undefined

points

[-]

I was under the impression that SHAKEN / STIR was supposed to do that by authenticating the phone numbers displayed against the telco that made the call. But as the other comment says, your telco earns money from scam calls and they don't want that to stop.

by dredmorbius4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Identification is insufficient without accountability.

SHAKEN/STIR identifies whether or not a given number is originating from a specific network, but without knowing whether that's an approved network, rejecting unapproved-origin calls, or tracking how much unapproved traffic a given network is emitting and penalising it for this, the information isn't actionable.

"Measure it harder" doesn't solve problems. The information must direct meaningful action.

by ipython5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

One word: incentives. You're absolutely right- and telecom networks get us on both sides. They collect fees from the scammers, then fees from customers to block the scammers. Can't get any better than that.

by ozim3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

so penalties for telcos have to be higher than they earn from scam calls.

2-5% of scams succeed but penalty should be there accounting for 95-98% that did not succeed.

IANAL but I know failed attempt at robbery or murder is also prosecuted, failed attempts at scam are not, because people just hang up and move on. Then the reality is society doesn’t have enough resources to deal with "scam attempts" - well we have to focus on murder attempts an plain robbery

by mannanj5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I think making noise is cheaper than reducing it.

And I think this is also a problem at the habit/behavior level for people. Most people don't want to know how to set proper boundaries with people and technology and articulate what they want. Once you do that at least you can articulate what you want to come in at you or not.

Without that you get stuck with a weird one-size-fits-all policy which definitely doesn't fit for me at least.