RE: SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC

["Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>]

Not my job.

However, if you hire me I am sure that I can come up with a solution.

Since retirement my rates have dropped to $1,000/hour with a 4 hour minimum.  Payable in advance since you probably 
have no established credit with me.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Tajvar [mailto:ross () tajvar io]
> Sent: Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:54
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: Christopher Morrow; North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC
>
> Well yeah, people need to take responsibility, but IMO we as
> engineers need to discuss the specific circumstances and
> methodologies that enable that to happen. It's easy to say "they
> should fix it", and you're not wrong that they should, but how? Do
> you have a validation framework in mind which carriers can implement
> that prevents fraudulent caller ID information from being sent
> without preventing legitimate use cases?
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:46 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>       On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:38, Ross Tajvar <ross () tajvar io>
> wrote:
>
>       >What if you use different carriers for termination and
> origination?
>       >How does your termination carrier validate that your
> origination
>       >carrier has allocated certain numbers to you and that you're
>       >therefore allowed to make outbound calls with a caller ID set
> to
>       >those numbers? That doesn't sound to me like something that can
> be
>       >solved as quickly and easily as you imply.
>
>       It does not really matter.  What matters is that they bear
> responsibility for an act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit
> fraud.
>
>       --
>       The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to
> Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
>
>       >
>       >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:33 PM Keith Medcalf
> <kmedcalf () dessus com>
>       >wrote:
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >       On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 11:18, Christopher Morrow
>       ><morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
>       >
>       >       >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins
>       ><paul () telcodata us> wrote:
>       >
>       >       >> Chris it would be trivial for this to be fixed,
> nearly
>       >overnight,
>       >       >> by creating some liability on the part of carriers
> for
>       >illicit use of
>       >       >> caller ID data on behalf of their customers.
>       >
>       >       >'illicit use of caller id' - how is caller-id being
> illicitly
>       >used
>       >       >though?
>       >       >I don't think it's against the law to say a different
>       >'callerid' in
>       >       >the call session, practically every actual call center
> does
>       >this, right?
>       >
>       >       The problem is that CallerID is not really the CallerID.
> It is
>       >some fraudulent shit created by the caller.  This is not how
>       >"CallerID" was originally sold.  It was sold as being the ID of
> the
>       >Caller.  If it is not the ID of the Caller then Fraud is being
>       >committed and the bastards should be castrated (or worse), and
> the
>       >CEO and Directors of the carrier responsible for fraud getting
>       >through to the end-user should face the same penalty.
>       >
>       >       See then how quickly this gets fixed.  You will fall off
> your
>       >chair and it will be a "solved problem" before your arse hits
> the
>       >ground!
>       >
>       >       --
>       >       The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a
> Stairway to
>       >Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >