SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC

[beckman at angryox.com (Peter Beckman)]

"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
beckman at angryox.com                                 http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------