On 30 Nov 2015, Ed Pawlowski wrote in alt.home.repair:
Yes, I do. That's why I log them all and don't bother to block a number until it shows itself to be a repeat offender. Which does happen more often than you might think. OTOH, many numbers get used once, then never again. They would be a waste of time to block.
My records show that use of a number can go in cycles - it may be used for a few weeks, then disappear, never to be used again. I've also found a few numbers that have been used by different scam campaigns ([s]campaigns?)
I think you meant ignorance on the part of the "called party" vs "calling party". In any case, is there no 'chain of references/trust' (not sure of the technical term) between service providers? Would not the number displayed be that of the phone line rented by the people running the server?
I just looked up the term and found the Wiki entry:
formatting link
It occurs to me that this sort of software would make the perfect 'intelligent' answering machine:
You are not on the caller's whitelist of passthrough numbers. To demonstrate that you are a legitimate caller, please choose one of the following options:
- Press 1 if you are a family member ... To verify, type in the name of the dog we had to put down because he wouldn't stop humping the furniture.
- Press 2 if you are a work colleague ... Enter the numerical part of the street address at work to verify ... Press "1" to confirm your offer of a minimum 4 hours at overtime rates. Please note that this is just to listen to your message.
- Press 3 if you are an old college friend ... To verify, type in the name of the crazy bitch who cost me the second semester.
Most of the scam calls seem to come from India or some such place. They don't pay any attention to the Do Not Call list since there is no way to go after them for violations. I don't get too many of those calls, maybe a few per month.
When I have time I have some fun with them, particularly the "Windows Support" scam. I'll let them loose inside a Linux virtual machine and watch them fumble around. (Most of them use Teamviewer for remote access which is cross-platform.) Or I'll just play dumb and tell them that nothing they're telling me to do is working. (One didn't even get it even when I was reading "Ubuntu Linux" from the startup screen!)
Once they know they've been "had" usually I wind up responding to them, "Is that the kind of language that a professional from Windows Support would use?" and they hang up.
Then there's the scam where they say they're from the IRS and if they don't get immediate payment they're sending the police to make an arrest. I just tell them, "go ahead, I'll wait here by the door for them." Maybe on the next one I'll just tell them I went out and sent the money via Western Union and let them scramble to go get it.
Of course I don't have time to play I'll just hang up on them.
What if "that *sshole from accounting" calls (and you DON'T want to EVER talk to him/her)? How do you keep that "secret" from him/her?
If you assign a "password" (or, a unique password for each caller!), then you are imposing on the caller to keep track of this JUST to talk to you. Imagine everyone had a system like that. Now youhave to keep track of different passwords for different "callee's"?
Ha! Trick question!! It *wasn't* the second semester. It was the summer between Junior and Senior years!
And, by the way, I married her! (oops!) I always wondered why she wanted to name the first-born "Michael"...
My scheme is to use multiple data to build an authenticator, depending on the "level of access" desired.
E.g., if *I* phone the house, I want to be able to open the garage door, turn off the alarm, turn the heat up, etc. from the other end of the phone.
If SWMBO calls and I don't pick up, she might speculate that I'm in the garage or out in the yard and didn't hear the phone ANNOUNCE herself to me. So, she might ask to be routed to the PA in the back yard so she can "page" me, there: "Don? Are you there?"
If a (trusted) neighbor calls while we're away from home having noticed that we left the garage door open, she should be able to command it closed (though, perhaps, never command it *open*!)
OTOH, if *you* phone the house, I *may* let you leave a message ;-) Or, may tell you to get stuffed!
To that end, I look at a lot of different "indicators" and use them in concert to decide who you (the caller) are.
Is the call reporting a CID identifier? If so, what is it?
What *time* is it? (I wouldn't expect a call from a client at 3AM! Even if the CID *suggests* that's who it is)
What is the voice characterization ("voice print") of the caller? Who does it most closely match -- if anyone? And, how closely does it
*actually* match? (how likely is it that this is really the voice I think it is)
What is the caller saying? E.g., I would expect the neighbor across the street to say something like, "Hi, Don, this is Janie..." and not "This is Wally's Wacky World of Wool!" (Janie would KNOW to use her name in her greeting and would know that a machine was checking for this -- in addition to her CID)
What is the caller *requesting*? E.g., "Turn off the alarm system" would require additional authentication. This can be done using a scheme like S/Key (one-time, disposable passwords that the caller and the system know -- and track in synchrony; when I use PassWordOne, it becomes invalid and PassWordTwo is activated) which can be spoken or numeric (DTMF) entry. Or, it could be simply a prompted exchange: "Please say 'Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled Petunias'".
So, if an adversary (not just a telemarketer that I have to worry about) had RECORDED my voice speaking *a* password, that password/phrase would be useless -- he'd have no way of knowing what the machine would require him to say (using MY voice pattern!).
All of this is implemented in an "expert system" (basically, just a list of rules that say, "if this, then that, otherwise try this... and, if that works, DO whatever").
Then, the "whatevers" translate into actions with which I may or may not interact. E.g., if "whatever" is "take a message, note the time, date and your idea as to the identity of the caller", then I can later peruse those messages and decide which ones are of interest and which are NO LONGER worth my time.
Based on how *I* respond to these "whatevers", the system modifies the list of rules to reflect my preferences (as conveyed by my ACTIONS!). E.g., if I always ignore/erase messages from Bob, then why should the machine keep *taking* messages from Bob? It should, instead, tweek the rules (expert system) to learn that I'm not interested in anything Bob has to say and set the "whatever" for "Bob" to be "discard the call".
[I can have the machine do that "with prejudice" (hang up on him) or politely (give him the illusion that it's taking a message... then delete the message automatically so it never bothers "me" with the fact that Bob called -- AGAIN!]
Likewise, if the "whatever" for Penny is "tell Don she's on the phone" and I *ALWAYS* respond by saying "put her through!", then the machine should rewrite the rules for her to be "put her through" instead of just "announcing" her; i.e., save me that step of *telling* you to do so!
If you think about it, this is what a (good) secretary does, automatically. Over time, they learn the desires/habits/patterns of the person that they support and automatically implement them -- without having to be TOLD ("programmed" in machine-speak) to do so!
Maybe in your state, but not in Pennsylvania. I have given up on reporting violations but I have more than half-dozen lame-sounding letters from the DA's office to show for the ones I have reported.
Two snips from the letters:
"...multiple telephone service providers and sophisticated internet technology to make and relay the calls several times before reaching a consumer. This type of service enables those sending the messages to use hundreds, or even thousands, of numbers to hide the source of the solicitation...."
and
"Many of these numbers are provided by telephone service providers located outside the United States. As a result, local carriers generally are not able to track or provide information regarding a specific call or the specific subscriber. Also, foreign telephone carriers generally are not subject to State or Federal jurisdiction."
Same here for maybe a year or two.... maybe even more.
I even got a thirty-some-dollar check from the DA's office as part of the settlement in a case against one of the guys I reported.
But, for at the last two years - maybe more, the DNC list has been moot.
Somebody might mince semantics about what "moot" really means.... but the bottom line is that I now get five junk calls for every legit call and that spells "Moot" to me...
My best shot so far (not implemented - yet.....) is going over to 100% VOIP and implementing a service available from my VOIP supplier that will not let my phone ring until the caller responds to "Press 1 for Sam, Press 2 for Sue...." and so-forth.
I had planned to supplement that with a WhiteList of people I know.... but your observation plus the fact that I've been getting junk calls on my cell phone from the same exchange as my cell phone number seems to call my little plan into question....
I think that, in the end, legitimate callers are going to be inconvenienced, some legitimate calls are going to be missed, and some so-called-legitimate robo calls are going to be missed.
But I would hope that my few frequent callers could learn to press that single digit as soon as the spiel starts... And, if that turns out to be the case, that might turn out to actually be *less* inconvenient that sitting through my current answering machine message.
I'm getting close..... Reliability of 911 for persons other than myself (who would have an alternate direct number on hand) is still the big obstacle to me.
Of course, a *human* caller would just "pick a number" and get by...
We're (you vs. me) also probably looking at different goals. I suspect you'd be happy with something that (just) works for *you*. I, OTOH, am trying to come up with something that could be reproduced and work well/easily for *others*.
E.g., if "Press 1 for..." became widespread, telemarketers would just learn to "press 1" before their spiel -- just like they have learned NOT to present their actual CID's ("Bob's World of Windows? No, I don't think I'm interested in fielding that call...")
[I've thought about "good" screening algorithms for a long time. I.e., starting when folks still had rotary dials! ("How can I get them to enter a numeric password if all they have is a rotary dial phone?")]
Any sort of credential has to be user-specific; you don't want a single password because once its known, everyone knows it! Even folks you don't want to get through.
You also want to be able to "revoke privileges" -- with or without the caller knowing you've done so. I.e., if Bob used to always be handled as "put him through to me" and you now want to route his calls to voicemail (a friend used to telephone "to shoot the breeze" when I was working; I learned not to answer her calls as the only way of discouraging them!), you might want him to *think* that you're "just not home" -- instead of KNOWING that he's being treated less favorably than previously.
Etc.
Robocalls can *usually* be handled with a trivial "defense": e.g., my answering machine is enough to cause them to abandon the attempted contact -- for TODAY.
Once you get humans involved, then the problem gets tougher: raising the bar so folks can't just trivially work around your "screen"; making sure you don't make it too tedious and discourage (or annoy!) them.
[E.g., I can make it VERY difficult for someone to impersonate *me* on an inbound call -- because that would only inconvenience *me*! I'd be doing that very infrequently AND would have a strong incentive to ensure I couldn't easily be impersonated!]
Yes. The problem is evaluating the "cost" of each of those "failures". E.g., if the robodialer from the library fails to get through (because the machine silently DROPPED the call) and remind me of an overdue book, how long will it be before I discover the fact -- given that a *repeat* call from the dialer will lead to the same result? Do I want to be (effectively) BUYING books for the library? Or, can I count on my memory -- or some other behavior (check my account regularly) -- to limit those costs?
A "secretary" could be reasoned with to work past some criteria he/she may be imposing on incoming calls. Getting the same sort of flexibility in an algorithm is considerably harder -- esp if you expect that "solution" to find use with many "callee's"
I don't like paying people (esp ONGOING) for anything that I can do myself. I'm using a little "VoIP gateway" to interface to our POTS lines to my "system". I.e., the "house" looks like an analog telephone (to the PSTN) and the PSTN looks like a VoIP system (to the house).
I also have an ATA (Analog Telephone Adapter) that lets my system interface to "regular telephones". So, this connects the legacy telephone WIRING in the house to the system -- so the VoIP system can interface BACK to those phones (if need be).
I have a trimline wall phone mounted in a closet (with a BELL!) that is connected to the analog phone line in the event of a system failure or power outage (as well as "on demand").
So, I get the legislated availability (and historical reliability) of the POTS in my *outfacing* interface -- and the versatility of VoIP on my *infacing* interface. Though, in the latter, *I* have to assume responsibility for system reliability, availability, etc. But, that is a worthwhile tradeoff, given the flexibility that it provides!
E.g, the "Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!" feature is difficult to implement FOR A USER IN THE SHOWER! They would have to wear a waterproof fob at all times that they could use to "signal" some sort of "base unit" to initiate a call. And, that call would obviously be limited to calling a FIXED number (do you want to call 911 every time you fall? Or, would you like to try a neighbor, first, and FALLBACK on 911 if they don't answer??)
I have a "network speaker" located in the ceiling of each bathroom (think of it as "sound/music/pager over IP" :> ). So, if I'm in the shower and wouldn't hear the phone, front door, etc., the system can talk to me THERE.
Each of these "network speakers" also has a microphone (solves another problem). So, it's easy to see how you've effectively got a "speakerphone" on VoIP.
And, the final twist: there's no reason can't be LISTENING to the sounds from that microphone 24/7 (or, at the very least, whenever it knows the bathroom to be occupied). If it detects a loud cry (for help), it can elicit an inquiry: "Do you need assistance?" and await a reply. So, the user need not carry a "fob" to be protected!
Doing these sorts of things with POTS is just not practical. But, you don't have to go to the VoIP extreme, throughout, (losing the reliability of POTS), either!
As I said, you can't rely on some "external" force/service to solve this problem. There will always be someone willing to step into their shoes -- a marketing OPPORTUNITY!!
If it's a legit company, it honors the DNC. Legit companies don't call you if you're on the list. Therefore, the DNC list works as designed - it keeps you from being hassled by legit and reputable companies selling real products and services.
Some companies are legit, but not reputable. Since they have no reputation to damage, they ignore the DNC and solicit business over the phone. These are most often little local companies desperate for business. Don't do business with them - report them, because they're violating the DNC and the gov't can do something about them.
Criminals BY DEFINITION break laws. If the lawbreaker is located within the US *and* used their actual ID/phone number (for example, a small local business as noted above) they can be located and action taken. Problem is, most of the scammers are located outside of the US, and our laws only apply within our borders. Plus, the vast majority of scammers use fake phone number/Caller ID information. The Caller ID might say its from Acme Tools in Peoria, but odds are it is actually coming from Achmed in Hyderabad. And since Achmed's in India, he has no worries about being arrested for running phone scams involving overseas victims, and thus no motivation to stop.
Again: the DNC is a tool used by consumers and US companies to determine who is willing to accept phone solicitations from US companies, and who is not. Phone scammers pay no more heed to it than burglars do to laws against burglary.
I get them occasionally, but there's one that's persistently been calling for over a year. It's a recording from some credit card company that I don't do business with - from what I've understood. "Last chance to lower your rate", or similar. Asks you to stay on the line. I think I did once, and told them to quit calling. They kept calling. A few times I just laid the phone down. They still call about once every week or two I think. Hard to say, because most of the time I just hang up on robocalls before I hear anything. If there's any delay I just hang up, and robocalls aren't very smart in connecting. It's not enough to bother me much, and if it did I think I have a solution. My phone plays a customized tune when a son or daughter calls. I could just add everybody else who calls with one tune. The rest goes to voice mail. But I'd still hear it ringing. For the number of these calls I get, it's easier just picking up the phone. But it's an option.
If the FCC started issuing $1000 fines per call to any telecom allowing these scammers to use their services, those calls would be eliminated by the next day
That's pretty much my own strategy so far. I add to it an assumption (based on no real knowledge) that the computer doing the calling is looking for a human voice response and needs a certain volume/speed to ID a person. With that in mind, I answer speaking quickly and softly "Hello, this is Pete Cresswell". If I sense that "dead" feeling in the line or nobody responds within a second or so I just hang up.
I do miss the occasional call from people using certain cell phone providers.... it's as if the provider is saving a little bandwidth by not having the line open to the caller right away. Oh well....
Also my inner cynic thinks that if Rachel-from-Card-Services were threatening a politician above a certain level in the pecking order, the people behind her would be in custody within 72 hours.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.