After Bomb Threats, FCC Proposes Letting Police Unveil Anonymous Callers (cnbc.com) 116
Police should be allowed to unmask anonymous callers who have made serious threats over the phone, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed. From a report: The proposal would allow law enforcement, and potentially the person who's been called, to learn the phone number of an anonymous caller if they receive a "serious and imminent" threat that poses "substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health." Specifics are still up in the air. The FCC is asking (PDF), for instance, whether unveiled caller ID information should only be provided to law enforcement officials investigating a threat, to ensure that this exemption isn't abused.
I am Surprised (Score:3)
That privacy laws don't already provide for this scenario.
WTF?
Re: I am Surprised (Score:2)
They do, but the networks can't always trace these calls. This law would force the telex companies to implement tech to find out where calls were coming from. I think this is a cat and mouse problem though. All you need is someone's SIP credentials and a trustworthy VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
In the public switched network, they surely know where the call comes from and where it's going, SS7 Signaling requires it to set up the bidirectional audio connections for the call. What doesn't exist is the requirement to allow the retrieval of this information AFTER the call is set up.
Phone companies routinely capture only the data they need to bill the call in a CDR (Call Detail Record) and at that point, they don't need (or likely want) the additional information about the source and destination numbe
Re: (Score:2)
In the public switched network, they surely know where the call comes from and where it's going
Then why do I get daily calls from India that show a CID in my local area code?
Re: (Score:2)
The Caller ID part of SS7 ISUP is not what's used to route the call. Caller ID is an optional bit of data tacked onto the calls signaling and can literally be set to ANYTHING the originator wishes. It happens all the time.
Give me some time, an PBX and the president's phone number and You too can receive a call from the Oval Office of the Whitehouse to show your friends on your caller ID. Of course it will be MY voice on the other end, but your Caller ID will prove who called you right? (Saw this done once
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I have seen credit unions do this to people when they're late on their car payments. They show up as the person employer on the CID. Neat trick, but I always thought violated some law or other.
Re: (Score:2)
Because "Caller ID" is just a bit of user-controlled data tacked on to the call. Call routing and billing are handled through a different, internally-controlled number.
There are good reasons to do this: consider an office with a hundred phone lines routing into a PBX, and then fanning out to a thousand internal extensions. Each of those phone lines has its own number for billing and routing purposes, and it's unreasonable to expect that office's contacts to memorize all hundred of those phone numbers. In
Re: (Score:2)
This law would force the telex companies to implement tech to find out where calls were coming from.
They already have this information; that's how their billing works. The destination exchange needs to know who to charge for the call.
number1 = get_number_from_callerid();
number2 = get_number_from_ani();
if (number1 != number2) { // this call is spoofed
bill(number2, $100);
drop_call();
}
just freaking stop caller ID masking! (Score:2)
all this piecemeal crap, hell, just kill the ability to mask the caller!
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this.
If there is no phone number on a call, I don't answer.
If it's a phone number not in my contacts, and I can't look it up on Google and get an actual name or company, blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so a Comcast tech is calling to tell you he'll be arriving in half an hour to fix your cable.
How many phone lines do you think a big company like Comcast has? Are you aware that each of those phone lines has its own number? Are you willing to give up the ability to identify business callers, in exchange for being able to reliably identify private callers?
Are you still sure that caller ID masking is a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how this follows. If all of their lines are registered as "Comcast," then what do I care which particular one they use to call me with? Sure if I'm told the actual number then I'd in principle be able to tell when two Comcast techs call me using different lines but um.. so what? I still don't see how that would change anything significant.
What unmasking all callers would do is prevent people from hiding their numbers, which has certain privacy implications for individuals in addition to maki
Re: (Score:2)
For the facilities I have been in, the dispatch center and 911 center all have the same information, although a local police station might not have everything in an easy to access way if the call is direct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Landline call trace (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's a "landline"?
Re: (Score:3)
Their reliability is pretty good in some situations. It sucks when I'm driving.
Re: (Score:3)
What idiot uses a land line to make a threat from? Besides, who on earth has land lines anyway...
Also, I may be wrong, but the *57 doesn't work for calls where the caller has requested to block his Caller ID information, or for instances where the caller ID information has been spoofed (which is an exceptionally easy thing to do from a PBX or a lot of VOIP services).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I made a bad assumption... The *57 causes the complete signaling information for the call to be recorded for disclosure to the police upon request but only for the last call.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a landline - comes with my DSL backup in case my business internet tanks.
And I have to say, I will never give up my land line. Every single time I have needed to make an important conference call and listen to every detail, every VoIP vendor I tried along with my ISP? They scrambled and made the call have dropouts every few seconds. VoIP fucking SUCKS when you REALLY REALLY need to have that call be stable. Murphy watches that shit with a ever-opened eye and wreaks havoc whenever I NEED to use VoIP.
A
Re: (Score:2)
My Ooma device is pretty nice and very cheap alternative to land lines. It is VOIP based. However, I will admit that the major issue with VOIP call quality usually is the network, not the technology. If your network is too slow, has wildly varying latency times and/or is dropping packets, you have little hope of getting a useable VOIP connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And it always just _seems_ that when the call is absolutely critical? That's when Murphy shuts me down with garbled voices or seconds of dead silence.
I very rarely get into a situation when my landline doesn't work flawlessly. That's why I will keep it until I retire from the rat race entirely :)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I like the money I've saved going VOIP. Ooma is "cheap cheap cheap" phone service and we generally use our cell phones anyway. Of course, my network is pretty much rock solid, low latency, fast and reliable where I live.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with all due fairness it has been quite a while since I tried going the VoIP route. Maybe I'll give it another chance. I could always use another phone line, actually. We'll see :-)
However with all the net neutrality things getting hammered and destroyed, unless in my case if it's not an ISP-supplied number, they might just jack my throughput anyway :-\
Bad idea (Score:2, Interesting)
If people aren't truly anonymous then some won't submit their tips.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I only know of a couple of payphone locations within a reasonable distance from me. I've passed on reporting several serious crimes over the last few years because I know there are cameras at or near those locations.
Re: (Score:2)
I've passed on reporting several serious crimes over the last few years because I know there are cameras at or near those locations.
That sounds irresponsible. How serious were those crimes and what were your concerns regarding the cameras? Were you afraid of footage showing up on the news announcing that you were the rat? Or that you'd somehow be tracked down and prosecuted just for possesing the information you turned over? Was there no other mechanism to report these "several serious crimes"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That seems paranoid. To think that there is no mechanism that can be used to report a crime without some conspiracy leading back to the guilty party?
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, "anonymous" tipping has ramifications outside of the 911 service office. For example, if you were an anonymous caller and the police divulged your name in court, they'd be in a lot of hot water themselves.
I certainly wouldn't use my own home or cell phone to implicate a politician or other person who might be able to gain access to the 911 call records on their own authority (or via coercion,) but if you're making an anonymous tip about a more common crime like domestic abuse or whatever, you're g
Re: (Score:2)
except it won't, as some simply won't submit their tips.
Re: (Score:2)
except it won't, as some simply won't submit their tips.
More than 90% of bomb threats are hoaxes. Either there is no bomb, or the "bomb" is inert. The most common reason is pranks at schools, such as kids hoping to get a test canceled.
Re: (Score:2)
So it will save us from hoaxes but the real bombs will be a total surprise now. And there will be more real bombs now that fake bombs can't create the wanted panic anymore.
And then, when (not if) this is abused for other anonymous tips, anonymous tiops will just go away leaving police wityh less information than they have now. There are many reasons a person with real information may want no further involvement and will only provide that information if they are quite sure that will end their part in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Constitutional right? You have a constitutional right to make anonymous phone calls? How about throwing rocks from behind bushes? Do you have a right to do that too?
Re: (Score:2)
How about throwing rocks from behind bushes? Do you have a right to do that too?
No, but I'm allowed to hide behind those bushes and say just about anything I like. I'm not defending a right to anonymous calls, just pointing out that throwing rocks at people isn't really a First Amendment issue.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the right I was making reference to. You have more than just free speech rights.
Don't allow blocking or spoofing of CallerID (Score:3)
I think we should just turn off the ability to block or spoof CallerID (except for the verified commercial numbers who are granted exceptions after proving their identity). Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
Spoofing has a legitimate purpose. Like if you own multiple lines and you want all outbound calls to show as coming from your primary phone number.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you, that's not legitimate. If you have the ability to harass me from a number then I should have the ability to see that number, report it, find the account holder, and fucking sue them.
Re: (Score:3)
Go right for the anger and miss the point, then.
Let's say I put a local pizza place's phone number into my cell phone's contacts. I call them and place a pizza order. A few minutes later, they realize they are out of a topping and call me back - but line 1 is busy, so the call goes out on line 2. I don't recognize the number, so I don't answer.
With Caller ID spoofing, they can ensure that their primary number shows up for all outbound calls. With Google Voice, this is how Caller ID works at all for call
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't answer and you don't listen to the voice mail they leave you?
That's your own damn fault.
Already illegal? Gee, that sure stops all the spam calls I get from India, Florida, and New York call centers!
Re: (Score:2)
voice mail they leave you
Has that EVER happened?
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple phones can have the same phone number. They just go in a round robin or another configuration. Zero need to spoof the number.
There are very very few legit uses of spoofing caller id and it shouldn't be generally allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Round robin only works when the number comes from the same place as all your lines. I even use spoofing on my home phone system. Outbound calls over my VoIP line spoof my Google Voice number so that return calls reach my cell.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if you don't want callbacks coming in on secondary lines?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
If you are a company with several phone numbers, it is reasonable to have the main number show up on caller id. For example if the main number for BobCorp is 555-1000 and individual employees have phone numbers like 555-1001, 555-1002, etc., when an employee calls out, it makes sense to show the 555-1000 number on caller id. That way when the customer calls back, they get the switchboard.
I would say that the caller id number "spoofed" should have to be verified as belonging to the organization exposing it,
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solutioin without a bunch of crap paperwork. You are allowed to present a caller ID matching any number that is part of your account and no other. So if you want to present your main number, no problem. If you are calling on someone else's behalf, then you'll need authorization from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the number I'm being called from (TechCo minion #2683's extension) is not the number I would want to use to call them back (Tech Co customer service number).
Re: (Score:2)
Because the number I'm being called from (TechCo minion #2683's extension) is not the number I would want to use to call them back (Tech Co customer service number).
Fairly obviously, the correct design would be for the caller ID to report the minion's extension, but that there would be a separate "callback" number that you could use to call back. (Similar to From: and Reply-to:)
Any design where someone can hide their actual number from the person being called is totally broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as the entire period before around 1980 then according to you.
...Try the entire period before and including 2017.
Just because the bad design is causing more and more problems for us today doesn't mean that it wasn't broken before.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
The idea was that a large company has, say, 1000 phone numbers; they want *incoming* calls to go to their main number, 123-4000. So, if Joe in customer service calls you from 123-4567, they'd like caller ID to show 123-4000 instead; so your return call goes to the switchboard instead of Joe's desk.
However: they effed it up big time by allowing the spoofing to redirect to *any* number at all, instead of restricting it to a different number owned by the same company. So any hacker with minimal equipment and k
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see why commercial interests should be able to spoof their CallerID even after verification. What makes them so special?
It was a good idea originally - big companies with internal PBX systems could spoof all of their office phones to appear with the main line, so that if you call back, you get their reception. That's not unreasonable, but either they should have to verify their identity and make a publicly available list of all those internal numbers they're spoofing, or it should be like email where you've got both a "from" and "reply to" field. As is, it's just abused by spammers.
Re: (Score:2)
... or it should be like email where you've got both a "from" and "reply to" field.
That's essentially what we have now—ANI is "From:", and Caller ID is "Reply-To:". The problem is that the recipient of the call only gets the Caller ID, not the ANI. The solution is simple: implement a protocol to forward the ANI data along with Caller ID.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should just turn off the ability to block or spoof CallerID (except for the verified commercial numbers who are granted exceptions after proving their identity). Problem solved.
Problem NOT solved... The issue of Caller ID won't be fixed by just making it illegal to block the CallerID because it doesn't fix the spoofed Caller ID problem. Make that illegal? Criminals will break that law too..
The issue here is that SS7 ISUP signaling doesn't require the Caller ID stuff be filled out in order to route a call, it's optional. A whole lot of stuff in bunches of legacy code and equipment would have to change to now require this information that is now optional. Also, there would be n
Re: (Score:2)
This has been solved for 1000 times over. They call with the softphone app on their PC or smartphone using the corporate PBX, rather their own number. Many hospitals and doctors already use this. Lots of tech support staff use this.
Dumb people get what they deserve (Score:1)
If you're a bomber, terrorist, or hoaxter and you're fucking dumb enough to call in "anonymously" from a phone line that can be traced to your personal information, you kinda deserve what you get.
And I think everyone knows this already.
As with most privacy/rights degradation rules and laws, they aren't done for their stated purposes. They will twist this for uses in other situations in order to repress freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a school district, and we get a couple "bomb" threats every year, usually during Testing/Finals at the High Schools. You know what I don't care about, privacy when you're committing a crime. Kind of like how we imprison people when they are convicted.
Trying to catch a bomb threat (real or imaginary) is fine, as long as due process doesn't fail. "We got a bomb threat, we want the records of that phone call."
No problem
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Unfortunately, these days the request would probably be worded more along the lines of "We got a bomb threat, we want the records of all phone calls made in the past 24hr."
Because it bugs the people in power.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Nathan's hot dogs are fucking trash. They're one step from putting a Slim Jim in a bun.
So unmasking should be okay? (Score:3)
When a person is "unmasked" so law enforcement (i.e. the National Security Advisor) can get a better understanding of who is colluding with a foreign government to undermine the U.S. election or government, that's horrible. But when law enforcement (i.e. police) wants to know who is calling in a bomb threat, that's acceptable?
The hypocrisy runs deep.
Give me a break (Score:2)
The telephone system existed just fine for a century BEFORE the advent of Caller ID. There are already ways for the phone companies to provide the caller's information to law enforcement if they can demonstrate that a crime occurred or is going to occur. That, and I'm fairly certain that blocking Caller ID doesn't have any effect on emergency calls, the E911 systems get your info and location regardless of whether or not the consumer CID is blocked.
This sounds more like businesses and politicians are probab
Two tech systems needed (Score:2)
The FCC, of all people, should show leadership in implementing the obvious. It's a shame they haven't. My PowerPoints somehow ended up on the internet with my cell number still on the last slide. My phone gets flooded with SIP-spoofing robocallers.
There are times you need high security, trust and credential-based accountability. Different times, you need cheap, easy, free-wheeling communication that allows high anonymity and will accept a lot of junk communication as a consequence. I think we currently
Threat-level Orange (Score:2)
Abused? (Score:2)
How could this be "abused?" I can think of no reason that anonymous calls should EVER be allowed in the first place. This is ridiculous. At the very least, people should be able to choose to block all anonymous calls. Obviously anyone with half a brain isn't going to make a threatening call over a traceable line anyone, so this only affects non-criminals. Again. Every. Single. Time.