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

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:04 PM Peter Beckman <beckman () angryox com> wrote:
> "with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of
> value"
>
> Kind of a huge hole that, unless you record all calls which opens other
> liability, is hard to prove.

I'm not sure that the cited code works for this case, agreed.
I'm also not a lawyer :)
I'm a chemical engineer.

> Beckman
>
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Paul Timmins wrote:
>
> > Pretty simply - Sending caller ID to commit fraud. It's literally already
> > illegal. The legislature has already defined it for us, even.
> >
> > 47 USC 227
> >
> > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
> >
> > (B)
> > to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an
> > artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior
> > express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for
> > emergency purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed
> > to or guaranteed by the United States
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>, or is exempted by rule or
> > order by theCommission <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>under
> > paragraph (2)(B);
> >
> > (e)(1)In general
> >
> > It shall be unlawful for any person
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227> within the United States
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>, in connection with any
> > telecommunications service <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>
> > orIP-enabled voice service, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>
> > to cause anycaller identification service
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>to knowingly transmit
> > misleading or inaccuratecaller identification information
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>with the intent to defraud,
> > cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless such transmission
> > is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
> >
> > All I'm asking is to make the carrier liable if it should have been obvious
> > to a carrier using basic traffic analysis that the service was a robocaller
> > (low answer rates combined with tons of source numbers, especially situations
> > where the source and destination number share the first 6 digits) that the
> > carrier be liable for failing to look into it.
> >
> > Carriers already look at things like short duration in order to assess higher
> > charges, and already investigate call center traffic. If they then look at
> > the caller ID and it looks "suspect", and the customer then is contacted and
> > barred from sending arbitrary caller ID until they can verify they own the
> > numbers they're calling from, then they're good to go.
> >
> > If the carrier continues to just ensure that call center traffic is a revenue
> > stream they can bill higher without making sure they're outpulsing valid
> > numbers, then they should absorb the social costs of what's going on.
> >
> > Let's not get this confused - this isn't about customer PBXen outpulsing
> > forwarded calls when they do it, it's about people shooting millions of calls
> > a month, the carrier hitting them with short duration charges, making more
> > money, and having zero incentive to question the arrangement.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> > On 7/11/19 1:18 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > > '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?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Beckman                                                  Internet Guy
> beckman () angryox com                                 http://www.angryox.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------