Slashdot Log In
CallerID Spoofing to be Made Illegal
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:05 PM
from the phoning-home dept.
from the phoning-home dept.
MadJo writes "US Congress has just approved a bill that will make it illegal to spoof CallerID. From the bill: 'The amount of the forfeiture penalty (...) shall not exceed $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a total of $1,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading ... Please wait.

Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
How about an additional law that makes telephone companies responsible for allowing caller ID spoofing to happen?
Or is that too difficult to prevent?
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
-Peter
Upside-down. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Upside-down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upside-down. (Score:4, Insightful)
limit the liability. It's a fixed amount.
That is the number one reason laws have no teeth,
they have fixed monetary penalties, that are
really no penalty to big business. They are
just a cost of doing business to the business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Upside-down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Should impersonating a police officer, identity theft, false advertising and passing fake checks all have the same punishment? These are all, at the base, fraud. Could they even reasonably fit under one singular law?
So what choices are there? Basically, they are to expand an existing law to cover Caller ID spoofing, create a new law, or ignore it altogether. Ergo this story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup, and its not fraud. Lying and fraud are NOT synonymous. A Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Deception in and of its
Re:Upside-down. (Score:4, Insightful)
You claim that the secondary crime should be the differentiator. I say merely *impersonating* a cop should be illegal, not just as some generic "fraud", but because it's an attempt to gain general power one doesn't have the right to, even if no other crime is committed. Merely stealing an identity, even if you don't commit any other crime, should be illegal, and have a different punishment, and writing a bad check should be illegal as well, etc.
The fact is, some tools *should* be illegal or severely restricted. Your sentiment goes too far, it goes from cases where it's true (in general, outlawing a tool *is* foolish), and applies it too broadly (to say outlawing a tool is *always* bad).
For example, calls pretending to be from the DNC, which are really from the RNC (this happened during the 2004 election, although I do not know if Caller ID spoofing was involved) had nothing to do, directly (i.e., legally) with money, and instead had to do with political influence.
Is that harmless?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry but there is no justification for creating a new law and a new class of crime so that your Asterisk system will work.
That said,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leave it to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about to determine what should be considered "fraud". Do you implement the evil bit [faqs.org]? I hear it's supposed to prevent hackers and fraud and all that...
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
NannyState? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this mean... (Score:2)
But seriously, I think it's a good idea. They've closed the door to many a tele-scammer. Hopeful
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
3 times a day (Score:2, Interesting)
How will they enforce this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A campaign (Score:5, Informative)
http://binaryfreedom.info/node/163 [binaryfreedom.info]
Basically, there are several arguments against this law
1. It doesn't do anything
Criminals will still make calls and spoof, so it won't stop fraud. Police can already track down spoofers with the same amount of non-spoofers who are using their phones for illegal purposes.
2. It costs money
We're gonna have to spend money to catch spoofers.
3. Jurisdiction
If the phone companies want to stop spoofing, they should design a secure system instead of relying on the congressional police
4. Privacy
It strips privacy that is gained by spoofing.
5. Legitimate use
It has legitimate uses such as for telecommuters who want the name when they make business calls to be the company's. Or how about a business that has several people using one phone line? They might want the sales associate's name to appear, which would be done through spoofing.
Fact of the matter is, this gains us nothing. If I can write a fake name on a letter and mail it, why can't I do the same with my phone?
Re:A campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You're right. We shouldn't make murder illegal either.
2. See number 1. The question is whether the money spent on this law is worth the societal good of making it easier to prosecute scammers.
3. The phone companies don't have an incentive to stop scamming. Congress does (they're occasionally responsible to voters.)
4. It doesn't stop you from not allowing the number to show up at all. It just stops you from faking it.
5. It was specifically written to exempt these uses, since Congressional offices, for example, have the public number show up when people call out from them, rather than individual extensions.
Sorry, no (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of companies calling and their damn name not showing up, for whatever reason. "Tollfree number" (well no shit, other than collect, when do I get charged for receiving calls?) or "Unknown Caller"
Some of them are bill collectors. Who want someone that isn't here, and don't seem to want to believe that no, that person isn't here, and isn't going to be, so stop calling me. But either way, if they can't identify themselves, they shouldn't be calling my damn number. Which is why I disagree with #4 on your list.
If you're calling my house, I have every right to know who you are. Can you seriously come up with a legitimate situation where you should be able to call me and me not be able to see who you are before I answer the phone?
I barely answer unless I recognize the number anyway, because of a massive amount of wrong numbers. And some of the numbers these idiots are trying to dial aren't even close.
I agree with #3, however, in regards to #2, the cost of it will just be passed on to you one way or another. #5 I can see, but I've never had a business call me and use a sales associate's name.
#1 is a silly argument. Making rape illegal hasn't stopped it, either. You can make the case that no law is ever going to stop any crime. However, it makes it so that if you do it and get caught, you can be punished.
Re:A campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Certified mail:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fraud generally requires either a pecuniary motive, or commission of the act in furtherance of some other crime. Simply putting some name that is not my own on a letter is neither of these things. I could sign my letters "Harry Potter" and the name as suc
Congress isn't allowed to do this... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's kinda funny... (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, what about calling cards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fines in America - just can't figure it out (Score:5, Interesting)
Fines for corporations should certainly have a minimum value, but they should have NO upper ceiling. When companies like Microsoft or Phillip Morris or ExxonMobil are fined $200 million dollars - as most of them have been - they don't even blink. It's completely useless. The law in America in this regard is completely idiotic in this regard.
Re:Fines in America - just can't figure it out (Score:4, Interesting)
The US System Works (Score:3, Interesting)
My Other Me (Score:3, Insightful)
All For It (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, intentionally blocking is not forging caller ID. If your phone displays "Caller Unknown", you just made $0
Actually, nothing happened (Score:5, Informative)
You insensitive clod! I don't have CallerID! (Score:3, Interesting)
I have saved hundreds and hundreds of dollars over the years for a feature I could have used maybe, once or twice.
Seems like a bargain to me.
Sheesh, you don't have to buy product offered to you.
I am not a technophobe, I have two land lines and four cell phones. The Cell phones come with caller ID "for free".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole thing is absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
I call BS (Score:3, Insightful)
My real name is not Strange Ranger.
Why should I have to reveal my real number when placing a call?
Yes I know this is a forum and calls are more "personal".
But sometimes I call companies. Or heck maybe city hall.
Where does the tracking and ID'ing end?
Nice (Score:4, Interesting)
On a slightly more serious note, though, it's amusing to note why the bill is being introduced. Senator Stevens was blithering about how it's important because people rely on caller ID for "critical information". I cannot imagine what could possibly be considered "critical" about caller ID information, particularly considering what a half-assed hack the entire system is anyway and the lack of any real standards. Please note that caller ID is entirely different from ANI (automated number identification).
Caller ID is a fine example of a semi-convenient feature that people took and ran away with. The general population now sees Caller ID as the Oracle at Delphi, infallable and impossible to live without, and go absolutely apeshit if it's wrong (which is quite often, believe it or not). I guess people just don't understand the technology, but to "rely" on caller ID information is ludicrous.
I remember about fifteen years ago, maybe a bit more, when Caller ID was virtually unheard of, and the Bells were just starting to roll it out to homes. My parents got the little box from Radio Shack, signed up with the service, and my friends and I would rush over to the ID box with childish glee every time the phone rang, cause hey! How cool is this, man!
But in the end that's all we thought about it. It was a cool little novelty. That people take it so seriously now baffles me.
We used to deal with the phone ringing and not knowing who it was in advance with the following method: a) answer the phone, b) don't answer the phone, or c) let them leave a message and get back to them if we feel like it.
Somehow, though, what I don't remember is that the pre-Caller ID era was some kind of a Dark Ages where nobody got anything done.
But you'll never convince the public of this.
Re:DEATH TO "UNKNOWN CALLER" (Score:4, Interesting)
I have all phone lines and voip lines going into a asterisk server. if you dont have a real caller Id string and are not on my blacklist your call goes through.
It's quite easy to block UNKNOWN CALLER. and cheap too. a asterisc pots card is $29.00 on ebay and an asterisk server is pretty much free. (P-III 500 is more than enough horsepower) all you need is a voip phone handset or adapter to go to regular phone ($19.00 ebay sipura spa-2000)
Way better than any answering machine you can buy, I can block anything I want, I can force unknown callers to a special mailbox that states " I do not answer unknown calls" or better yet a 30 minute "hello? hello? I cant hear you. wait a second. can you hear me now? hello? can you speak louder? I can kind of hear you now, what was that?"
wasting a telemarketers time is a wonderful thing. when they get that you are honey potting them to waste their time they add your number to the do not call list on their own.