CallerID Spoofing to be Made Illegal 351
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.'"
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)
So you see in our laws things like a fine of "up to 90 day rates" or "up to 360 day rates" rather than any specific amount. Usually the equivalent prison sentence is exactly the amount of day rates (i
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:2)
Especially when it comes to legislating technology, which it is incredibly obvious they know jack shit about. As someone else has pointed out there some legit, albeit probably minor, uses of ID spoofing. It also pointed out this could be fix by lazy corporations not being so lazy and building a proper system. Whatever I guess. More laws+more
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 itself is neither fraud nor illegal.
'Should impersonating a police officer, identity theft, false advertising and passing fake checks all have the same punishment?'
Ummm... yes? Of course some of those things would be done for the purpose of accomplishing othe
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)
Yup, and its not fraud. Lying and fraud are NOT synonymous.
Yes, they are. You can't stop at the first definition in your dictionary. Fraud does not require financial gain as a component (even if it's usually the case, and is part of the first definition in your dictionary).
But just maybe the dictionary does not define the law. Try a legal dictionary.
Ummm... yes?
Impersonating a cop gives you power over others you don't deserve. That's a very different crime than stealing someone's identity, or committing bank fraud, which are financial, and those two have very different effects on two very different targets. If you think these should all be equally punished, you are a sociopath.
So strippers who dress as cops have power over others they don't deserve? Be careful of blanket statements, for they make you look more of a fool than you clearly are.
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 secondary crime *is* the crime.
In any case, any law which makes a tool illegal rather than bad actions performed with the tool is a bad law.
Then you have no problem whatsoever with your neighbor (not necessarily your existing neighbor, but any neighbor you may ever have, by choice or not) owning a nuclear bomb? Sarin gas? Or someone keeping dynamite in an apartment building?
To make such statements again shows your foolishness. To outlaw the possession of dynamite in a residential area is quite different from outlawing the ownership of dynamite.
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).
Outlawing a tool *is* always bad - tools exist to help
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, I think there might be merit in requiring telemarketers, pollsters, and collection agencies to use valid callerid information. I don't support it for other commercial agencies though, some may not take incoming calls at all.
That actually touches on me pers
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: (Score:2)
Your post is all baseless ad hominem, and no fact.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
NannyState? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of over-regulation, but I was glad to see this one pass. Lot's of people are completely unaware that caller ID even can be spoofed. If they got a call that appeared to be from someone at their bank, they'd give their account number to get some issue straightened out.
Aside from prank phone calls, the only use for Caller ID spoofing is fraud, which is de
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of over-regulation, but I was glad to see this one pass. Lot's of people are completely unaware that caller ID even can be spoofed. If they got a call that appeared to be from someone at their bank, they'd give their account number to get some issue straightened out.
Aside from prank phone calls, the only use for Caller ID spoofing is fraud, which is definitely a government issue.
And the way to fix this is... to lull people into a false sense of security by convincing them that the government can effectively curb these abuses???
I think laws that supposedly provide security by making something illegal, without an effective mechanism for enforcement, are dangerous and waste well-meaning people's time. For example, take the crazy post-9/11 prohibitions on bringing various things on airplanes. Well... I can get my shampoo bottle in my carry-on through security 9 times out of 10, but
Re: (Score:2)
-Banning smoking is there to keep people from being subjected to a dangerous substance
-Same for banning junk food.
-Same for banning any violent media, for psychological reasons to prevent people from becoming murderers.
-Banning term such as master/slaveon hard drives is there to prevent social discrimination, unconsciously, of certain groups or causing said group to be subjected to mental anguish.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This "nanny state" crap was never more than a propagandistic talking point based on a linguistic mind game anyway, so all this really boils
Does this mean... (Score:2)
But seriously, I think it's a good idea. They've closed the door to many a tele-scammer. Hopefully now all those geriatrics who get their social security card stolen will have a little more security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
212-555-1212. Thanks guys
To those not aware, it's New York City's information number. Before tons of people wrack up toll charges and yell at me because they thought they might hear a woman's voice and got all excited. Actually, this is slashdot, so maybe the robotic woman's voice at the other end does something for people out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, that chick has got to be really old by now....
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: (Score:2)
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 such wouldn't even be impersonation because the "victim" doesn't exist. Is this Mail Fraud? I don't think so...unless I was attempting to somehow profit from putting "Harry Potter" as my name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Want true privacy? Achieve anonymity.
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)
No, use apples and apples. The societal good must outweigh the societal cost, not merely the dollar cost. Societal costs include:
- The additional liability of every single person and business subject to the la
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: (Score:2)
This is what I'm running into now. I just got my first cellphone (I know, I know), and apparently the person who had this number before is skipping out on some bills. Problem is, I got one of
Re:A campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Certified mail:
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no, I don't think someone has the right to basically lie about who they are on my caller ID. It's my phone and my time, and if their legitimate name and number aren't something I'll pick up for, sorry, I don't want them wasting it.
Let alone the fact that there are plenty of legitimate situations where people would prefer to call anonymously (whistle blowers, people seeking
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This will give the police $10,000 teeth they did not have before.
Freedom is not free.
Who says the phone companies want to stop spoofing? What they want is for cu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the person who wondered if having his caller ID say "Harry Potter" could get h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that these kinds of laws are crap since somehow businesses always get away with all kinds of shit while college kids and regular people are fined and thrown in jail for nothing. Every law diminishes us; there's a real cost to every law, which must be carefully weighed against the claimed benefit.
However:
Do you feel the same way about email?
I feel very strongly that in any interaction, you can eit
Re: (Score:2)
In my experiences with businesses using auto-dialers and pre-recorded phone calls to advertise, the police will just refer you to the phone company, and the phone company will just refer you to the police. The same with obscene and persistent phone calls. So I doubt if a law like this would be enforced for the average person just wanting to impress t
Congress isn't allowed to do this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
b) Ever read the interstate commerce clause?
Re: (Score:2)
Is every call made over state lines in pursuance of some act of commerce? If not, I don't see how Congress could claim the right to regulate every call. BTW, they are called enumerated powers; the list is exhaustive of what they can do, point being if it isn't on the list, it isn't something they can do. At least, that was the original notion...
Re: (Score:2)
You're gonna get me started!
Not only was it only enumerated powers, they felt so strongly about it they passed an Amendment just to make it clear they meant only enumerated powers!
ARGGGGG.
Re: (Score:2)
Interstate calls ARE interstate commerce (Score:2, Insightful)
If any of the phone companies involved are incorporated in another state, then it's also interstate commerce.
As far as the feds are concerned, the parties to the commerce are the people using the phones, all the carriers, and anyone and everyone who is paying the bill.
You can argue that the feds have no business regulating intra-state phone calls. It's been at least 70 years since the feds started re
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, in two hundred years, language changes, society changes. The words remain the same, but the words will not be read in the same way.
The founders' understanding of the word "commerce" is unclear. Although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English. For example, in 18th century writing one finds expressions such as "the free and easy com
Re: (Score:2)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
And when the Interstate Commerce Clause was written, the phrase "to regulate" actually meant "to make regular". If you remember one of the primary reasons for the Constitution being authored in the first place was to deal with interstate squabbling, trade
Re: (Score:2)
Wire fraud? (Score:2)
That's kinda funny... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, what about calling cards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Fines in America - just can't figure it out (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
ie: consider Bloomberg with a $1 salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Stock dividends, capital gains and interest count as income.
The US System Works (Score:3, Interesting)
$100 means nothing to me. If I were to lose $100 walking down the street, I would never even notice. So why do I not
My Other Me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This law is to protect against spoofing performed to deliberately and maliciously deceive. If you (or anyone else) tried to report someone for spoofing their cell number to their home number, it's pretty safe to say the police would p
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a perfect law, and this one seems to have more benefits than possible detriments.
You seem to have an odd definition of benefits.
So what? Just because Caller-ID is electronic, this does not make it in any way special. Are you then advocating for the illegality of spoofing email? What of
forging the return to address on a piece of snail mail? Wearing my shirt with
the printed "Hello My Name Is Sponge Bob Square Pants?" Halloween costumes?
Yes, you say that the police will ignore silly trangressions of the law. I say
then, what purpose a law that is so readily flaunted or overly broad? Make i
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious to hear from the OP about this. Where do you see this as having passed Congress? I'm not seeing it, but perhaps I'm missing it. Please provide clarification.
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)
Do what I do... (Score:2)
Currently, either I'd answer the phone, or I wouldn't, depending on my mood.
Under current law, if I had callerID, either I'd answer the phone, or I wouldn't, depending on my mood.
Under the new law, if I had callerID, and callers weren't allowed to lie about being criminal liars, I'd have to make a decision about answering the phone, even though the c
Re: (Score:2)
Caller ID box: $12.99
Caller ID Service over the years: hundreds of dollars.
Not being pressed into service as a captive audience for bored blabbermouth relatives-in-law who call your spouse multiple times per day: priceless.
I never answer the phone... (Score:2)
The whole thing is absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People do busismess on vie VOIP systems. Often interstate business. Bear in mind if the call is even routed out of state for 1 bounce, and then back into the state, it's interstate.
Yes this law is stupid
Yes interstate clause is abused.
Don't blame the feds there doing what any large government would do, blame the state. The States are supposed to have some backbone when dealing with the feds. The founders new this happens, it is the exact REASON we have se
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
S.704
Title: A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information.
Sponsor: Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 6/27/2007 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an am
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems better than me arguing the first 2 minutes that I am not trying to sell them something or steal their children.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What company do you work for, so I can avoid doing business with them?
Re: (Score:2)
Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] coordinates of (-6.88, -4.46) I sure
as hell am not a neo-con
Well, everything but the crying Red.