Lawmakers Are Ready To Crack Down on Robocalls (washingtonpost.com) 87
A shared hatred of robocalls is one issue uniting the House during a divisive impeachment inquiry. From a report: House lawmakers yesterday passed a bipartisan bill aimed to crack down on the fraudulent auto-dial callers by a nearly unanimous 417-to-3 vote. The legislation, known as the TRACED Act, now moves to the Senate, where it is co-sponsored by Senate GOP Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) and is expected to pass. The bill's passage amid broad Congressional gridlock -- on the very day the House Judiciary Committee hosted a heated impeachment hearing -- underscores just how bad the robocall epidemic has become. Americans received more than 5 billion such calls last month alone, according to the robocall blocking app YouCall. Congress's move to intervene could score points with Americans across the political spectrum who are fed up with the fraudsters.
IEDs? (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder how many IEDs have been erroneously triggered due to a robocaller?
Want to Kill Robocalls? (Score:3)
All they really need to do is outlaw the use of fake numbers. Any phone that calls out would need to be a real number, paid for by the caller, that can be called back.
With that done, robocallers, debt collectors, etc. would have to own giant swaths of phone numbers to do their nasty business.
Re: Want to Kill Robocalls? (Score:2)
Itâs not that easy. CLIP spoofing is currently needed to correctly display numbers for call forwarding. Itâs a hopelessly antiquated technology without any authorisation features that would never be approved today but there is as of now no modern replacement.
Don't get your hopes up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even that is optimistic. Nothing is getting done because everything is focused on peach mints.
The house is doing the impeachment hearings. They also have already passed the bill in question. Moscow Mitch McConnell has let almost nothing from the house come to a vote in the Senate. He is sitting on over a hundred bills that he will never allow to come to a vote. Keep your eye on the ball.
Re: (Score:2)
The house is doing the impeachment hearings. They also have already passed the bill in question. Moscow Mitch McConnell has let almost nothing from the house come to a vote in the Senate. He is sitting on over a hundred bills that he will never allow to come to a vote. Keep your eye on the ball.
This bill originated in the Senate. The House counterpart of this bill, you guessed it, was never voted on in the Senate.
Re: (Score:3)
House counterpart. Do you mean H.R. 721 or H.R. 2015 ? None of the related bill that originated from the House passed the House that I can find. What was not voted in the Senate?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
I don't understand your comment when this bill is headed to the presidents desk to to be signed as law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant the bill that originated in the House, Frank Pallone's (D - NJ) Stopping Bad Robocalls Act.
H.R.3375 [congress.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the first sentence? It passed already 417-3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already passed in the Senate in May. Even if Trump doesn't sign it there was enough support to override a veto.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder (Score:3)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
who are the three that voted against it and why
Justin Amash (I-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) voted against the legislation. Each of them had voiced concerns over giving the FCC too much authority.
It has already passed in the Senate too (Score:5, Interesting)
Ready to talk about who the 1 vote against was? I predicted it before I looked it up. It was, of course, Rand Paul. Another famous "Just me" vote by him was the one against helping sick 9-11 first responders earlier this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea... he is following in the footsteps of his father. They called Ron Paul "Dr. No." because he would usually always vote no regardless how many puppies were saved.
New to politics I see. Welcome.
Re:It has already passed in the Senate too (Score:5, Interesting)
His protest against the 9/11 responders bill wasn't on covering the illnesses, but that it had no time limit, and that we might be paying for someone's illness 60 years later.
Yes, Sen. Paul, that happens. Sometimes it takes a long time for a workplace injury to have its effects. We've seen it in black lung and asbestos-related diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it takes a long time for a workplace injury to have its effects.
Yeah, I guess the Ol' Randmeister was sick the day they taught that in his med school classes.
Re: (Score:1)
I would vote against it, because it's not going to do $hit. They'll all pat themselves on the back and brag to their constituents that they "solved" the problem. And robocall you up next November to say "vote for me again" because the law doesn't apply to them, of course.
Watered Down Bill (Score:5, Interesting)
Lawmakers are not ready to crack down on robocallers. This bill just takes the roadmap the FCC is already moving towards and codifies it into law. It merely gives the appearance Congress is doing something.
Frank Pallone's (D - NJ) Stopping Bad Robocalls Act had actual teeth, and was passed by the House as well. But it was never picked up by the Senate so we have this watered down bill instead. The TRACE Act was the one the collection agency lobbyists hoped would be made into law so they wouldn't have to change their practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the collection agency lobby that powerful? That seems weird.
I'm more concerned about the number of bogus robocalls that originate out of (I presume) India. The fake IRS scams, the Windows support scams, etc. I'd like to see Washington clamp down on those by instituting crippling tariffs and immigration restriction until there are no call centers left east of the Rhine.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the collection agency lobby that powerful? That seems weird.
The push back for this legislation comes from legilators who are against giving agencies such as the FCC more power. This is the reason this vote wasn't unanimous, and it is why the more harsh bill was never voted on by the Senate. Everyone pretty unanimously wants the robocalls to stop, but too many politicians hate the very concept of government regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stupid argument since this is basically taking power away from FCC by ordering them what to do rather than allowing them to do it on their own discretion.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are in the wrong profession. If you want to limit government power you create very specific legislation focused on outcomes. You provide clarity on what you do not want. Being a pure idealogue on either side is stupid, but you have many clear problems with clear solutions that just need some fscking leadership to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't look at the collection agency lobby as an island. The collection agency exists so that other consumer sales-based businesses can continue to offer misleading products and services at unrealistic prices through deceptive marketing.
Once consumers go tits up on these sales and stop paying, it's the collection industry they turn to make good on these bills.
I've done consulting work at a collection agency, and some departments are so ingrained in the companies they collect for it's almost like they'r
Re: (Score:2)
> This bill just takes the roadmap the FCC is already moving towards and codifies it into law. It merely gives the appearance Congress is doing something.
Isn't this the proper way to do it? I find this way a lot better than the FCC deciding by itself how to move forward on any regulatory expansion.
Congress is giving legitimacy to the FCC's action by actually doing it by law. That is the job of Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Frank Pallone's (D - NJ) Stopping Bad Robocalls Act had actual teeth, and was passed by the House as well. But it was never picked up by the Senate so we have this watered down bill instead.
If you want to stop a bill for years, just pass a weaker version of it. Then you can keep saying, "We've already addressed this."
417-3? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fully agree, I get, on my cell phone, from spoofed numbers, 5-10 calls a day about how to lower my credit card interest rate and that my car's warranty is expiring.... I no longer bother answering calls not from folks on my contacts list.
Re:417-3? (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably mass marketing shills
Amash is a libertarian that believes that is out of scope for the federal government and over-reach.
He's consistent, to a fault, and even told the GOP to shove it on July 4th.
Re: (Score:2)
Amash is a libertarian that believes that is out of scope for the federal government
I wonder what attracted him into the business of lawmaking then. Just to sabotage it?
Re: (Score:2)
Amash is a libertarian that believes that is out of scope for the federal government
I wonder what attracted him into the business of lawmaking then. Just to sabotage it?
Yes. Haven't you been paying attention?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to sabotage it?
Sabotage, no.
Limit the powers of the federal government to what he/libertarians believe should be an actual limited role of the federal government, yes.
If you believe in some interpretations of the 10th amendment to limit the scope of the federal government what should you do? Nothing? Not run because it's "sabotaging" it?
About time (Score:2)
While political (robo) calls are okay (Score:1)
Thank you but (Score:1)
...this should have been part of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. So it's already 16 years overdue, just like the bill that imposes criminal penalties, up to and including the corporate death penalty, for data breaches of our personal information. And have you tried googling your name plus your zip code to see what anyone can so easily find out about you? If you have a heart condition, I don't advise it!
Re: (Score:2)
Only see my name, spouses name, address and phone number come up. What's the big deal, that was possible in the days of printed telephone directories being stacked on porches by multiple publisher for decades. *yawn*
now if you're a criminal, celebrity or registered sex offender could get juicy....
Re: (Score:1)
What's different is you could choose how your name and address were displayed in the phone book or make your number unlisted, and the setting was permanent.
Now you have to contact all of the companies in the search result and ask them to remove your information, providing MORE personal information as needed (a scan of your driver license, etc.), and if you ever subsequently apply for credit or do whatever put your name on their lists in the first place, you have to contact all those companies and ask them t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually only the phone company respected the unlisting wish and other books still had it, like the companies that put out "combined white and yellow page" listings. Mainly because states had to provide voter registration lists publicly, junk mailers too would get and use those.
It would take law to forbid making web pages with people's information on them.
Predator Drone RoboCall Response (Score:5, Interesting)
We need a bill with real teeth. A volley of robocalls should end with a Hellfire missile destroying the offending call center. That would solve the problem in about 2 days...
SD
Re: (Score:2)
Pointless (Score:3)
Criminalizing it also means that Bob can't sue the caller, but the government must prosecute them criminally in the federal courts. That's slow, hard, and will likely never happen. Once, I got an obviously fraudulent call. I got a call back number, and some personal/financial details. I called the FBI and told them I'm reporting a federal crime. The front desk of the FBI office (Anchorage), ended up hanging up on me, not wanting to pass the call to anyone who could do anything about it.
Making it a federal crime will have the same effect. Nobody will care, and unless they are investigated for something else, this law will never be enforced. This is the type of law they's use to go after Enron after the fraud cases failed because Enron destroyed the evidence, and Arthur Andersen/Accenture helped them cover it up.
A simpler way would be to mandate all calls transfer $0.10 from the caller to the person called. Essentially, every phone becomes a pay phone, and the receiving phone company takes $0.10 from the originating company, like a long distance call, but instead of pocketing it, applies it to the account of the person called. A fee to connect calls would eliminate robocalls tomorrow. Something the TRACED Act won't do.
Also make it fraud to send CID that can't call back the caller. Sending your 800-someone number when you can from 212-555-1212 is fine, so long as the displayed number belongs to the same company, but anything else is fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Most robocalls are already wire fraud because they are calling from a hacked fake number. Ever get a call from india with a local phone number, sometimes you can even call the number back and get a completely different person's personal number...
Re: (Score:1)
You're assuming the phone call is even placed from a real phone.... Most robocalls are already wire fraud because they are calling from a hacked fake number. Ever get a call from india with a local phone number, sometimes you can even call the number back and get a completely different person's personal number...
" I got a call back number, and some personal/financial details." Those bits of information are useful for investigators. The FBI didn't bother because both numbers were probably foreign, so outside of their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the payment to the recipient mandatory under law, and the rest is a busi
Re: Pointless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the displayed number belongs to a call center that automatically dispatches calls to one of many companies? The 800 number you get won't be registered to the same company that is calling you in that case, even though any calls to that number would ultimately be forwarded directly to the correct party.
Or do you want to just ban call rerouting? Because while that'd do the trick, you'd completely break POTS, and crash a whole fuckton of legitimate use.
Re: (Score:2)
POTS wouldn't break if you punished fraud. And you are deliberately being obtuse about the called number. If HP hires Stream to handle customer support, but HP wants their Colorado HQ number displayed, even if the call center makes outbound calls from a 214 number, that's fine. HP could track down the support company and reach the pers
Re: (Score:2)
Third party 800 number providers are hardly a rare edge case. They are extremely common. Company A gets an 800 number from company B, which owns it and is in the business of leasing 800 numbers to clients. Company B actually buys hundreds or perhaps thousands of 800 numbers and so gets a bulk discount, where it may be more expensive for company A to deal directly with its own phone company. When A buys its 800 number from B, company B sets up the routing for the 800 number provided so any incoming ca
Re: (Score:2)
When A buys its 800 number from B, company B sets up the routing for the 800 number provided so any incoming call to it goes directly to company A. Everyone is happy.
So A "owns" the number. I don't see how your comment is relevant. Someone who buys 800 numbers to lease out the 1-800-good-number for extortion fees shouldn't exist. But that they do is irrelevant. The number presented belongs to the caller.
You are asserting that because it's owned by someone else, then leased out, that there's no connection between the user of the number and the number. I had trouble explaining how wrong you are, because it would take months of educating you in how phone numbers wor
Re: (Score:2)
The call center can have the outbound calls relayed through the client company's switch the client company can sign an affidavit that the call center is authorized to call on their behalf (and taking responsability for any such calls that may be in violation of any laws or regulations. Or, just don't call. How many calls that come out of outsourced call centers are really welcome anyway?
No breaking of POTS required.
Better Than Pointless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the idea of adding a charge to calls/email/postal mail to make spam less profitable. Verizon tried that, and got sued by a school district which was using a robocaller to inform parents of changes in school schedules. It's not enough to appraise an idea against the common use case you're envisioning. You have to also consider how your idea will impact corner cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making it criminal also allows the feds to request extradition, an important factor in most of these robodialer cases, I suspect.
Let's make robocalls illegal (Score:2)
That should free up a lot of jobs for humancalls.
... robocall blocking app YouCall? or YouMail (Score:2)
The WAPO article links to
https://www.prnewswire.com/new... [prnewswire.com]
which links to YouMail [youmail.com]. YouMail replaces your voicemail. Is there a robocall blocking app or company named YouCall.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll believe that government cares... (Score:1)
Not a technical problem (Score:2)
Comrade McTurtle will sit on the bill (Score:1, Flamebait)
If it's good for America, the Senate Majority Leader will not get it signed, unless his Russian masters order him too.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoofed caller ID has widespread legitimate uses, though. Google Voice relies on it, and so do a lot of conference call systems. Companies spoof their main lines all the time when calling customers. It's difficult, perhaps impossible, for carriers to validate on caller ID alone. That's why the FCC has been (mildly) pushing the authentication mechanisms.
I'm not sure if the ITU is working on, or has, global standards, or what they can do to encourage them. But given the international nature of spam calls, we
Re: (Score:2)
If they can figure out who to bill, they can figure out who's calling or at least who in the U.S. is on the hook legally if the CID isn't accurate.
Which jackasses voted against it? (Score:2)
In the house:
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
In the senate:
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
So in the senate Rand Paul is in favor of you getting Robocalled.
In the house, the three republicans on the take from Robocallers are Andy Biggs of Arizona, Thomas Massey of Kentucky, and Justin Amash of Michigan.
Re: (Score:1)
The rest of them are phonies who probably realize that the law is going to be toothless, but they can brag to their constituents that they "solved" it.
And they'll robocall you next election.
Let me guess... (Score:2)
Robocop dealing with Lawmakers (Score:1)
Come quietly or there will be... trouble.
Not good enough (Score:2)
They've been "ready to crack down" for no less than 10 years...
India's Scammers are EXEMPT from all US laws. (Score:2)
Hahahahahahahaaha (Score:1)
DoNotCall (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They've moved on. I've received a robo call at a Federal Agency that appeared like it came from within the building. It was a dead number on the exchange. They hid their data well. Our Cisco/phone guys were never able to figure out where it came from.
Guess what I JUST GOT! That's right, a robo call as I'm writing this.
I hope they put some real teeth into it. It's just nuts.
sue them...! (Score:1)
None of these bills address the real problem... (Score:2)