On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:04 PM Peter Beckman <beck...@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 > beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
