something like "this call is coming from outside of the mainland, be careful of being scammed".

I can imagine there are many reasons the US doesn't fix this..one of which probably that much of US customer service is outsourced to people outside the US!

replies(1): >>45015822 #
9. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45015773{3}[source]
Literally has not been a barrier to the US using force to protect commercial interests since "the shores of Tripoli" in 1801.
10. Bender ◴[] No.45015777{3}[source]
Why can someone from outside the US make my phone ring?

There are applications to block international calls but that only helps if the number is not spoofed. People that have SS7 lines into the telco system can spoof as just about any number. I wanted to kill those circuits but my employer at the time said, "they are paying their bills, arent they?". This was in the 90's. I guess the laws are every so slowly starting to catch up.

replies(4): >>45015839 #>>45015946 #>>45018711 #>>45020455 #
11. advisedwang ◴[] No.45015780[source]
Even when the scammers are out of the US, at some point in the chain a US based telephone company is accepting inbound connections that don't provide the validation required.
12. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45015792[source]
The scale of fraud is such that this should factor into trade talks.

Also, pragmatically, basically everywhere outside of China and Russia is subject to US "prosecution".

13. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45015802{3}[source]
This would be awesome. Next step would be filtering out non-US IPs from any online content (including forum comments, videos, tweets, etc)
14. Triphibian ◴[] No.45015807[source]
Or at the very least send them a DVD of The Beekeeper.
15. potato3732842 ◴[] No.45015822{4}[source]
>I can imagine there are many reasons the US doesn't fix this..one of which probably that much of US customer service is outsourced to people outside the US!

This. Gotta have your round robin of foreign call centers be able to spoof the main customer service line numbers for whoever they're contracted to represent.

Personally I think that should all be done in software these days, not something supported at the teleco level but what do I know.

replies(1): >>45016027 #
16. Bender ◴[] No.45015837[source]
Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.

I agree. In fact, 1200 SS7 circuits is nothing. If these people are not locked up they will just get another circuit using another fake identity. It's like blocking 1200 ASN's and saying one made a dent in spam.

17. to11mtm ◴[] No.45015839{4}[source]
> I wanted to kill those circuits but my employer at the time said, "they are paying their bills, arent they?".

This is loud to me, mostly because the last time I got non-TCPA compliant texts trying to solicit business, the VOIP provider refused to give the company's actual name or contact info.

18. paxys ◴[] No.45015878[source]
I'm going to go ahead and say none of them are in the jurisdiction of the DoJ.
replies(4): >>45015918 #>>45016072 #>>45018425 #>>45019355 #
19. RajT88 ◴[] No.45015896[source]
I know a gal whose grandmother sent ~400k to scammers, which is the kind of victim they are looking for - someone in cognitive decline who is malleable. The neighbors apparently also were preying on her, and ended up with her cars and a bunch of other stuff.

Absolute scum of the earth.

20. coldpie ◴[] No.45015918[source]
No one outside the jurisdiction of my country's laws should be able to make my phone ring or send me text messages without my permission.
replies(2): >>45016055 #>>45016163 #
21. CoastalCoder ◴[] No.45015924{3}[source]
I wish only people bearing a token that I've previously signed could call me.
22. spookie ◴[] No.45015946{4}[source]
SS7 should be nuked from orbit, at some point we have to stop pretending we can't replace that pos.
replies(1): >>45015950 #
23. Bender ◴[] No.45015950{5}[source]
SS7 should be nuked from orbit

I completely agree.

24. ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.45015966{3}[source]
> Why can someone from outside the US make my phone ring? Why can't I opt out of calls sourced internationally?

Because spam call centers pay much more to access phone networks than you do, therefore telcos care about them, and not you. Plus you NEED a phone and they know that.

25. OkayPhysicist ◴[] No.45016027{5}[source]
This isn't even an unreasonable feature to implement. We just need something like SSL certs: Has Legitimate Business holding phone number XYZ granted other entity the right to use their identity?
replies(1): >>45016642 #
26. more_corn ◴[] No.45016050[source]
Or start assassinating them. They prey on the most vulnerable Americans. Why not declare war on them and start decapitating their organizations?
replies(2): >>45016582 #>>45016688 #
27. more_corn ◴[] No.45016055{3}[source]
You got my vote
28. candiddevmike ◴[] No.45016070[source]
Do these scam phone providers have their Google My Business listing verified yet?
replies(2): >>45016165 #>>45017551 #
29. infamouscow ◴[] No.45016072[source]
Being outside of US legal jurisdiction is exactly why they ought to be thrown into a wood chipper.

I don't understand why this doesn't happen EVERY DAY until the problem is resolved.

And before someone cite US code: it's virtually impossible for foreigners to seek justice in this context. Not only do these criminals lack the money, education, and access to legal representation to do so, but the DoJ has better things to do than spend their time looking into the veracity of an international claim of this kind.

30. AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.45016163{3}[source]
At least without it showing up as an international number.
replies(1): >>45016280 #
31. nativeit ◴[] No.45016165[source]
You should call them a few hundred thousand times just to be sure.
32. RankingMember ◴[] No.45016259[source]
The "r/scams" sub-reddit is an amazing glimpse into this world. The saddest ones to me are the peoples' parents who fully believe they're talking to a celebrity who needs their money for some outlandish reason (and they send it to them over and over).
33. jm4 ◴[] No.45016265[source]
Exactly. My city started posting about online safety and warnings about various scams. Unfortunately, almost every one of them also mentions how a local resident was victimized. We have a fairly large senior population.

It's easy to say it's idiots who fall for this stuff when we're young enough to have grown up in this world or started using new technology at an early age. We will be the ones targeted someday and it will be a medium that didn't become available to us until later in life just like what the seniors are experiencing now.

replies(3): >>45016353 #>>45017567 #>>45020530 #
34. schmidtleonard ◴[] No.45016280{4}[source]
No, labeling is not enough, options are not enough, unattested communication needs to go silently to spam by default. Anything else encourages the spam. "We let spammers ring your phone unless you tick an option 5 menus deep in your phone that gets automatically reset every 3 months at update time and moved every 2 years between names/locations that range from awful to insane" doesn't cut it.
replies(1): >>45016382 #
35. schmidtleonard ◴[] No.45016353{3}[source]
Yes, although it's worth mentioning that there are scams that target our demographic, they just look different (fake investment, job, real-estate, or romance opportunities).
36. ajross ◴[] No.45016379{3}[source]
An easy way to "fix" the problem for closet dwelling US nerds like us who've decided we don't want to use the telephone anymore. Everyone else in the world isn't like us, and have to actually use their phones to talk to real people everywhere. Pretty much everyone has family abroad, etc... This just isn't a serious suggestion.

Which is why this is likely to end up getting rolled back. Surely most of these providers are dominated by spam. But equally surely all of them carry some legitimate traffic (or else this particular trigger would have been pulled already).

There will be friendly fire from this policy decision, almost certainly.

replies(4): >>45016428 #>>45016852 #>>45017135 #>>45019859 #
37. coldpie ◴[] No.45016382{5}[source]
The beautiful thing about default-deny for internationally-sourced calls is it fixes the spam problem for everyone, including those who opt-in. If 90% of the spammers' calls are just immediately dropped, they're no longer going to get enough hits to be worth the effort, so it also protects those who actually do have a legit reason to receive international calls.
replies(1): >>45016416 #
38. schmidtleonard ◴[] No.45016416{6}[source]
Yes, but we don't even have to go that far: international != unattested. Legitimate overseas telecoms should be able to sign their communications. The point isn't to seal off the USA, the point is to have someone to ban if they start abusing access.

Most international telecom operations aren't facilitating scam call centers, and of the ones who are I suspect very few are so eager to turn a blind eye that they will continue to do so when staring down the barrel of actual consequences.

39. ◴[] No.45016428{4}[source]
40. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.45016642{6}[source]
Exactly. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to spoof numbers, but all of them are people acting on behalf of the owner of the number being spoofed. Enforce that.
41. edm0nd ◴[] No.45016688[source]
I pray and yearn for the day that they legalize and allow drone striking ransomware operators.
42. coldpie ◴[] No.45016852{4}[source]
I'd love a solution that would fix the problem for everyone, sure, but since the evidence is that is apparently impossible, I'll happily take one that only helps a subset.
43. vel0city ◴[] No.45017135{4}[source]
> Pretty much everyone has family abroad

In the US? Most normie people I know barely even know anyone that's visited overseas anywhere other than Canada and Mexico, much less stay connected to family living abroad. Tons of people don't even regularly talk to people outside of state they live in.

Don't get me wrong it's not entirely uncommon and can be common in immigrant communities but outside of that unless you've got wealthy globe-trotting family you probably don't have anyone to talk to overseas. Its something far from "pretty much everyone".

44. sgc ◴[] No.45017551[source]
PTSD on HN. It hurts.
45. rectang ◴[] No.45017567{3}[source]
> It's easy to say it's idiots who fall for this stuff

It’s not just “easy”, it’s an ideological imperative to ensure that the vulnerable have “personal responsibility” to avoid predation, while predators bear no responsibility for their own actions. Many tech business models depend on exploitation — it’s not just phone scammers.

replies(1): >>45018589 #
46. Timwi ◴[] No.45018407[source]
Is that what European countries do? Is that why there are no robocalls there?
replies(1): >>45024579 #
47. like_any_other ◴[] No.45018425[source]
If a country dares have IP laws less restrictive than the US would like, the US finds plenty of levers to pull. But in this case, the matter is something that is illegal in the scammer's country also (clear fraud tends to be illegal everywhere), so there's probably more that US police could do than literally nothing.
48. pessimizer ◴[] No.45018589{4}[source]
It's always convenient to decide that the weak deserve to be exploited because they were too lazy or stupid to be strong. Then we can do the thing that makes the least sense, which is to design society to protect the strong.

Or rather, to justify what the strong were already doing and didn't have to ask anybody's permission to do, and that nobody else ever had a say about that mattered.

49. stackskipton ◴[] No.45018711{4}[source]
This is telco doing as well.

It should be illegal for Telco to allow SS7 spoofing for numbers that customer does not show they own.

Initial SIP setup shows number not to be a number they own, drop the SIP dial and be done with it.

Also, all US based phone numbers should have US based person tied to it. If they misbehave, drop them and blacklist them.

All this is solvable if we don't let phone providers get away with "Welp, the checks cleared, this is not our problem."

50. FateOfNations ◴[] No.45019355[source]
All the companies have a direct connection to the phone network in the US. The FCC is cutting them off from the US phone network because they have failed to adopt robocall mitigation measures.
51. BobaFloutist ◴[] No.45019859{4}[source]
>Pretty much everyone has family abroad, etc

Yeah, and they use Whatsapp, Telegram, or Facetime, or Messenger to connect.

52. kube-system ◴[] No.45020455{4}[source]
Also, VoIP goes over the Internet and the Internet is international.

Country codes stopped being indicative of location the moment we removed the wires from our telephones.

53. mulmen ◴[] No.45020530{3}[source]
Apple makes it extremely easy to fall prey to email scams. They absolutely refuse to show an email address in less than 3 taps. There’s no setting in Mail to always show the address and they trust all senders to give an honest name. So if a contact loses their contact list scammers can send a known name with a junk address and you won’t see it unless you go out of your way.

Apple makes a lot of dumb user-hostile decisions but this one is particularly egregious and has caught me off guard.

54. ruszki ◴[] No.45024579[source]
We have robocalls, just not that much. I have 1-2 every months. Similar amount of spam SMS during the worst month. But I didn't get spam texts for months now. And my phone number is basically a public domain now.

I have no idea the reason.