Remix.run Logo
DeepSeaTortoise 3 hours ago

The solution is accessible law, not better anti-fraud tooling. Introduce a spam / fraud button, using it requires your pin and costs $10, but obliges your telecom provider to record the call (preferably including a few minutes before you hit the button), email you a signed recording and if found to be spam deposit $100 onto your account. Your provider may then hand the fee +10% for himself to whatever network the call in question entered his own network from. The last cooperative network in the chain gets stuck with the fee, forcing them to either reclaim the money from the malicious customer, the next network in the chain (in court) or pony up the money themselves.

Result: All routes to non-cooperating networks get dropped within days to weeks and scam-calling stops being a lucrative business basically instantly.

dredmorbius 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's pretty much the proposal I've made for some years.[1]

California has introduced bonding to telemarketing firms specifically. I feel that should apply at the carrier level, where networks carry a guaranteed bond, pay regular premiums on it, and are dinged for unwanted calls, with the proceeds being split among the called party and any third-party network(s) traversed by the calls. Downstream networks could seek compensation from ANY upstream network carrying the traffic regardless of whether or not they originated it.

This would both create a penalty for providing, or transiting, unsolicited calls, AND create an incentive for carriers / network providers themselves to pursue unsolicited traffic from their peers.

<https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg>

________________________________

Notes:

1. See for example <https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/111099306069523624>

bckr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think we have to do something this extreme. We have to give the system a total makeover. Somehow we also have to keep it from being fully centralized and have the big brother problem on the other side. Unfortunately these two goals are difficult to get through at the same time, with the system that we have.

giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If major states like California and New York pass it, and spam basically dies in those states, it wouldn't surprise me if it spreads across the country.

pixl97 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Assuming the nature of the spam and how it makes money.

ssalka 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cue the crypto bros touting their decentralized spam-detection blockchain

orbital-decay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Infeasible. Fraud or spam is usually pretty hard to confirm from one recording without additional context. Many scammers have plausible deniability or are just checking whether the number is active. Moreover, this solution would involve secret non-consensual recording; what if it's not a scam?

edoceo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How are they listening to a few minutes before the button? A "temporary" recording of the first 2 minutes of every call? I feel like there would be some privacy concerns.

namibj 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

It'd suffice for them to sign the transmitted information (audio and required timing metadata for the packet stream) and make you do the temporary recording on your side, transmitting it back to the provider once you hit the button, to let them handle the backup/safekeeping aspects for you.

verall 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of scams unfortunately operate right on the line of legality like the car warranty morons

cj 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but that's okay because you don't need 100% of spam calls to be recognized as spam for the incentive to do its job. The system still sounds like it could still work even if a large percent of calls weren't flagged.

orbital-decay an hour ago | parent [-]

This works both ways, if the detection rate is low then nobody would press a "lose $10" button.

dmitrygr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Simpler yet: require every call to come with a physical source address, huge (and enforced) jail times for faking it. Let the internet and the pissed callees crowdsource the rest

pessimizer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I spent a little time unsuccessfully looking for a reference, but in some ancient Greek and early Roman governments, newly elected officials who were in charge of money were required to personally indemnify (become responsible for the professional liabilities of) their predecessor.

If your predecessor committed fraud, you were 100% personally responsible for it. You would then gather the evidence and sue your predecessor for your losses.

Luc 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That sounds like a great way to attract scammers and dissuade honest people, so if it's ever been tried it must have failed spectacularly (I also searched for variations of this idea but didn't turn up anything).

giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How does your predecessor today have those funds? The problem is politicians get to "play" with wealth beyond their own reaches (typically).

amazingamazing 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t understand how this works. Suppose someone calls you about some political poll and you hit the button, would it count or not? What about a cold email (there was another such thread about cold emails being praised, i said fundamentally is spam but was downvoted lol).