Not really. For reasons already cited by Keith Medcalf in an offshoot of
the thread, and because the real world implication of that liability
transfer would be telecom carriers undertaking risk management and
looking at their products and pricing and deciding whether certain
customers should be allowed to send arbitrary caller ID. What would
likely happen is that small customers would be allowed to send whatever,
like today. Call center customers (they are already identifying these
because most big carriers have different rates for callcenter activity
because of the network load it puts on them) would likely be restricted
to a subset of numbers, and the biggest, long term call centers would
probably be allowed to send whatever they want, but with a contract that
compels them to indemnify the carrier against loss (which would only
work if the call center was well capitalized enough to make that
commitment, because the carrier would NOT want to be stuck with the bill
if they couldn't pay up).
It may sound burdensome, but speaking as an employee of a carrier who is
in a position to see how things work on the business AND technical side
(who I do not speak for, in this context) - we're already looking at
what our customer's intended use is, and whether they're asking for a
product they can reasonably afford, we run their business credit and if
they aren't clean enough, we request prepayment for our services, or
similar.
This would just be one more risk we'd take into account.
-Paul
On 7/11/19 3:04 PM, Peter Beckman 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.
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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
