←back to thread

379 points impish9208 | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.611s | source | bottom
Show context
zeta0134 ◴[] No.45017407[source]
At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale.

In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact list. Which means the scammer, already pretending to live in small town rural USA (where they most certainly are not) has to correctly guess the number of one of my relatives before my pocket actually rings. It also means I'm unreachable for anything actually important that isn't in my contact list. That's an annoying price.

I'm not sure what the correct end solution is, but the current solution seems to be very broken.

replies(14): >>45017500 #>>45017713 #>>45017717 #>>45017798 #>>45017924 #>>45017961 #>>45017966 #>>45018232 #>>45018393 #>>45018561 #>>45018690 #>>45018950 #>>45018981 #>>45019224 #
1. ryandrake ◴[] No.45017500[source]
Imagine if the concept of a phone call did not exist. We still have these computers in our pockets, but without the history of the telephone system.

Then, one day, an app developer thought: Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that would interrupt what the user was doing, play a sound, vibrate the device, and put up a full-screen dialog, that this all could be activated remotely by any other device by simply typing in a short numeric code, and that if the recipient pushed a button, the remote attacker could send audio data and activate the recipient's microphone? Most app stores would classify this as malware, yet here we are today with devices that all have built-in apps that do exactly this, and only because of how normalized the legacy idea of a "phone call" is.

replies(5): >>45017591 #>>45017599 #>>45017909 #>>45020886 #>>45021748 #
2. mzajc ◴[] No.45017591[source]
> Every app store that exists would classify this as malware

Considering Facebook ([0] and [1] to name a few) is still available, I think that's a pretty high bar to clear.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401406

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115

3. tempodox ◴[] No.45017599[source]
That‘s a great example of how technology can change the rules. In the era of rotary phones hardly anyone would have felt the need to describe it that way. But nowadays it‘s appropriate.
4. lucky_cloud ◴[] No.45017909[source]
> Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that would interrupt what the user was doing

It seems like this sort of idea is extremely common, considering how many websites love preventing me from viewing their content by slapping multiple modals asking me to sign up for a newsletter and/or to get my permission to be tracked using cookies.

It also shows up in native apps, in the form of some prompt asking the user if they are enjoying the app. NO! I do not enjoy being funneled into an App Store review or any similar bullshit. If I like using the app, I'll use it. If I don't, I won't. Stop asking me!

I build websites for a living and I'm constantly battling requests to infect our sites with these god-awful modals. It's like sitting down at a restaurant, being handed a menu, only to have the menu taken away seconds later and being asked if you'll return in the future. Not only is it rude, it's the wrong time to ask the question. Let me read the damn article or whatever, and when I'm done, if there's a newsletter form, MAYBE I'll sign up. Let me eat my meal, and if I enjoy it I'll think about returning.

5. cesarb ◴[] No.45020886[source]
> Then, one day, an app developer thought: Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that would interrupt what the user was doing, play a sound, vibrate the device, and put up a full-screen dialog, that this all could be activated remotely by any other device by simply typing in a short numeric code

When you're actively using your smartphone, phone calls show up as notifications, not full-screen dialogs (which trips up my non-technical relatives, since they don't know how to answer a call through the notification). Given that, it's not that different from what we had on computers with instant message applications like ICQ. In a world without the concept of phone calls, they would be a natural evolution from these instant messengers (and, as I'm sure you remember, ICQ used a short numeric code as the user identity).

replies(1): >>45022135 #
6. tzs ◴[] No.45021748[source]
A similar hypothetical was in the classic book "Peopleware" from 1987, if I recall correctly, imaging the reaction if the phone was a new invention and the phone company salesman wanted your company to put a phone on every engineer's desk which would allow anyone else in the world with a phone to at any time interrupt your engineers with no warning.

They had an anecdote about one company they consulted at which illustrated how normalized interrupting engineers had become. The engineers were putting their phones on "do not disturb" (DND) to stop all the interruptions so they could get their work done, and management sent around a memo saying that the engineers needed to stop putting their phones on DND because that caused the calls to forward to the secretary, and all the calls were making it hard for the secretary to get any work done.

7. nrdvana ◴[] No.45022135[source]
But then, ICQ also died of spam...