• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA called today: $10,000 FINE

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
148
Location
STL MO, USA
Again, I am asking that the FCC stop telephone providers in the US from allowing spoofing. They can stop spoofing from every phone in the US. They know the phone number from which every call comes. For calls generating outside the US, they can at least identify the country it is coming from and prevent spoofing with a US phone number.

One of the legitimate functions of government is to enforce prohibitions on fraud, including creating and enforcing prohibitions on commercial entities aiding and abetting fraud.

And again, thank you for rational and respectful disagreement.
Again, believe it or not, there ARE legitimate reasons for spoofing a number, so completely outlawing or preventing spoofing is NOT the answer. As for 'knowing what number it really came from', it's not quite that simple... Many times the CID information is transmitted by the source system, such as my companies phone system (which is likely more or less how the malicious spoofers do it) - but while there may not be a true source number to go by, as I said before, I would imagine the ability to trace the entire call route from source to destination is there, and that would get you to the origin port at the origin CO, thus let you trace it down to a service address. Phone numbers are often only tied to locations in the way you're thinking of with residential service - a phone number is tied to a specific CO port, which goes over twisted pair to a residence. This kind of service likely would not even allow spoofing. Locations being served by PRIs or SIP are an entirely different animal. This is of course assuming they are originating within the US - if they are actually coming from outside the US, then all bets are likely off.

As we always say with regards to gun laws, we don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Put a way to report spoofed calls in place that includes the previously mentioned trace data, such as maybe a * code after the you hang up on or decline the call, and start going after the malicious spoofers with the laws and fines already on the books.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
There is no legitimate reason to spoof, that is to lie, about a caller’s number.

There may well be good reason not to share that number, to hide it instead, but I don’t give the furry crack of a rat’s behind about blocking. That would be honestly saying, “I don’t want you to know my number.”

If you can think of a legitimate reason to lie about (not hide) a caller’s identity, please share it.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
910
Location
Kentucky
There is no legitimate reason to spoof, that is to lie, about a caller’s number.

There may well be good reason not to share that number, to hide it instead, but I don’t give the furry crack of a rat’s behind about blocking. That would be honestly saying, “I don’t want you to know my number.”

If you can think of a legitimate reason to lie about (not hide) a caller’s identity, please share it.
Guess it's a good thing you don't have any say in the matter ain't it.

I like phone service as it is now. Unlimited everything for 35 bucks and no Gov nabob screwing it up.

Take some personal responsibility and deal with something as menial as unwanted calls you can block for free. Instead of whining to gov to do it for you.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I guess that you did not have a good refutation for what I actually wrote.

Your turn to guess.

Can you name a good reason to spoof, to lie about the number you are calling from?

Not to block, but to spoof.
 

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
148
Location
STL MO, USA
There is no legitimate reason to spoof, that is to lie, about a caller’s number.

There may well be good reason not to share that number, to hide it instead, but I don’t give the furry crack of a rat’s behind about blocking. That would be honestly saying, “I don’t want you to know my number.”

If you can think of a legitimate reason to lie about (not hide) a caller’s identity, please share it.
ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG. A legitimate reason is the one I already outlined and you apparently didn't even read. Spoofing a number is spoofing a number, whether for legitimate reasons or illegitimate reasons. The function is IDENTICAL. To put it another way, IT'S DONE THE SAME WAY.

I'll outline it again, (maybe) slightly simpler:

If a person calls my office phone, I have mobile twinning set up (Mobile twinning is where it'll ring both the desk phone and a designated remote number at the same time, allowing the call to be claimed back from a remote number {if answered there} to the desk phone while the call is in progress if desired) so even if I'm not at my desk, I will get the call on my cell. When that happens, the number that comes through on my cell is that of the person calling. This is due to.... You guessed it... SPOOFING. The EXACT same process that allows the scammers to spoof random numbers is the exact same process that allows our phone system to pass the CID info through so if I'm not at my desk, I still know who is calling me. Without the ability to 'spoof' the number, what I would get is my own DID, so I would have NO idea who is calling me when I'm not at my desk, and it would look like my extension was calling me. All I'd know is it's something through my office number.

If you don't feel that is a legitamate reason for SPOOFING and can't connect these dots and figure out how much eliminating this functionality would negatively affect companies across the country, well.... I'm sorry to say there might not be much help for you 🤷‍♂️

I don't disagree that these **** scammers need to be dealt with, I get more than enough of them myself, but you are suggesting a batsh*t crazy direction (that is arguably contrary to what most people here would want, or in other words, more government power/control) that would have unintended consequences. As I previously said, devise a way to report these scammers with the information needed to ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS ALREADY, and DO SO!!!! From the FCC page I preciously linked:
Anyone who is illegally spoofing can face penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation.
Just think - if trace data could be provided that placed 100 illegally spoofed calls at 'XYZScammers' PRI, and they were subsequently fined $1,000,000 for these 100 violations at $10,000 each using EXISTING LAWS, and this happened consistently, just how long do you think it could continue? The laws EXIST, but they're not being ENFORCED.

Followed by:
However, spoofing is not always illegal. There are legitimate, legal uses for spoofing, like when a doctor calls a patient from her personal mobile phone and displays the office number rather than the personal phone number or a business displays its toll-free call-back number.
Which is essentially the same kind of situation with regards to my companies phone system that I mentioned.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,781
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
357SigFan, you just told eye95 he is wrong. You doing that is fighting words for eye95. You are in big trouble now. Hang on to your seat. It's coming.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Again, 357, there is no good reason to lie about one’s number. Block, yes. Lie, no.

For example, if a doctor does not want his patients to have his cell phone number, he has three options that don’t involve lying about his number:

1. He can block his cell #, but either tell the patient his office # or leave it in a message.

2. He can call from his office phone.

3. His office phone can be his business cell phone, while he maintains a personal cell phone, with an unshared #.

Telephone companies know the number of any domestic phone. The caller should either allow that number to be displayed or no number to be displayed. Callers should not be allowed to have a number other than the one they are calling from displayed.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Totally legitimate: call-back or main number. Often biz MUST have that; can't have calls back to dozens of empty desks. Also legitimate for individuals with multiple #s which applies to many.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,058
Location
White Oak Plantation
Unequal treatment. Politicians are exempt, most others are not.

Get politicians on the hook for spamming and we will all be better off.

I am not sufficiently knowing to even come close to understanding the tech used by the troublesome spammers, but 357SigFan decreased my not knowing. It is not the tech that is the problem, just as it is not the handgun that is the problem...

Thanks 357SigFan, appreciate the education.
 

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
148
Location
STL MO, USA
357SigFan, you just told eye95 he is wrong. You doing that is fighting words for eye95. You are in big trouble now. Hang on the your seat. It's coming.
😂


Again, 357, there is no good reason to lie about one’s number. Block, yes. Lie, no.

For example, if a doctor does not want his patients to have his cell phone number, he has three options that don’t involve lying about his number:

1. He can block his cell #, but either tell the patient his office # or leave it in a message.

2. He can call from his office phone.

3. His office phone can be his business cell phone, while he maintains a personal cell phone, with an unshared #.

Telephone companies know the number of any domestic phone. The caller should either allow that number to be displayed or no number to be displayed. Callers should not be allowed to have a number other than the one they are calling from displayed.

:rolleyes: We all hate these scammer/spammers, but you have no clue what you're talking about. I've said my part, but there is just no getting through to you.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Good luck. The FCC doesn’t seem to be enforcing those regulations.

My proposed solution:

1. Require phone companies to provide the real phone numbers of callers, or “blocked”. Don’t allow them to pass along spoofed numbers. The phone companies KNOW the callers’ numbers. Yet they allow spoofing. Make this practice illegal.

2. Charge all callers 25 cents to call a cell phone. Called party gets most of the fee. A small part is shared by the involved phone companies.

3. Waive the fee if the calling number is not blocked and is in the called phones contacts list.

4. Waive the fee if the called party touches a button labeled “Accept call and waive fee”. The calling phone number is then added to the contacts list of the called phone.

Spam calls will end almost immediately.
Those are some great ideas, eye95! As for #4, if I accept an unknown caller and waive the fee, I do NOT want them automatically added to my contacts list.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Those are some great ideas, eye95! As for #4, if I accept an unknown caller and waive the fee, I do NOT want them automatically added to my contacts list.
A fair point. Possibly the software could ask, after a fee is waived, “Do you wish to add this caller to your contacts list?” #4 was mainly to avoid being asked repeatedly to waive a new caller with whom you will be talking routinely. However, I can see how the assumption in #4 would be annoying.

Thanks for the constructive criticism. You really know how to express disagreement in an adult fashion.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,089
Location
here nc
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357304A1.pdf,

Widespread overnight robocalls in Arizona and New York led the agency Friday to issue an alert warning cellphone customers of a new scam. The Federal Communications Commission is warning people not to call back robocalls, especially if they ring only once, because they could bring heavy charges on their phone bills.

The "One Ring" robocalls are known as "Wangiri," which comes from Japan where the scam originated several years ago and means one-ring-and-cut. They ring once before hanging up, in the hopes of getting users to call back. If the user calls back, they could be billed a toll charge similar to a 900 number.

 
Top