Eliminate caller ID spoofing. The phone company can do it, because they have control over the layer 2 switches, which is how they're able to trace spoofed ID calls when the cops show up with a subpoena. Otherwise, they couldn't route the audio properly in the first place.
So, just have them do it all the time.

Then, when you can properly identify the robocallers, you can easily file suit against them and seize their equipment under an Anton Pillar order because they're likely to skip town and/or destroy records.

I'll take my $50,000 in one giant novelty check, please.

Theaetetus: Eliminate caller ID spoofing. The phone company can do it, because they have control over the layer 2 switches, which is how they're able to trace spoofed ID calls when the cops show up with a subpoena. Otherwise, they couldn't route the audio properly in the first place.
So, just have them do it all the time.

Then, when you can properly identify the robocallers, you can easily file suit against them and seize their equipment under an Anton Pillar order because they're likely to skip town and/or destroy records.

I'll take my $50,000 in one giant novelty check, please.

As a slight variation on this theme:  hold the phone companies that handle/route the call criminally liable for each caller-id packet that does not accurately identify the caller.  By criminally liable, I mean a fine in excess of $1,000.00 per occurance.  That alone would end the practice real fast.

Justification: intentionally transmitting incorrect data over a telephone line is considered fraud.  Intentionally facilitating this transmission makes you an accessory to fraud.

Just gotta do something about the "expectation of privacy" bullcrap that was used to allow withholding CID info when it first came about.

Includes a provision for "legal" robocallers.

I have a new phone number that has gone to a small number of people. I haven't updated anyone who had my old one, and I haven't updated my resumes. I've been woken up at 9:04am several times by robocallers so I know AT&T sold my number as soon as I got the new one.

plc5_250: Just gotta do something about the "expectation of privacy" bullcrap that was used to allow withholding CID info when it first came about.

Why should anyone have an expectation of privacy  from the person they're calling? Like, "I'm going to call you, but I don't want you to be able to know who I am?" It seems the only possible uses for that are harassment and fraud.

I'm opting for violence.  Preferably a fungo bat across their foreheads. Suitable alternatives are woodchippers, bamboo spikes under fingernails, and fireants.  Lot's of em.

Theaetetus: plc5_250: Just gotta do something about the "expectation of privacy" bullcrap that was used to allow withholding CID info when it first came about.

Why should anyone have an expectation of privacy  from the person they're calling? Like, "I'm going to call you, but I don't want you to be able to know who I am?" It seems the only possible uses for that are harassment and fraud.

I probably didn't communicate that point as well as I should have (mostly since I remember the big deal that was made when CallerID was introduced): the only reason that CID data can be blocked in the first place is because some people yelped about "privacy".  That is the bovine excrement I speak of.

If I read your comment correctly, you and I actually agree: if I were to call you, I have no expectation of privacy regarding my identity.  The current CID rules facililtate me remaining anonymous when calling you - and that is just wrong.

Theaetetus: Eliminate caller ID spoofing. The phone company can do it, because they have control over the layer 2 switches, which is how they're able to trace spoofed ID calls when the cops show up with a subpoena. Otherwise, they couldn't route the audio properly in the first place.
So, just have them do it all the time.

Then, when you can properly identify the robocallers, you can easily file suit against them and seize their equipment under an Anton Pillar order because they're likely to skip town and/or destroy records.

I'll take my $50,000 in one giant novelty check, please.

Are you suggesting that the phone companies would shut down their best customers?

/yeah i know we need a law for that

plc5_250: Theaetetus: Eliminate caller ID spoofing. The phone company can do it, because they have control over the layer 2 switches, which is how they're able to trace spoofed ID calls when the cops show up with a subpoena. Otherwise, they couldn't route the audio properly in the first place.
So, just have them do it all the time.

Then, when you can properly identify the robocallers, you can easily file suit against them and seize their equipment under an Anton Pillar order because they're likely to skip town and/or destroy records.

I'll take my $50,000 in one giant novelty check, please.

As a slight variation on this theme:  hold the phone companies that handle/route the call criminally liable for each caller-id packet that does not accurately identify the caller.  By criminally liable, I mean a fine in excess of $1,000.00 per occurance.  That alone would end the practice real fast.

Justification: intentionally transmitting incorrect data over a telephone line is considered fraud.  Intentionally facilitating this transmission makes you an accessory to fraud.

Just gotta do something about the "expectation of privacy" bullcrap that was used to allow withholding CID info when it first came about.

Maybe we could all get together and bribe some Congressmen on this issue.  We'll have to out lobby AT&T and Verizon, though, so it will get expensive.

Not all lobbying is cash based - just saying,,,,

plc5_250: Not all lobbying is cash based - just saying,,,,

Fine.  You can be in charge of the oral sex.

Marcus Aurelius: plc5_250: Not all lobbying is cash based - just saying,,,,

Fine.  You can be in charge of the oral sex.

For that, I would have to refer you to the fine ethical business folk who advertise on backpage --- so I have heard.  :)

When I read the headline, I heard Stone Cold Steve Austin in my head yelling, "Does anyone out there want a non-violent solution to this problem?"

As I'm typing this, it has changed to Male Voice #1 from Saint Row: The Third saying, "Violence can't solve everything, but it can solve most things."

bloatboy: When I read the headline, I heard Stone Cold Steve Austin in my head yelling, "Does anyone out there want a non-violent solution to this problem?"

As I'm typing this, it has changed to Male Voice #1 from Saint Row: The Third saying, "Violence can't solve everything, but it can solve most things."

That sounds more like Archer to me.

wildcardjack: Includes a provision for "legal" robocallers.

I don't care if you are "legal"
If I find you, I will make your life a living hell.

Don't call my house.
I will make you cry.
House rules.

I get 3-5 scam robocalls a day, mainly the Rachel from Cardmember Services scam.

What I truly do not understand is how a criminal organization that damn incompetent can last so long.  I waste as much of their operators times as possible (and the operators are all incompetent at scamming) and yet, even after 15+ months of calling me, they do not sanitize their call lists at all.

If I wasn't falling for it in the first 100 times, do they REALLY think I'll fall for it after the 300th?

akula: Why the hell would we want a nonviolent solution to people using robocallers to telemarket?

When we bring back the guillotine for our corporate masters, I would not be against having telemarketers being placed at the front of the line.

plc5_250: I probably didn't communicate that point as well as I should have (mostly since I remember the big deal that was made when CallerID was introduced): the only reason that CID data can be blocked in the first place is because some people yelped about "privacy". That is the bovine excrement I speak of.

If I read your comment correctly, you and I actually agree: if I were to call you, I have no expectation of privacy regarding my identity. The current CID rules facililtate me remaining anonymous when calling you - and that is just wrong.

Simple.

If you can block CID then I should be able to refuse calls from numbers where the CID is blocked.  And by I should be able to refuse, I mean I should be able to enter a code on my account and have all such calls automatically go to hell.

Someone somewhere associated my cell phone with someone named Cathy.  I've had the number for more than 10 years so it shouldn't be a holdover from the previous owner of the number.  I am constantly getting real calls for her.  The old give us your bank account information and we'll send you a $7,500 refund from the government.  I've attempted talking nice, I've been not nice, hell the next to last time I talked with them, I told them Cathy was dead.  They still call.

I can maybe understand spamming robocalls because the expense is fixed.  You've got the equipment and the line and it's just throwing calls out there.  But when it's a real person making the calls?  They're wasting their time talking to me over and over again.  I'm never going to give them my bank account, SSN, or Credit Card number.  They're never going to get any money from me.  I know they're just paying Bob $.05 per hour or whatever for the calls.  But seriously.  It shouldn't be cost effective.

wildcardjack: Includes a provision for "legal" robocallers.

I have a new phone number that has gone to a small number of people. I haven't updated anyone who had my old one, and I haven't updated my resumes. I've been woken up at 9:04am several times by robocallers so I know AT&T sold my number as soon as I got the new one.

Um.  More likely, the "robo" caller is just dialing all numbers in an exchange, one by one.  When your number was unassigned, the call didn't go through.  Now that it's assigned, the call goes through and suddenly, welcome to "Aooogah!  Aooogah!  This is your Captain speaking!".  Didn't you see War Games?

What listening to my voice mail sounds like:

"...will be in your neighborhood testing water. To learn more about this valuable service stay on the line, or press 1 to be removed from our contact list..."
"...is no problem with your account. But it is urgent you call us to find out about great ways to lower your interest rate on your current cards..."
"...warranty is running out. For a low-cost way to extend your car insurance press 1 to hear more, or press 2 to be removed from our list...."
"...entry was selected as winner of a cruise for two! To claim your prize, press 1 now to speak with a representative..."

It's the farking twenty-first century, you can't program your robot to figure out it's listening to a recorded message?

absent from the video ending about all the features--an audio explanation of "inexpensive".  i guess it aint free but that's maybe one of the most important details i'd like to know.

still, it's interesting, but robocallers will find a way around it.  they always do.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: It's the farking twenty-first century, you can't program your robot to figure out it's listening to a recorded message?

Why bother?  It's not their time they're wasting.  It's yours.

plc5_250: Theaetetus: plc5_250: Just gotta do something about the "expectation of privacy" bullcrap that was used to allow withholding CID info when it first came about.

Why should anyone have an expectation of privacy  from the person they're calling? Like, "I'm going to call you, but I don't want you to be able to know who I am?" It seems the only possible uses for that are harassment and fraud.

I probably didn't communicate that point as well as I should have (mostly since I remember the big deal that was made when CallerID was introduced): the only reason that CID data can be blocked in the first place is because some people yelped about "privacy".  That is the bovine excrement I speak of.

If I read your comment correctly, you and I actually agree: if I were to call you, I have no expectation of privacy regarding my identity.  The current CID rules facililtate me remaining anonymous when calling you - and that is just wrong.

Oh, absolutely. We're in agreement. It's total bullshiat.

BizarreMan: I can maybe understand spamming robocalls because the expense is fixed. You've got the equipment and the line and it's just throwing calls out there. But when it's a real person making the calls? They're wasting their time talking to me over and over again. I'm never going to give them my bank account, SSN, or Credit Card number. They're never going to get any money from me. I know they're just paying Bob $.05 per hour or whatever for the calls. But seriously. It shouldn't be cost effective.

That's why I don't understand how scammers this incompetent can last so long.  When possible, I waste as much time of theirs as possible.  Sometimes just leaving the phone connected and saying a random word while they yell "hello?  HELLO?"

One tip I have heard is to record your voice mail greeting to start with the three "this number is not in service" tones. You can find recordings of them online. Then, let unidentified callers go to voice mail - their autodialers will pick up the tones, and  supposedly will remove your number from their database since it's apparently not in service.
I don't know how well it works, though.

Theaetetus: plc5_250: Theaetetus: plc5_250: Just gotta do something about the "expectation of privacy" bullcrap that was used to allow withholding CID info when it first came about.

Why should anyone have an expectation of privacy  from the person they're calling? Like, "I'm going to call you, but I don't want you to be able to know who I am?" It seems the only possible uses for that are harassment and fraud.

I probably didn't communicate that point as well as I should have (mostly since I remember the big deal that was made when CallerID was introduced): the only reason that CID data can be blocked in the first place is because some people yelped about "privacy".  That is the bovine excrement I speak of.

If I read your comment correctly, you and I actually agree: if I were to call you, I have no expectation of privacy regarding my identity.  The current CID rules facililtate me remaining anonymous when calling you - and that is just wrong.

Oh, absolutely. We're in agreement. It's total bullshiat.

Caller ID doesn't really tell you who is calling. It tells you who pays the phone bill.

Peon: "Too sick to come in, sorry"

Boss checks caller ID... Kentucky Downs ... "You're fired"

Hallo?  This is "Julie" calling on behalf of Nomorobo. Can I have a few minutes of your time to explain our offer?

Ace Rimmer: Caller ID doesn't really tell you who is calling. It tells you who pays the phone bill.

And since I want to file suit against the person paying the phone bill, not the telemarketing phone sale mook making $.10/call, I'm fine with that limitation.

From another article: The Weeners to the FTC's cry for help was not encouraging: many of the submissions were technologically thin, duplicative, or overly simplistic, and the entire endeavor seemed to attract a certain type of politically-engaged, stay-at-home crazy person.

I bet it had something to do with punch in a code on your phone and electrocution, which is not violent provided the government mandates a law that states: "to answer phone you must stand in a pan of water that is fully ground via your crotch."
.

The Weeners to the FTC's cry for help was not encouraging: many of the submissions were technologically thin, duplicative, or overly simplistic, and the entire endeavor seemed to attract a certain type of politically-engaged, stay-at-home crazy person.


Hmmmm. Where did "wieners" come from?

/I think I broke Fark with the copy and paste//.,.d/mcksdncvjsdf;njvbuidvsdfiuv

I mean weeners...

Lets try without Italics.... Does not show up in preview...

The Weeners to the FTC's cry for help was not encouraging: many of the submissions were technologically thin, duplicative, or overly simplistic, and the entire endeavor seemed to attract a certain type of politically-engaged, stay-at-home crazy person.

Weeners

comes up as weeners

i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e

Use of unnecessary violence in apprehension of the Blues Brothers  RoboCallers. . . has been approved.

/maybe we need Ford Prefect on the case
//beep beep beep

Thats the weirdest farking thing........

Everyone, point and laugh at sheep snorter.

Theaetetus: Ace Rimmer: Caller ID doesn't really tell you who is calling. It tells you who pays the phone bill.

And since I want to file suit against the person paying the phone bill, not the telemarketing phone sale mook making $.10/call, I'm fine with that limitation.

I was just addressing the privacy issue that you dismissed as BS. An individual may not care you know who they are, but may not want you to know where they are.

As far as a company calling ... yeah, fark em I agree.

Treygreen13: sheep snorter: I mean weeners...

Lets try without Italics.... Does not show up in preview...

The Weeners to the FTC's cry for help was not encouraging: many of the submissions were technologically thin, duplicative, or overly simplistic, and the entire endeavor seemed to attract a certain type of politically-engaged, stay-at-home crazy person.

sheepsnorterseems to *really* like Weeners.

NTTAWWT.

sheep snorter: Thats the weirdest farking thing........

Try typing in "ni*BONG*" and see what comes out (where *BONG* is the sounds an angry dog makes).

I so do love the Fark filters, especially when they fark up..

Weeners

If that says weeners then

initial

response

nibark