Discussion:
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Add Reply
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 10:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.

I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.

However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.

I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
satisfying ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)
Ed Cryer
2018-07-20 12:04:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something like
"Hello. And how are you today?"
It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're paying
for it; you can have a captive audience.

Oh, I'm feeling very down today. My dad died and left me all his debts.
And then my computer blew up, and shattered the house, bringing down the
partition wall with next door. And then an alien flew in through the
window, abducted me to a mother-ship in the sky and implanted God knows
what in me. I'm finding that I've acquired extraordinary powers; such as
I can fly like a bird, and my eyes give out a beam of light which can
cut through solid objects like a laser beam, and there's a big S carved
on my front, and ... Hello, are you still there?

Ed
Mayayana
2018-07-20 13:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ed Cryer" <***@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote

| I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something like
| "Hello. And how are you today?"
| It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're paying
| for it; you can have a captive audience.
|

The only problem with that is that it's likely you're
talking to someone in India who's being paid pennies
and will gladly keep you on the line for hours if there's
a chance of getting you hacked. In the meantime, it's
not really their time you're wasting. It's yours.
It might be a good strategy for elderly people
living alone, though.
Brian Gregory
2018-07-22 12:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something like
| "Hello. And how are you today?"
| It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're paying
| for it; you can have a captive audience.
|
The only problem with that is that it's likely you're
talking to someone in India who's being paid pennies
and will gladly keep you on the line for hours if there's
a chance of getting you hacked. In the meantime, it's
not really their time you're wasting. It's yours.
It might be a good strategy for elderly people
living alone, though.
IME they're mostly not trying to hack you. They're trying to convince
you that your PC is dying/seriously infected and that you need to pay
them money for them to fix it and look after it in the future.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-22 16:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by Mayayana
and will gladly keep you on the line for hours if there's
a chance of getting you hacked. In the meantime, it's
not really their time you're wasting. It's yours.
That's the rub. _If_ you have time to waste, yes, plenty of things you
can do to wind them up, but I CBA any more.
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
IME they're mostly not trying to hack you. They're trying to convince
you that your PC is dying/seriously infected and that you need to pay
them money for them to fix it and look after it in the future.
It may differ from place to place and country to country. Certainly, I'm
pretty sure all the ones that have called me in the last year or several
have been criminals: the fact that my usual response of "hang on while I
get the police on the other line" makes them hang up ... plus, they
usually start with "your computer is malfunctioning" or something
similar.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
Brian Gregory
2018-07-22 17:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by Mayayana
and will gladly keep you on the line for hours if there's
a chance of getting you hacked. In the meantime, it's
not really their time you're wasting. It's yours.
That's the rub. _If_ you have time to waste, yes, plenty of things you
can do to wind them up, but I CBA any more.
[]
Post by Brian Gregory
IME they're mostly not trying to hack you. They're trying to convince
you that your PC is dying/seriously infected and that you need to pay
them money for them to fix it and look after it in the future.
It may differ from place to place and country to country. Certainly, I'm
pretty sure all the ones that have called me in the last year or several
have been criminals: the fact that my usual response of "hang on while I
get the police on the other line" makes them hang up ... plus, they
usually start with "your computer is malfunctioning" or something similar.
I never said they're not criminals. They are.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
NY
2018-07-22 18:10:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It may differ from place to place and country to country. Certainly, I'm
pretty sure all the ones that have called me in the last year or several
have been criminals: the fact that my usual response of "hang on while I
get the police on the other line" makes them hang up ... plus, they
usually start with "your computer is malfunctioning" or something similar.
I get a fair number that don't sound like scams but are simply organisations
offering to insulate my loft or walls, or to install solar cells.

But my view is that *any* organisation that phones me when I haven't asked
them to is guilty of the offence of "Pestering Me", irrespective of whether
they are scams. Since I say "no" on principle, I'm unlikely to get caught up
in a scam, but I resent having to stop what I'm doing to answer the phone to
someone who is trying to sell me something. Religious groups who knock at
the door tend to get a polite but very forceful "Go away, and don't bother
me or any of my neighbours or anyone else" sort of response: I make it very
clear that it isn't just what they are "selling" which I object to but the
whole concept of going door-to-door.
Nil
2018-07-22 21:15:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NY
I get a fair number that don't sound like scams but are simply
organisations offering to insulate my loft or walls, or to install
solar cells.
I get a few of those, too. Usually they want to "sweep my chimney"
(even though I don't have one) or "clean my air ducts". These calls are
just as illegal in my state as any other scammer. If I question them
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.

As I recall, the only legal calls are from services you've done
business with before, and charities and political calls. Anybody else
is a criminal by definition.
Ken Blake
2018-07-22 21:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:15:08 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
Post by NY
I get a fair number that don't sound like scams but are simply
organisations offering to insulate my loft or walls, or to install
solar cells.
I get a few of those, too. Usually they want to "sweep my chimney"
(even though I don't have one) or "clean my air ducts". These calls are
just as illegal in my state as any other scammer. If I question them
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
As I recall, the only legal calls are from services you've done
business with before, and charities and political calls. Anybody else
is a criminal by definition.
I don't care what's legal and what's not. I don't want *any* calls
soliciting me for *anything*. That includes services I've done
business with before and charities and political calls.

If I want to do business with them again, make a donation or vote for
their candidate, I'll contact them.

It may be an overreaction, but there's so much of this kind of stuff
going on these days that I almost don't want to have a telephone
anymore.
Nil
2018-07-22 22:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
I don't care what's legal and what's not. I don't want *any* calls
soliciting me for *anything*. That includes services I've done
business with before and charities and political calls.
If I want to do business with them again, make a donation or vote
for their candidate, I'll contact them.
It may be an overreaction, but there's so much of this kind of
stuff going on these days that I almost don't want to have a
telephone anymore.
Any of the legal callers are obligated to respect your request to put
you on their own Do Not Call list. That's about all you can do about
that. But in practice, I almost never get a "legal" commercial call. A
few political calls around election time. My town sometimes makes
emergency robo-calls. I used to get a very occasional call from a
charity I give to, but I asked them to stop and they did. Otherwise
nothing but junk calls. My solution for those is:

1) Rely on Nomorobo to block most of them;

2) Use my phone service's limited blocking feature to block the few
numbers that call repeatedly (I have a "3 strikes yer out" policy.) But
really, robocallers rarely re-use numbers. They know better.

3) don't bother to answer the phone unless it's a Caller ID I
recognize. If it's someone I know, they will leave a message.

It's all a nuisance, but I manage to tolerate it.
John
2018-07-23 19:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:24:14 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
Post by Ken Blake
I don't care what's legal and what's not. I don't want *any* calls
soliciting me for *anything*. That includes services I've done
business with before and charities and political calls.
If I want to do business with them again, make a donation or vote
for their candidate, I'll contact them.
They don't know this thing about you. Especially the charities and
politicians. They see *you* as just one of a huge number of sources of
funds, support and votes. In the main, calling "you" (calling people
in general) does them no good, they don't get any funds, support or
votes from us but they do from a small number and every vote, currency
unit or volunteer counts.
It's just like the criminals. They don't catch many with their
idiotic vanishing creams, dubious timeshares or Nigerian prince
needing a safe way to get his money out but they do get sufficient
numbers to cover the cost of all of those calls.
Bugging the fuck out of you, personally, and me, personally, is a
small price to pay. We, as individuals were never going to help them
anyway so our levels of irkedness are moot.
It's the idiot sisters they are relying on and there are tens or
hundreds of millions of those.

It's like mass production. Economies of scale. Having sufficient
numbers of dumb, gullible but relatively cash-rich people to cheat to
make the effort of cheating them worthwhile.

You don't count. I don't count. Only the victims matter.

And there are millions of those untapped.
Post by Nil
Post by Ken Blake
It may be an overreaction, but there's so much of this kind of
stuff going on these days that I almost don't want to have a
telephone anymore.
I need mine for the broadband.
Post by Nil
Any of the legal callers are obligated to respect your request to put
you on their own Do Not Call list. That's about all you can do about
that. But in practice, I almost never get a "legal" commercial call. A
few political calls around election time. My town sometimes makes
emergency robo-calls. I used to get a very occasional call from a
charity I give to, but I asked them to stop and they did. Otherwise
1) Rely on Nomorobo to block most of them;
2) Use my phone service's limited blocking feature to block the few
numbers that call repeatedly (I have a "3 strikes yer out" policy.) But
really, robocallers rarely re-use numbers. They know better.
3) don't bother to answer the phone unless it's a Caller ID I
recognize. If it's someone I know, they will leave a message.
I answer all calls if I'm awake, present and close enough to a
handset. It was trained into me and I can't shake it. Not that it's an
onerous task as I now get about one call every few years.
Post by Nil
It's all a nuisance, but I manage to tolerate it.
I got a call from "Dave", today. He said he was representing an
insurance company who would give me lots of money if there had been an
accident in the last three years.
I mentioned that, with seven milliards of people on the planet there
must be accidents happening all of the time so this policy would cost
him a lot and would make me very wealthy.
"Dave" didn't seem to mind. He just kept spooling off his spiel.
"Dave" was a robot.
"Dave" was the only person-like thing to call me in months.

I have never been called by politicians or charities. Posibly because
I never leave my number where they can find it and I'm TPS registered.
Or possibly because they know I'm unlikely to help them and very
likely to try to sell them on some scheme to gentrify Jupiter with
Apollo era technologies.

J.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-23 00:45:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@wheedledeedle.moc>, Nil
<***@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> writes:
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?

Isn't faking CLI illegal?

If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't think
they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that _relay_ it
maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must know it isn't
coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if they're from abroad,
then it's the one that handles the call where it enters the country.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You can believe it if it helps you to sleep. - Quoted by Tom Lehrer (on
religion, in passing), April 2013.
Nil
2018-07-23 01:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
Isn't faking CLI illegal?
If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't
think they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that
_relay_ it maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_
must know it isn't coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if
they're from abroad, then it's the one that handles the call where
it enters the country.)
I've been led to understand that most of the fake calls are coming from
offshore (often India, China, Africa, or elsewhere), or the internet
calls are routed through offshore facilities so they're untrackable. I
think it's very difficult to control that sort of thing. They are
already operating as criminals, and I suppose the legality of faking
Caller IDs is low on their list of concerns.

But, yeah, I'd say close to 100% of the junk robocalls are using fake
CLIs.

I mentioned before that I keep a log of all junk calls, going back to
2012 (you could legitimately say that I have too much time on my hands,
but whatever...) I sometime call back the (ostensive) caller number -
here if you precede the call with *69 your own Caller ID will be hidden
- and I almost always find that the number is invalid, that is, faked.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-23 07:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nil
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
Isn't faking CLI illegal?
If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't
think they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that
_relay_ it maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_
must know it isn't coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if
they're from abroad, then it's the one that handles the call where
it enters the country.)
I've been led to understand that most of the fake calls are coming from
offshore (often India, China, Africa, or elsewhere), or the internet
calls are routed through offshore facilities so they're untrackable. I
think it's very difficult to control that sort of thing. They are
already operating as criminals, and I suppose the legality of faking
Caller IDs is low on their list of concerns.
Yes, going after the original criminals isn't going to get anywhere.
That's why I want to go after the telcons. Routing calls through
offshore facilities shouldn't be any excuse: the point at which those
calls enter (or re-enter) the country should detect an incoming
international call that comes with an internal CLI.

OK, there _are_ a few cases where spoofing of CLI are valid - though I
think fewer than claimed. But it still ought to be possible to monitor
and control them: and certainly it ought to be possible to detect when
they're using an invalid one.
Post by Nil
But, yeah, I'd say close to 100% of the junk robocalls are using fake
CLIs.
I mentioned before that I keep a log of all junk calls, going back to
2012 (you could legitimately say that I have too much time on my hands,
but whatever...) I sometime call back the (ostensive) caller number -
here if you precede the call with *69 your own Caller ID will be hidden
- and I almost always find that the number is invalid, that is, faked.
(I think it's 141 here. Or you can have it on by default, and then you
use IIRR 1470 if you _do_ want it revealed.) Yes, "number withheld" is
different from a faked one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

offensive speech is something to be protected, not celebrated.
- "yoni", 2015-8-5
Mark Lloyd
2018-07-23 14:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/22/2018 08:12 PM, Nil wrote:

[snip]
Post by Nil
I mentioned before that I keep a log of all junk calls, going back to
2012 (you could legitimately say that I have too much time on my hands,
but whatever...) I sometime call back the (ostensive) caller number -
here if you precede the call with *69 your own Caller ID will be hidden
- and I almost always find that the number is invalid, that is, faked.
Or the number could belong to someone who has nothing to do with the
junk caller, so YOU are annoying someone (same thing that can happen
when you respond to spam email).

Also, I get a lot of calls that claim to be from a city, state (like
"NEW YORK, NY". I was surprised last week when I got one with such an ID
that was legitimate (robocall but still legitimate, announcement of a
burn ban).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"If God dropped acid, would he see people?" [Steven Wright]
Nil
2018-07-23 19:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Lloyd
Or the number could belong to someone who has nothing to do with
the junk caller, so YOU are annoying someone (same thing that can
happen when you respond to spam email).
No. All the numbers I've ever called back have turned out to be Not In
Service - that is, the numbers were spoofed in the first place.

In the email world that's called a "Joe Job" - using a legitimate From
when sending out spam. Sometimes the intent is to harass the owner of
the From. It could happen with junk phone calls, too, and in fact I
have noticed many spoofed caller IDs that appear to have belonged to
real people at some time but aren't in use any longer.
Post by Mark Lloyd
Also, I get a lot of calls that claim to be from a city, state
(like "NEW YORK, NY". I was surprised last week when I got one
with such an ID that was legitimate (robocall but still
legitimate, announcement of a burn ban).
There are a few like that, but they'll leave a message. I've never had
Nomorobo block one of those.
Ken Blake
2018-07-23 20:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:15:28 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
Post by Mark Lloyd
Or the number could belong to someone who has nothing to do with
the junk caller, so YOU are annoying someone (same thing that can
happen when you respond to spam email).
No. All the numbers I've ever called back have turned out to be Not In
Service - that is, the numbers were spoofed in the first place.
In the email world that's called a "Joe Job" - using a legitimate From
when sending out spam. Sometimes the intent is to harass the owner of
the From. It could happen with junk phone calls, too, and in fact I
have noticed many spoofed caller IDs that appear to have belonged to
real people at some time but aren't in use any longer.
Post by Mark Lloyd
Also, I get a lot of calls that claim to be from a city, state
(like "NEW YORK, NY". I was surprised last week when I got one
with such an ID that was legitimate (robocall but still
legitimate, announcement of a burn ban).
There are a few like that, but they'll leave a message. I've never had
Nomorobo block one of those.
How do you know what NoMoRoBo blocks?
Nil
2018-07-23 21:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
How do you know what NoMoRoBo blocks?
For one, the phone rings only once and then NoMo. That's the point when
Nomorobo does its blocking magic.

For two, my phone carrier has an on-line log of all calls, blocked or
not.
Ken Blake
2018-07-23 22:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 17:19:20 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
Post by Ken Blake
How do you know what NoMoRoBo blocks?
For one, the phone rings only once and then NoMo. That's the point when
Nomorobo does its blocking magic.
Yes, I know. That's why I asked.
Post by Nil
For two, my phone carrier has an on-line log of all calls, blocked or
not.
Ah, that's the way you know. I don't know whether mine does or not.
I've never looked. I don't particularly care who they're blocked, but
out of curiosity, I'll check when I get a chance.
Nil
2018-07-23 22:31:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 17:19:20 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
For two, my phone carrier has an on-line log of all calls, blocked
or not.
Ah, that's the way you know. I don't know whether mine does or
not. I've never looked. I don't particularly care who they're
blocked, but out of curiosity, I'll check when I get a chance.
I started off wanting to make sure Nomorobo wasn't blocking calls that
it shouldn't. As far as I can tell, it never has. I kept keeping track
because I was interested to see things like, what numbers recurred, any
patterns of frequency or time of day, what spam campaigns were going
around, etc.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-23 23:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<***@invalid.news.com> writes:
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I don't know
.
I've never looked.
[]
Sorry, can't resist - but the above is the standard reply to the
question ...






.





.





.





.





.




.



.

"Do you smoke after sex?"
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Mark Lloyd
2018-07-24 15:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/23/2018 02:15 PM, Nil wrote:

[snip]
Post by Nil
There are a few like that, but they'll leave a message. I've never had
Nomorobo block one of those.
This one did. A few junk callers do leave messages (including "This is
Officer. You have been sued by the IRS..."). Anyway, the junk messages
don't seem so bad once they're no longer real time.

BTW, there was really NO name given after "Officer".
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he ever send me flowers?
Brian Gregory
2018-07-25 23:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]
Post by Nil
There are a few like that, but they'll leave a message. I've never had
Nomorobo block one of those.
This one did. A few junk callers do leave messages (including "This is
Officer. You have been sued by the IRS..."). Anyway, the junk messages
don't seem so bad once they're no longer real time.
BTW, there was really NO name given after "Officer".
Yes it's almost as if somebody produces kits of messages to use for robo
dialer scams and the scammers buy them and don't follow the instructions
and leave the description of what they should fill in rather than
actually filling in the name.

I've had: "This is internet service provider, your internet will be cut
off soon if you don't....".

Pathetic.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
Paul
2018-07-23 03:52:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
Isn't faking CLI illegal?
If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't think
they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that _relay_ it
maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must know it isn't
coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if they're from abroad,
then it's the one that handles the call where it enters the country.)
Caller ID wasn't invented for any purpose, except to
place a $2 a month charge on a phone bill. That
seemed to be the only objective when it was invented.

Setting up calls is handled by SS7 and this is the thing
phone companies worry about. As this is how they track
network usage for long distance. See this section
for just how bad it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7

"Protocol security vulnerabilities"

"Sir Cares-A-Lot" doesn't work at the phone company :-)

The same goes for infrastructure operators, and hackable
features of the power distribution system. "Sir Cares-A-Lot"
never worked there either.

Paul
Wolf K
2018-07-23 12:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
Isn't faking CLI illegal?
If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't think
they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that _relay_ it
maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must know it isn't
coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if they're from abroad,
then it's the one that handles the call where it enters the country.)
Sure it's illegal, but how do you find and convict the perpetrators?
Especially since police forces are underfunded, which means understaffed
and under-trained.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-23 19:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
Isn't faking CLI illegal?
If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't
think they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that
_relay_ it maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must
know it isn't coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if they're
from abroad, then it's the one that handles the call where it enters
the country.)
Sure it's illegal, but how do you find and convict the perpetrators?
Especially since police forces are underfunded, which means
understaffed and under-trained.
You miss my point. I'm not talking about the primary perpetrators, who
we're going to have great difficulty finding and convicting, especially
since a fair percentage of them are abroad anyway. I'm talking about
those who abet them: the telcom companies who route these calls. A
telcom company isn't hard to find.

Of course, my contention that they're participating in the crime, though
I'm sure perfectly valid, won't get anywhere, as they have far more
clout (e. g. with the legislature) than I do.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of - David Moser
Wolf K
2018-07-23 20:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
 Isn't faking CLI illegal?
 If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't
think  they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that
_relay_ it  maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must
know it isn't  coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if
they're from abroad,  then it's the one that handles the call where
it enters the country.)
Sure it's illegal, but how do you find and convict the perpetrators?
Especially since police forces are underfunded, which means
understaffed and under-trained.
You miss my point. I'm not talking about the primary perpetrators, who
we're going to have great difficulty finding and convicting, especially
since a fair percentage of them are abroad anyway. I'm talking about
those who abet them: the telcom companies who route these calls. A
telcom company isn't hard to find.
Telecom's are regulated. Basically, they can't refuse/censor traffic,
unless it's been defined as illegal. Problem is, suspicious traffic must
be shown to be illegal in order to block it. O'wise, telecoms are liable
to litigation by annoyed customers.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Of course, my contention that they're participating in the crime, though
I'm sure perfectly valid, won't get anywhere, as they have far more
clout (e. g. with the legislature) than I do.
AIUI, telecoms are viewed as "common carriers". It's up to the shipper
to ensure the cargo is legal. The common carrier is not liable to
criminal prosecution if it accepted the cargo in good faith as
conforming to all applicable regulations. Of course it's expected to
take common-sense precautions to ensure cargo is safe, and transported
safely, etc, but ultimately, it has to rely on the shipper's word.

Bottom line: You have to catch the number spoofers (etc) in the act.
It's not easy. In Canada, one can report a suspected spam calls (etc) to
the Mounties. The usual reslt is another warning about a new twist on an
old scam.

FWIW, back in the early days of Internet service, Bell Canada wanted to
charge customers for spam filtering. I wasn't the only one who pointed
out to them that it was in their own interest to kill spam as soon as it
entered their network, since spam eats up bandwidth. Their spam
filtering is quite good. I periodically go to the email web portal, and
check and empty the spam folders. In the last two years or so, I haven't
found a single false positive. Very little spam manages to get past the
filyers to the Inbox.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-23 21:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
 Isn't faking CLI illegal?
 If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't
think  they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that
_relay_ it  maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must
know it isn't  coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if
they're from abroad,  then it's the one that handles the call where
it enters the country.)
Sure it's illegal, but how do you find and convict the perpetrators?
Especially since police forces are underfunded, which means
understaffed and under-trained.
You miss my point. I'm not talking about the primary perpetrators,
who we're going to have great difficulty finding and convicting,
especially since a fair percentage of them are abroad anyway. I'm
talking about those who abet them: the telcom companies who route
these calls. A telcom company isn't hard to find.
Telecom's are regulated. Basically, they can't refuse/censor traffic,
unless it's been defined as illegal. Problem is, suspicious traffic
must be shown to be illegal in order to block it. O'wise, telecoms are
liable to litigation by annoyed customers.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Of course, my contention that they're participating in the crime,
though I'm sure perfectly valid, won't get anywhere, as they have far
more clout (e. g. with the legislature) than I do.
AIUI, telecoms are viewed as "common carriers". It's up to the shipper
to ensure the cargo is legal. The common carrier is not liable to
criminal prosecution if it accepted the cargo in good faith as
conforming to all applicable regulations. Of course it's expected to
take common-sense precautions to ensure cargo is safe, and transported
safely, etc, but ultimately, it has to rely on the shipper's word.
I did say earlier in the thread, but here goes again: I suppose the
telcos who just route the call could claim common carrier. But the ones
in whose network it _originates_ must know the CLI is being illegally
spoofed - since AFAIK in most cases the CLI is not generated by the
originator, but by the telco who provides the originator's service. (And
in the case of foreign-originated calls that have a domestic CLI, the
one that owns the interface must know it's wrong.)
Post by Wolf K
Bottom line: You have to catch the number spoofers (etc) in the act.
Or, surely, prove that the numbers are spoofed, even if you don't know
who the originators are. (_Knowingly_ propagating a crime, I'm pretty
certain, makes you a criminal, even if you don't _originate_ it.)
Post by Wolf K
It's not easy. In Canada, one can report a suspected spam calls (etc)
to the Mounties. The usual reslt is another warning about a new twist
on an old scam.
FWIW, back in the early days of Internet service, Bell Canada wanted to
charge customers for spam filtering. I wasn't the only one who pointed
out to them that it was in their own interest to kill spam as soon as
it entered their network, since spam eats up bandwidth. Their spam
filtering is quite good. I periodically go to the email web portal, and
check and empty the spam folders. In the last two years or so, I
haven't found a single false positive. Very little spam manages to get
past the filyers to the Inbox.
If they're keeping the spam long enough for you to be able to check it
occasionally, then presumably they're _not_ filtering it where it
_enters_ their network - and not saving bandwidth except on the final
drop to you?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.
Wolf K
2018-07-23 23:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
[...]
FWIW, back in the early days of Internet service, Bell Canada wanted
to charge customers for spam filtering. I wasn't the only one who
pointed out to them that it was in their own interest to kill spam as
soon as it entered their network, since spam eats up bandwidth. Their
spam filtering is quite good. I periodically go to the email web
portal, and check and empty the spam folders. In the last two years or
so, I haven't found a single false positive. Very little spam manages
to get past the filyers to the Inbox.
If they're keeping the spam long enough for you to be able to check it
occasionally, then presumably they're _not_ filtering it where it
_enters_ their network - and not saving bandwidth except on the final
drop to you?
Yes, and AFAIK that's the slowest part of the network, because a) it's
copper; and b) it's shared with I dunno how many other subscribers.
Enough, that there's noticeable time-of-day speed variations. The trunk
lines are much glass. Actually, the final drop is from the modem/wi-fi
router to the device. When we have family visiting, and there are more
than three or four people on our wi-fi, everything slows down.

Also, the spam folder has far fewer items in it than it used to have. My
guess is that if I mark something as spam, their algorithms take note,
and adjust their filtering upstream.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)
Char Jackson
2018-07-26 00:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 01:45:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Nil
they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's
usually not in service.
[]
Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you?
Isn't faking CLI illegal?
I'm still catching up on this thread, so someone may have mentioned that
here in the US it's not illegal to spoof what we call Caller ID. Thus,
the telco's aren't participating in any crime by passing on what they
receive.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't think
they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that _relay_ it
maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must know it isn't
coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if they're from abroad,
then it's the one that handles the call where it enters the country.)
Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual
apostrophe with a period?
--
Char Jackson
David E. Ross
2018-07-26 02:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual
apostrophe with a period?
It is not only you. I too see a period instead of an apostrophe.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Attorney-General Sessions claims the bible favors imprisoning illegal
aliens. However, God repeatedly commanded us to welcome the stranger in
our land. For example, see the following:
Exodus 22:20 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=22#P2131>
Exodus 23:9 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=23#P2151>
Deuteronomy 10:19 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=10#P5200>
Char Jackson
2018-07-26 06:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:30:46 -0700, "David E. Ross"
Post by David E. Ross
Post by Char Jackson
Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual
apostrophe with a period?
It is not only you. I too see a period instead of an apostrophe.
Thanks. Maybe it's a new thing that I'm slow to catch on to. :-)
I'm sure John (J.P.) will clue me in.
--
Char Jackson
NY
2018-07-22 15:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something like
| "Hello. And how are you today?"
| It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're paying
| for it; you can have a captive audience.
|
The only problem with that is that it's likely you're
talking to someone in India who's being paid pennies
and will gladly keep you on the line for hours if there's
a chance of getting you hacked. In the meantime, it's
not really their time you're wasting. It's yours.
It might be a good strategy for elderly people
living alone, though.
My grandma used to invite JWs into the house if they called at the door.
She'd go along with them and make it sound as if she was really interested
and a possible convert. She also had a goof chat to them. Eventually she
would come clean that she had no interest in religion at all, and was just
doing it as a service to her neighbours in keeping them off the street to
prevent them bothering anyone else.

She said she got a fair amount of the sort of language that you wouldn't
expect JWs to use :-)
Mayayana
2018-07-22 17:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"NY" <***@privacy.net> wrote

| My grandma used to invite JWs into the house if they called at the door.
| She'd go along with them and make it sound as if she was really interested
| and a possible convert. She also had a goof chat to them. Eventually she
| would come clean that she had no interest in religion at all, and was just
| doing it as a service to her neighbours in keeping them off the street to
| prevent them bothering anyone else.
|
| She said she got a fair amount of the sort of language that you wouldn't
| expect JWs to use :-)
|

I'll sometimes talk to them. They're sincere.
They mean well. Similarly with the Mormons. They
truly hope to save others. It might be naive, but
there's generosity there, twisted though it may be.
Wolf K
2018-07-20 13:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be
possible to devise something that could do something to their systems,
while pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the
initial call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been
difficult! - so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something like
"Hello. And how are you today?"
It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're paying
for it; you can have a captive audience.
Oh, I'm feeling very down today. My dad died and left me all his debts.
And then my computer blew up, and shattered the house, bringing down the
partition wall with next door. And then an alien flew in through the
window, abducted me to a mother-ship in the sky and implanted God knows
what in me. I'm finding that I've acquired extraordinary powers; such as
I can fly like a bird, and my eyes give out a beam of light which can
cut through solid objects like a laser beam, and there's a big S carved
on my front, and ... Hello, are you still there?
Ed
I've kept some of these callers on the line by whining and whinging and
pleading with them to tell me which of our three computers is the
infected one. I once kept the guy on the line for almost 10 minutes. I
know they are poor sods trying to make a living, but the organisations
they work for are evil.

Recently, we've been getting calls from someone or other who tells us
"We've been monitoring your credit card usage and you qualify for a zero
interest card....Press 1 for..." or some such. The caller ID shows it's
a local call, which is a red flag right there. If I figure out a script
to keep them on the line, I'll "Press 1..."

These people deserve no pity whatsoever.



Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
Ken Blake
2018-07-20 14:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
I've kept some of these callers on the line by whining and whinging and
pleading with them to tell me which of our three computers is the
infected one. I once kept the guy on the line for almost 10 minutes. I
know they are poor sods trying to make a living, but the organisations
they work for are evil.
There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
Weatherman
2018-07-20 14:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Wolf K
I've kept some of these callers on the line by whining and whinging and
pleading with them to tell me which of our three computers is the
infected one. I once kept the guy on the line for almost 10 minutes. I
know they are poor sods trying to make a living, but the organisations
they work for are evil.
There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
I agree with you except for the bank robbers. That's a public service
after all the banks have stolen from us.
Mayayana
2018-07-20 14:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ken Blake" <***@invalid.news.com> wrote

| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.

This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.

But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 15:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.

The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
(-:
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"There are a great many people in the country today who, through no fault of
their own, are sane." - Monty Python's Flying Circus
Wolf K
2018-07-20 15:59:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-20 11:21, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Gee, but you're evil. Admirable!
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
Mayayana
2018-07-20 16:26:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
|
| The CLIs are often spoofed though -

We don't pay for it anymore. Here, also, it's often
spoofed. And a recent trick is for fundraisers to use
a personal cellphone with a local exchange, so it
seems legit. But the nice thing is that I can tell
if a caller is someone I know.

Few are legit. So I just ignore them, unless
they're someone I know. The few people who get
blocked can leave a message. The whole thing
used to drive me crazy when I answered each call.
Now I use a lot of email and usually only need to
glance at the phone when it rings.

| I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
| but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
| work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
| systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
| lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
| police station in their country ...)

I don't see how that might be possible. You're
on a phone call. There's no server connection
going on.

Were you thinking of a case where they want
access to your computer? Even then, if you let them
run some kind of remote desktop, you'd have to be
a very clever hacker with knowledge of bugs in
that software to attack them back.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 18:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
|
| The CLIs are often spoofed though -
We don't pay for it anymore. Here, also, it's often
We don't pay for CLI, either (well, it depends who your telcon. provider
is and what tariff you're on). I was referring to the blocking 'phone
when I said I didn't see why _I_ should pay for it.
Post by Mayayana
spoofed. And a recent trick is for fundraisers to use
a personal cellphone with a local exchange, so it
seems legit. But the nice thing is that I can tell
if a caller is someone I know.
In UK, all fobile numbers start with 07. I've only once had a marketing
call from one of those.
[]
Post by Mayayana
| I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
| but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
| work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
| systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
| lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
| police station in their country ...)
I don't see how that might be possible. You're
on a phone call. There's no server connection
going on.
Not initially, but ...
Post by Mayayana
Were you thinking of a case where they want
access to your computer? Even then, if you let them
run some kind of remote desktop, you'd have to be
a very clever hacker with knowledge of bugs in
that software to attack them back.
... yes, that's what I was thinking of. Pretend to do what they ask but
instead, upload something nasty. However, as you say, almost certainly
not possible. Too many bad movies (Independence Day, I'm looking at you
...)
[Actually, I enjoyed that movie - if you ignored the technical errors,
it was a good romp. And IIRR that was the one that had some very
gentlemanly and unrealistic Brits in it.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make!
Mayayana
2018-07-20 20:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| > Were you thinking of a case where they want
| >access to your computer? Even then, if you let them
| >run some kind of remote desktop, you'd have to be
| >a very clever hacker with knowledge of bugs in
| >that software to attack them back.
| >
| ... yes, that's what I was thinking of. Pretend to do what they ask but
| instead, upload something nasty. However, as you say, almost certainly
| not possible.

One of my brothers fell for that one. They downloaded
a remote desktop program but only used it to move things
around and open windows, in order to convince him that
they were, indeed, Microsoft and that they did, indeed,
have control over his computer. They didn't try to upload
anything and as near as I could tell didn't change anything.

Fortunately, my brother's a starving artist and had no credit
card number to give them. That was all they were interested
in. With that particular scam, and the "you're infected!" type
of scams, they seem to try hard to act legit and get people
to pay them willingly.
Mark Lloyd
2018-07-21 16:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/20/2018 11:26 AM, Mayayana wrote:

[snip]
Post by Mayayana
Few are legit. So I just ignore them, unless
they're someone I know. The few people who get
blocked can leave a message. The whole thing
used to drive me crazy when I answered each call.
Now I use a lot of email and usually only need to
glance at the phone when it rings.
Many of the junk calls I get are identified with a city (rather than
someone's name). I don't answer those but give the caller a chance to
leave a message before blocking the number. Junk callers seldom do.

Thursday, a got a surprise. A legitimate call from my city name. It was
a notice about a county-wide burn ban. So "city name" calls aren't 100%
junk, just about 99.5%.

Other IDs I see with junk calls are "TOLL FREE CALL" and
excessively-generic business names (like "JKL Partners").
Post by Mayayana
| I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
| but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
| work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
| systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
| lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
| police station in their country ...)
I don't see how that might be possible. You're
on a phone call. There's no server connection
going on.
I won't let any unknown person have access to my computer.
Post by Mayayana
Were you thinking of a case where they want
access to your computer? Even then, if you let them
run some kind of remote desktop, you'd have to be
a very clever hacker with knowledge of bugs in
that software to attack them back.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"When a minister says that God will help you, ask him to put up the
collateral." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other
Essays_]
Ed Cryer
2018-07-20 17:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
 This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
 But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;

and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.

Ed (:-
VanguardLH
2018-07-20 18:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
 This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
 But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;
http://youtu.be/PDE9b5iU8vI
and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.
Ed (:-
If you have an answering machine (where you can listen to new calls to
screen them by waiting for someone to start leaving a message and then
pick up the handset if you want to talk to them), you could add the
"service disconnected" tone to the beginning of your outgoing voicemail
message. Robodialers will not remove you from their calling list if you
hang up on their call. You'll go back into their queue. However, many
robodialers are calling non-verified phone numbers and will update their
list when they hit a disconnected number. They only have so much time
to make so many calls, so they don't want to waste time redialing a dead
number. Only add the 3-tone sound to the start of your outgoing
message. Do not add "This line is no longer in service." You want the
robodialer to hear the tone and remove you from their calling list.
Real humans will hear the tone which is immediately following with your
real outgoing message to them.

https://lifehacker.com/182989/stop-telemarketers-with-disconnected-line-tones

You need to hunt down a recording of just the SIT (Special Information
Tone) sound - just the sound and not followed by a human-like
explanation. You want to confuse the robodialer, not human callers. I
had to find someone that had recorded just the tone. At Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones), record their
vacant SIT. You only need one copy (wiki pays the tone twice). I did
find another copy at:

http://www.yourhomenow.com/sound/sit-tone.wav

Your outgoing message would be something like "<SIT> You have reached
<yourname>. Please leave a message after the tone. Thankyou." The
robodialer will drop the call after hearing the SIT.

Since most robodialers will disconnect after the 3rd ring, they won't
hear the 3-tone sound at the start of your outgoing message. Most
answering machines won't let you configure them to answer on shorter
than 4 rings; however, some let you send all calls to voicemail. With
monitoring (aka screening) enabled on the answering machine, you could
hear it was a real human and perhaps someone you want to talk to to
interrupt the voicemail to take the call. Lots of answering machines
have screening.

Been too long to remember but I once played with an automated phone
system using my computer, analog modem, and some software. When a new
call was received, and just like the voice prompts you get at large
companies that make you drill through their menus, this setup would have
callers press "1" to forward the call to you. All it did was have the
modem ring an attached phone. Robodialers cannot follow instructions.
Since the instruction was issued during the robocall and before any
human spammer picked up the call, they wouldn't hear the instruction to
hit "1" to forward the call.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 18:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <***@nguard.LH>
writes:
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Been too long to remember but I once played with an automated phone
system using my computer, analog modem, and some software. When a new
[]
Did you get through to any good games companies? Such as the one that
had "Global Thermonuclear Warfare"?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make!
VanguardLH
2018-07-20 21:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by VanguardLH
Been too long to remember but I once played with an automated phone
system using my computer, analog modem, and some software. When a new
Did you get through to any good games companies? Such as the one that
had "Global Thermonuclear Warfare"?
No, unlike David in "Wargames", I wasn't dialing numbers to find some
computers that would answer phone calls. I used my setup to screen
incoming calls. The WOPR computer never called me.
Ed Cryer
2018-07-20 21:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
 This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
 But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;
http://youtu.be/PDE9b5iU8vI
and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.
Ed (:-
If you have an answering machine (where you can listen to new calls to
screen them by waiting for someone to start leaving a message and then
pick up the handset if you want to talk to them), you could add the
"service disconnected" tone to the beginning of your outgoing voicemail
message. Robodialers will not remove you from their calling list if you
hang up on their call. You'll go back into their queue. However, many
robodialers are calling non-verified phone numbers and will update their
list when they hit a disconnected number. They only have so much time
to make so many calls, so they don't want to waste time redialing a dead
number. Only add the 3-tone sound to the start of your outgoing
message. Do not add "This line is no longer in service." You want the
robodialer to hear the tone and remove you from their calling list.
Real humans will hear the tone which is immediately following with your
real outgoing message to them.
https://lifehacker.com/182989/stop-telemarketers-with-disconnected-line-tones
You need to hunt down a recording of just the SIT (Special Information
Tone) sound - just the sound and not followed by a human-like
explanation. You want to confuse the robodialer, not human callers. I
had to find someone that had recorded just the tone. At Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones), record their
vacant SIT. You only need one copy (wiki pays the tone twice). I did
http://www.yourhomenow.com/sound/sit-tone.wav
Your outgoing message would be something like "<SIT> You have reached
<yourname>. Please leave a message after the tone. Thankyou." The
robodialer will drop the call after hearing the SIT.
Since most robodialers will disconnect after the 3rd ring, they won't
hear the 3-tone sound at the start of your outgoing message. Most
answering machines won't let you configure them to answer on shorter
than 4 rings; however, some let you send all calls to voicemail. With
monitoring (aka screening) enabled on the answering machine, you could
hear it was a real human and perhaps someone you want to talk to to
interrupt the voicemail to take the call. Lots of answering machines
have screening.
Been too long to remember but I once played with an automated phone
system using my computer, analog modem, and some software. When a new
call was received, and just like the voice prompts you get at large
companies that make you drill through their menus, this setup would have
callers press "1" to forward the call to you. All it did was have the
modem ring an attached phone. Robodialers cannot follow instructions.
Since the instruction was issued during the robocall and before any
human spammer picked up the call, they wouldn't hear the instruction to
hit "1" to forward the call.
There's some way of keeping a telephone line open even when the number
called hangs up.
I've been on the receiving end of this from a spam auto-caller. It
calls, I answer, it starts telling me how fabulous it's company's
product is, I hang up, wait ten seconds, pick up phone, and the thing's
still droning on; and it does that until it's finished its little lecture.
How do they do that?

Ed
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 22:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <pitlr6$sb4$***@dont-email.me>, Ed Cryer
<***@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes:
[]
Post by Ed Cryer
There's some way of keeping a telephone line open even when the number
called hangs up.
I've been on the receiving end of this from a spam auto-caller. It
calls, I answer, it starts telling me how fabulous it's company's
product is, I hang up, wait ten seconds, pick up phone, and the thing's
still droning on; and it does that until it's finished its little lecture.
How do they do that?
Ed
(This applies here in UK - probably there as well.) If only one party
hangs up, the connection remains open - for a time. I presume it's to
prevent _accidental_ termination of a call due to noise on the line, or
similar. (It _can_ even be useful - lets you hang up one 'phone and pick
up another, say if one handset's battery runs out, or you want to go to
another one next to your desk or something.) It _does_ time out
eventually, but after quite a lot of seconds. Banging on the rest
_sometimes_ clears it.

Unfortunately, it's well known to be misused by evil folk: they'll ring
up pretending to be your bank or whatever, then suggest you hang up and
call the bank using a number _you_ choose. Unfortunately, they keep the
line open - even playing you a recording of the dial tone when you hang
up and pick up again, so you _think_ you're genuinely dialling.

Because of this, I think there are moves in place to force the
telecomm.s companies to prevent it, mainly I think by shortening the
timeout-on-one-party-hangup. In the meantime, the advice is - should you
receive such a call apparently from your bank, though this is unlikely -
that tells you to call them back, to first call some unrelated number,
such as a relative.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28
VanguardLH
2018-07-20 23:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ed Cryer
There's some way of keeping a telephone line open even when the number
called hangs up.
I've been on the receiving end of this from a spam auto-caller. It
calls, I answer, it starts telling me how fabulous it's company's
product is, I hang up, wait ten seconds, pick up phone, and the thing's
still droning on; and it does that until it's finished its little lecture.
How do they do that?
Ed
(This applies here in UK - probably there as well.) If only one party
hangs up, the connection remains open - for a time. I presume it's to
prevent _accidental_ termination of a call due to noise on the line, or
similar. (It _can_ even be useful - lets you hang up one 'phone and pick
up another, say if one handset's battery runs out, or you want to go to
another one next to your desk or something.) It _does_ time out
eventually, but after quite a lot of seconds. Banging on the rest
_sometimes_ clears it.
Unfortunately, it's well known to be misused by evil folk: they'll ring
up pretending to be your bank or whatever, then suggest you hang up and
call the bank using a number _you_ choose. Unfortunately, they keep the
line open - even playing you a recording of the dial tone when you hang
up and pick up again, so you _think_ you're genuinely dialling.
Because of this, I think there are moves in place to force the
telecomm.s companies to prevent it, mainly I think by shortening the
timeout-on-one-party-hangup. In the meantime, the advice is - should you
receive such a call apparently from your bank, though this is unlikely -
that tells you to call them back, to first call some unrelated number,
such as a relative.
https://www.niceincontact.com/blog/caller-controlled-disconnect-and-how-it-affects-home-agent/

CCD is a throwback to the old days of mechanical switches at the phone
exchanges. Some PSTNs will disconnect an idle call after 2 minutes.
You'd have to ask yours how long they keep a call connected when one of
the parties has hung up on their end.
rp
2018-07-21 06:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Because of this, I think there are moves in place to force the
telecomm.s companies to prevent it, mainly I think by shortening the
timeout-on-one-party-hangup.
It was only if the called party hung up and it's been changed to only a
couple of seconds now and has been for a couple of years.
--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail rpont (at) gmail (dot) com
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-21 14:52:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rp
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Because of this, I think there are moves in place to force the
telecomm.s companies to prevent it, mainly I think by shortening the
timeout-on-one-party-hangup.
It was only if the called party hung up and it's been changed to only a
couple of seconds now and has been for a couple of years.
Thanks.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"There are a great many people in the country today who, through no fault of
their own, are sane." - Monty Python's Flying Circus
Brian Gregory
2018-07-22 17:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(This applies here in UK - probably there as well.) If only one party
hangs up, the connection remains open - for a time. I presume it's to
If the caller hangs up the call disconnects immediately.
But if the called person hangs up there is a timeout before the call
disconnects.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
prevent _accidental_ termination of a call due to noise on the line, or
similar. (It _can_ even be useful - lets you hang up one 'phone and pick
up another, say if one handset's battery runs out, or you want to go to
another one next to your desk or something.) It _does_ time out
eventually, but after quite a lot of seconds. Banging on the rest
_sometimes_ clears it.
If you "bang on the rest" you're probably sending a recall which opens
another outgoing line ready to start building a three way call, or ready
to switch between the two calls.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Unfortunately, it's well known to be misused by evil folk: they'll ring
up pretending to be your bank or whatever, then suggest you hang up and
call the bank using a number _you_ choose. Unfortunately, they keep the
line open - even playing you a recording of the dial tone when you hang
up and pick up again, so you _think_ you're genuinely dialling.
Because of this, I think there are moves in place to force the
telecomm.s companies to prevent it, mainly I think by shortening the
timeout-on-one-party-hangup. In the meantime, the advice is - should you
receive such a call apparently from your bank, though this is unlikely -
that tells you to call them back, to first call some unrelated number,
such as a relative.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
Ken Blake
2018-07-21 15:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
 This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
 But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;
http://youtu.be/PDE9b5iU8vI
and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.
Ed (:-
If you have an answering machine (where you can listen to new calls to
screen them by waiting for someone to start leaving a message and then
pick up the handset if you want to talk to them), you could add the
"service disconnected" tone to the beginning of your outgoing voicemail
message.
I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
(https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.
Mayayana
2018-07-21 15:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ken Blake" <***@invalid.news.com> wrote

| >If you have an answering machine (where you can listen to new calls to
| >screen them by waiting for someone to start leaving a message and then
| >pick up the handset if you want to talk to them), you could add the
| >"service disconnected" tone to the beginning of your outgoing voicemail
| >message.
|
|
| I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
| (https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.

He seems to be talking about a landline, which is
what many of us are using. Nomorobo characterizes
VOIP as a landline, but they're of no use for an
actual landline.
VanguardLH
2018-07-21 17:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
He seems to be talking about a landline, which is what many of us are
using. Nomorobo characterizes VOIP as a landline, but they're of no
use for an actual landline.
https://nomorobo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200536477-How-does-it-work-

Depends on whether your telco support simultaneous ring. The telco must
ring BOTH your phone and NoMoRobo at the same time. Caller ID info is
sent between the 1st and 2nd ring. If NoMoRobo's lookup detects the
caller is a robodialer then NoMoRobo picks up the call (so you'll hear
one ring and nothing more); else, your phone continues to ring. Even if
your telco supports simultaneous ring and it is part of your service
tier (i.e., you have full service, not some basic plan), it might be an
option that you need to enable.

https://nomorobo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205761775-What-phone-carriers-are-supported-

My guess of why NoMoRobo works with most VOIP and not with many of the
telcos is that the telcos don't support simultaneous ring. I just
tested by adding a phone to my NoMoRobo account (but cancelled before
finishing) to see what was their list of supported landline/VOIP
carriers, which are:

1-VOIP
Adams Cable Service
Astound Broadband
AT&T (traditional landline)
AT&T U-Verse
Broadvoice
Cable One
CenturyLink (internet voice)
CenturyLink (traditional landline)
Cincinnati Bell (internet voice)
Cincinnati Bell (traditional landline)
Co-Mo Connect
Comcast XFINITY
Cox
ECFiber
EPB Fiber Optics
Fairpoint
Frontier
Google Voice - WHAT! Now they work with them? I'll have to test!
Hawaiian Telcom
magicJack - Yet they still have an article saying they won't work.
Ooma
Optimum/CableVision
Optimum/CableVision Business
PhonePower
RCN
Ring Central
SELCO
Service Electrical Cable TV
Service Electrical Cablevision
Skype
Sonic.NET
Spectrum (formerly BrightHouse)
Spectrum (formerly Charter)
Spectrum (formerly Time Warner)
SureWest (internet voice)
Verizon (traditional landline)
Verizon FiOS Digital Voice
Voicepulse
Voip.ms
Voipo
Vonage
Wave Broadband
Windstream
Other (internet voice)
Other (traditional landline)

They have the Other categories to cover all other providers - BUT those
others must support and have enable the simultaneous ring feature.

Simultaneous ring is also how Google Voice works. You can designate
one, or more, phone numbers for Google Voice to ring when there is an
incoming phone call to your Google Voice number. Using simultaneous
ringing, Google Voice can ring your home phone(s), cell phone(s), work
phone(s), or any phones you want all at the same time. You can even
schedule when some phone will ring and when they will not, like having
Google Voice ring your work phone only during the hours when you will be
at your workplace.

With NoMoRobo, simultaneous ring must be available and enabled at the
called number (i.e., your phone number). Your provider is doing the
simultaneous ringing to your phone and to NoMoRobo. With Google Voice,
calls to there have Google Voice simultaneously ringing all your listed
phones. Without simultaneous ring, these PBX-like services won't work.

Simultaneous ring has been traditionally something associated with a
PBX, so telcos often did not provide that feature unless you implemented
it at your site by adding hardware.

Note that while some are ISPs provide voice service, they are not a VOIP
service. They operate as a telco. Your voice traffic is NOT traversing
the Internet. For example, Comcast Voice is not a VOIP service. You
are using an eMTA with Comcast Voice, not a VOIP adapter. The eMTA
(embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter) is an embedded ATA (analog
telephone adapter) incorported into the cable modem. magicJack is
definitely VOIP. I do sometimes, however, tend to lump the ISP voice
providers operating as telcos along with VOIP providers but I know I'm
being inaccurate. Visually both are using the cable modem but the user
may be unaware that a voice-capable cable modem has an eMTA. VOIP is
Voice Over Internet Protocol which means VOIP traverses the Internet
hence why quality suffers due to routing through various hosts, and
connecting to landlines using VOIP requires the VOIP provider have gear
at the telco exchanges to convert from VOIP to regular telephony (and
why it took years for magicJack to work everywhere in the USA while they
were implanting their converters at the telcos).
Mayayana
2018-07-21 22:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"VanguardLH" <***@nguard.LH> wrote

| > He seems to be talking about a landline, which is what many of us are
| > using. Nomorobo characterizes VOIP as a landline, but they're of no
| > use for an actual landline.
|
| https://nomorobo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200536477-How-does-it-work-
|
| Depends on whether your telco support simultaneous ring. The telco must
| ring BOTH your phone and NoMoRobo at the same time.

Am I missing something? I have a landline. There's
no computer connection. It's not VOIP. It's just a wire
coming into the house. So how is the phone company
going to ring nomorobo? I assume nomorobo has to
be installed to a compter (VOIP) or cellphone.

It's unnecessarily confusing to call VOIP a landline.
It's not. It's Internet phone.

The only other way I could imagine this working on
a landline would be if I arranged with my phone company
to call nomorobo every time I get a call. That would
be far more creepy than getting spam calls.
VanguardLH
2018-07-22 02:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
|> He seems to be talking about a landline, which is what many of us are
|> using. Nomorobo characterizes VOIP as a landline, but they're of no
|> use for an actual landline.
|
| https://nomorobo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200536477-How-does-it-work-
|
| Depends on whether your telco support simultaneous ring. The telco must
| ring BOTH your phone and NoMoRobo at the same time.
Am I missing something? I have a landline. There's
no computer connection. It's not VOIP. It's just a wire
coming into the house.
Twisted pair POTS telco service.
So how is the phone company
going to ring nomorobo?
By the telco doing simultaneous ring to both your phone AND to the
NoMoRobo phone number. Your telco rings 2, or more, numbers if they
support simultaneous ringing.
I assume nomorobo has to
be installed to a compter (VOIP) or cellphone.
Nope, absolutely no software is needed nor can any be used. With
simultaneous ringing, your phone provider (cellular, landline, VOIP,
whatever) rings multiple phone numbers at the SAME time hence the name
of this feature. For example, because Google Voice supports
simultaneous ringing, I can have it ring my home phones (2), work phone,
and all my cell phones. With my ISP (Comcast), their voice (not VOIP)
service can also do simultaneous ringing, so that duplicates the same
PBX-like feature in Google Voice. The only reasons why I have not
switched from Google Voice to my ISP's voice service are: Google Voice
is free (I need to pay my ISP for their voice service) and Google Voice
employs an anti-spam blacklist but not my ISP's voice service.

I use NoMoRobo with my cell phone because my cellular carrier (Verizon)
supports simultaenous ring. My aunt uses NoMoRobo with her ISP's voice
service because they support simultaneous ring. The requirements to use
NoMoRobo are: (1) Your phone provider must support simultaneous ring;
and, (2) You must be able to configure your phone account to add
NoMoRobo as one of the phone numbers that are simultaneous ring. You
need the feature at your phone provider and you need to add whatever
numbers you want simultaneously rang. It's a configuration thing. No
software.
The only other way I could imagine this working on
a landline would be if I arranged with my phone company
to call nomorobo every time I get a call. That would
be far more creepy than getting spam calls.
Yep, that is what the simultaneous ring feature does: call multiple
phone numbers. For example, you don't even need to use this feature
just for NoMoRobo. You could have calls to your home phone also
simultaneously ring at your workplace. That way, you don't miss calls
at home while you are at work; else, your home phone callers would have
to leave voicemail because you're not there when you're at work.

Some telephony providers call it call forwarding instead of simultaneous
ring. The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since
NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will
also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just
the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward
the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name). So, yes, with
simultaneous ringing, multiple phones get called. That's the point of
this feature. One of those phones could be your home phone (landline).
Another could be your work phone number. Another could be NoMoRobo.

From what I've read, the phone providers that in NoMoRobo's list have
scripts written at NoMoRobo to assist you in completing the setup.
Different providers have different methods of enabling simultaneous ring
along with adding a phone number to the list. If not in the list, you
have to figure out how to enable simultaneous ring at your phone
provider and how to add phone numbers to that list whether they be your
work phone, cell phone, or NoMoRobo.
Mayayana
2018-07-22 13:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"VanguardLH" <***@nguard.LH> wrote

| The requirements to use
| NoMoRobo are: (1) Your phone provider must support simultaneous ring;
| and, (2) You must be able to configure your phone account to add
| NoMoRobo as one of the phone numbers that are simultaneous ring. You
| need the feature at your phone provider and you need to add whatever
| numbers you want simultaneously rang. It's a configuration thing. No
| software.

I see. Thanks. I'm not aware of my phone company
supporting it. In any case, I don't think I'd want some
unknown company getting my calls before I do and
deciding which ones go through. Especially given that
the service is free. There has to be a profit model in
there somewhere.

I also suspect that such a service would only make
a small dent in the problem. I get some obvious scam
calls with CallerID that says things like "800 Service".
I also get legit calls that I don't want, like breast
cancer research. But mostly I get calls that may only
name the city or may give the caller's name, and which
are frequently local. But they don't leave a message.
They seem to be all "legit" in the sense that they're
probably not on anyone's blacklist.

I was mentioning that one day to a friend who designs
fundraising plans for non-profits and she answered,
"Oh, yeah. I always tell my clients to use their own
cellphones when they do fundraising calls, if they want
to get through." Bingo!

I'm guessing that of all those calls only the "800
Service" call would end up getting blocked by something
like nomorobo.
Nil
2018-07-22 17:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
I also suspect that such a service would only make
a small dent in the problem.
I keep a log of all junk phone calls, and I get a lot of them. I'd say
that Nomorobo catches about 85% of them. It used to do better but the
robocallers have gotten better at exploiting weaknesses in the system.

85% is still a big relief.
Ken Blake
2018-07-22 18:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 13:03:54 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
Post by Mayayana
I also suspect that such a service would only make
a small dent in the problem.
I keep a log of all junk phone calls, and I get a lot of them. I'd say
that Nomorobo catches about 85% of them. It used to do better but the
robocallers have gotten better at exploiting weaknesses in the system.
85% is still a big relief.
As far as I know NoMoRoBo only catches robo-dialers, so other kinds of
junk calls get through. I haven't counted, but I'd guess that your 85%
is about what I experience with it.
Nil
2018-07-22 21:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
As far as I know NoMoRoBo only catches robo-dialers, so other
kinds of junk calls get through. I haven't counted, but I'd guess
that your 85% is about what I experience with it.
No, the other junk calls that Nomorobo misses are almost all also
robocalls. The trick that gets them past Nomorobo seems to be that they
use fake local numbers and change them very often. Nomorobo's database
is national so if the spammer's campaign is regional and short,
Nomorobo is more likely to miss it.
Ken Blake
2018-07-22 14:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Mayayana
I assume nomorobo has to
be installed to a compter (VOIP) or cellphone.
Nope, absolutely no software is needed nor can any be used.
Right. And to add to that, NoMoRobo can used with a plain old landline
telephone, where there is no possibility of installing any software.
jetjock
2018-07-22 16:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Mayayana
I assume nomorobo has to
be installed to a compter (VOIP) or cellphone.
Nope, absolutely no software is needed nor can any be used.
Right. And to add to that, NoMoRobo can used with a plain old landline
telephone, where there is no possibility of installing any software.
Well, I just checked the NoMoRobo Web site and it says very plainly
that it is available free for "Landlines", but, and a big but it is,
under that it lists what it does. The last item there is "Protect
Unlimited VoIP Landlines ". Note the keyword being VOIP! It is also
available for Mobile devices, but costs $2/mo.
Ken Blake
2018-07-22 17:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jetjock
Post by Ken Blake
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Mayayana
I assume nomorobo has to
be installed to a compter (VOIP) or cellphone.
Nope, absolutely no software is needed nor can any be used.
Right. And to add to that, NoMoRobo can used with a plain old landline
telephone, where there is no possibility of installing any software.
Well, I just checked the NoMoRobo Web site and it says very plainly
that it is available free for "Landlines", but, and a big but it is,
under that it lists what it does. The last item there is "Protect
Unlimited VoIP Landlines ". Note the keyword being VOIP!
If you click on "Sign up now," it also says "Unfortunately, Nomorobo
is not available on traditional analog copper landlines at this time."
So you are correct and what I said was wrong. Since I have VoIP, I
never realized this.
Post by jetjock
It is also
available for Mobile devices, but costs $2/mo.
Yes, and that's relatively new. Until recently it didn't work on cell
phones.
Char Jackson
2018-07-25 21:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since
NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will
also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just
the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward
the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name).
It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of
my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look
local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these
days?
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2018-07-25 23:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since
NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will
also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just
the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward
the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name).
It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of
my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look
local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these
days?
Spoofing has been a long-time problem. There are even sites that assist
(as a cost) with doing the spoofing. Some spammers even spoof the
number they call; i.e., you get a call that identifies as you calling
yourself. The idea is that few users block their own phone number but
then who calls themself? Spammers did this with e-mail, too, until more
users realized they weren't sending spammy e-mails to themself, so the
users started adding filters looking for e-mail from them sent to them,
and e-mail providers started adding similar filters.

Even when you decide to block a spammer, the number you block can be a
spoofed number. That's why you have to clear out the old numbers from
your blocklist. I'm not sure how long for when to expire old
blacklisted phone numbers but I usually delete those older than a month.

With NoMoRobo, you can only report spam calls. You don't get to
otherwise update the blacklist. They don't release specs on how long or
if they expire old "bad" phone numbers, and if they did then spammers
could use that info against their blacklist. In the same way you rely
on your e-mail provider's anti-spam blacklist to be updated so it is
current is the same for when using NoMoRobo. I use DNSBLs (DNS
blacklists) in blocking spam e-mails, too, and they each have their own
flooring function (when to expire old records). I've used Bayesian
filtering in the past but that requires a decent e-mail volume to be
reasonably (not 100%) accurate, and I don't get enough e-mails to make
Bayesian a viable filtering scheme. Some clients with Bayes don't have
a flooring function (e.g., Outlook which instead relies on updated
blacklists from Microsoft) which, to me, is stupid. Thunderbird doesn't
have a flooring function for expiring outdated keywords, and I don't
know if it gets an updated blacklist from Mozilla.

Well, I suppose you could use nothing but then the effect is zero
percentage of caught spam calls. I don't see how anyone would expect
any blacklist to be 100% for coverage. That's just foolish expectation.
I still use an umbrella in the rain despite that I might still get a bit
wet in a storm.
Char Jackson
2018-07-26 06:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since
NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will
also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just
the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward
the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name).
It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of
my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look
local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these
days?
Spoofing has been a long-time problem. There are even sites that assist
(as a cost) with doing the spoofing. Some spammers even spoof the
number they call; i.e., you get a call that identifies as you calling
yourself. The idea is that few users block their own phone number but
then who calls themself? Spammers did this with e-mail, too, until more
users realized they weren't sending spammy e-mails to themself, so the
users started adding filters looking for e-mail from them sent to them,
and e-mail providers started adding similar filters.
Even when you decide to block a spammer, the number you block can be a
spoofed number. That's why you have to clear out the old numbers from
your blocklist. I'm not sure how long for when to expire old
blacklisted phone numbers but I usually delete those older than a month.
With NoMoRobo, you can only report spam calls. You don't get to
otherwise update the blacklist. They don't release specs on how long or
if they expire old "bad" phone numbers, and if they did then spammers
could use that info against their blacklist. In the same way you rely
on your e-mail provider's anti-spam blacklist to be updated so it is
current is the same for when using NoMoRobo. I use DNSBLs (DNS
blacklists) in blocking spam e-mails, too, and they each have their own
flooring function (when to expire old records). I've used Bayesian
filtering in the past but that requires a decent e-mail volume to be
reasonably (not 100%) accurate, and I don't get enough e-mails to make
Bayesian a viable filtering scheme. Some clients with Bayes don't have
a flooring function (e.g., Outlook which instead relies on updated
blacklists from Microsoft) which, to me, is stupid. Thunderbird doesn't
have a flooring function for expiring outdated keywords, and I don't
know if it gets an updated blacklist from Mozilla.
Well, I suppose you could use nothing but then the effect is zero
percentage of caught spam calls. I don't see how anyone would expect
any blacklist to be 100% for coverage. That's just foolish expectation.
I still use an umbrella in the rain despite that I might still get a bit
wet in a storm.
Thanks. I don't think you answered my question, but you did provide
enough info to let me know that NoMoRobo is not for me. Not only would
it be ineffective against the vast majority of calls that I get, but you
also hinted that users might be expected to report spam calls to help
build the database, which makes sense, but those two items combined are
a deal breaker.
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2018-07-26 09:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since
NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will
also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just
the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward
the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name).
It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of
my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look
local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these
days?
Spoofing has been a long-time problem. There are even sites that assist
(as a cost) with doing the spoofing. Some spammers even spoof the
number they call; i.e., you get a call that identifies as you calling
yourself. The idea is that few users block their own phone number but
then who calls themself? Spammers did this with e-mail, too, until more
users realized they weren't sending spammy e-mails to themself, so the
users started adding filters looking for e-mail from them sent to them,
and e-mail providers started adding similar filters.
Even when you decide to block a spammer, the number you block can be a
spoofed number. That's why you have to clear out the old numbers from
your blocklist. I'm not sure how long for when to expire old
blacklisted phone numbers but I usually delete those older than a month.
With NoMoRobo, you can only report spam calls. You don't get to
otherwise update the blacklist. They don't release specs on how long or
if they expire old "bad" phone numbers, and if they did then spammers
could use that info against their blacklist. In the same way you rely
on your e-mail provider's anti-spam blacklist to be updated so it is
current is the same for when using NoMoRobo. I use DNSBLs (DNS
blacklists) in blocking spam e-mails, too, and they each have their own
flooring function (when to expire old records). I've used Bayesian
filtering in the past but that requires a decent e-mail volume to be
reasonably (not 100%) accurate, and I don't get enough e-mails to make
Bayesian a viable filtering scheme. Some clients with Bayes don't have
a flooring function (e.g., Outlook which instead relies on updated
blacklists from Microsoft) which, to me, is stupid. Thunderbird doesn't
have a flooring function for expiring outdated keywords, and I don't
know if it gets an updated blacklist from Mozilla.
Well, I suppose you could use nothing but then the effect is zero
percentage of caught spam calls. I don't see how anyone would expect
any blacklist to be 100% for coverage. That's just foolish expectation.
I still use an umbrella in the rain despite that I might still get a bit
wet in a storm.
Thanks. I don't think you answered my question, but you did provide
enough info to let me know that NoMoRobo is not for me. Not only would
it be ineffective against the vast majority of calls that I get, but you
also hinted that users might be expected to report spam calls to help
build the database, which makes sense, but those two items combined are
a deal breaker.
You asked (without stating it as spoofing) how NoMoRobo eliminates
spoofing. It can't. That's a technical issue that must be address by
the telephony providers in figuring out how to completely eliminate
spoofing (whether it be legally or illegally employed).

What's your solution that eliminates 100% of spam calls? For me and
many others, getting rid of 85% of the spam calls has a big impact of
reducing the nuisance.

I've yet to see any suspension or tire completely eliminate road noise
and vibration transmitted into the passenger cabin but that doesn't mean
I'll sacrifice those amenties to replace the shock absorbers with pipes
and use solid-rubber tires just because there isn't a perfect setup.

Do you also not employ any anti-spam filtering for your e-mail whether
it be inbuilt to your local e-mail client or embedded in your e-mail
provider's service? Your e-mail client has absolutely no anti-spam
functionality? Does your e-mail provider even let you disable their
server-side anti-spam filtering? You disable all anti-spam filtering in
your local e-mail client and in your account settings so you can relish
and wallow in all spam that hits your account? Well, some folks enjoy
cutting themselves, too. Most of the rest of prefer less pain, and that
means less spam e-mails and less spam calls although nothing we employ
will guarantee 100% freedom from spam.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-22 02:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <13e4u809g7zen$***@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <***@nguard.LH>
writes:
[]
Post by VanguardLH
My guess of why NoMoRobo works with most VOIP and not with many of the
telcos is that the telcos don't support simultaneous ring. I just
tested by adding a phone to my NoMoRobo account (but cancelled before
finishing) to see what was their list of supported landline/VOIP
1-VOIP
Adams Cable Service
Astound Broadband
AT&T (traditional landline)
AT&T U-Verse
Broadvoice
Cable One
CenturyLink (internet voice)
CenturyLink (traditional landline)
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Other (internet voice)
Other (traditional landline)
They have the Other categories to cover all other providers - BUT those
others must support and have enable the simultaneous ring feature.
I selected "Other (traditional landline)", and it immediately said
something like "sorry, 'Other (traditional landline)' does not support
nomorobo." [It said that immediately, no further questions to pin down
my provider.] So I don't think you can assume this is a list of
supported carriers - there might be others that prompt a "sorry ...".
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep.
VanguardLH
2018-07-23 02:54:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I selected "Other (traditional landline)", and it immediately said
something like "sorry, 'Other (traditional landline)' does not support
nomorobo." [It said that immediately, no further questions to pin down
my provider.] So I don't think you can assume this is a list of
supported carriers - there might be others that prompt a "sorry ...".
I went through the same procedure. I did not get the "sorry" message.
However, I could only select Phone type = "landline/voip" and Carrier =
"Other (Traditional Landline)" to test. I don't have a POTS line to add
its phone number to complete adding it to my NoMoRobo phones list. If
you didn't get that far then I suspect you got IP filtered; i.e., you're
not in a region that they support. As you surmised, NoMoRobo is a
service available only to USA-based users.
Char Jackson
2018-07-26 01:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Note that while some are ISPs provide voice service, they are not a VOIP
service.
If it's not POTS, it's a form of VoIP, and in the case of cable
providers, it's not going to be POTS, so it's a form of VoIP.
Post by VanguardLH
They operate as a telco.
True, but all that means is that they tend to hand off the digitized
VoIP traffic to the local telco exchange. If the destination is also
within that exchange, then it's routed directly to its destination,
converted back to analog within the exchange if the receiving customer
is on POTS or forwarded as VoIP packets if the receiving customer has an
eMTA or ATA. In that case, it'll be converted back to analog at the
customer's premises. However, if the destination is not within that
exchange, the packets will go out over the Internet to the exchange
nearest the destination. Once they arrive there, they're treated the
same as above, converted back to analog either at the exchange or at the
customer's premises, depending on the type of service that the customer
has.

In the case of an ISP with a large-ish footprint, if the calling party
and the receiving party aren't local to each other but both are
customers of the same ISP, it's possible that the VoIP traffic will not
be handed off to the local telco exchange but rather kept in-house, but
even then it would travel over the Internet, even though it might stay
within links controlled by that ISP.
Post by VanguardLH
Your voice traffic is NOT traversing the Internet.
It is unless the destination is also serviced by the exchange that the
ISP handed off to. How else would it get delivered?
Post by VanguardLH
For example, Comcast Voice is not a VOIP service.
Actually, it is. They use an eMTA (ATA) to digitize the analog signals,
then stuff the results into IP packets and send them on their way. It's
literally Voice over IP.
Post by VanguardLH
You
are using an eMTA with Comcast Voice, not a VOIP adapter. The eMTA
(embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter) is an embedded ATA (analog
telephone adapter) incorported into the cable modem.
I'm not getting the distinction you're trying to make between a VoIP
adapter (ATA) versus an eMTA (which I agree has an embedded ATA). Both
are an ATA. One is a standalone device while the other is incorporated
into a cable modem. They do exactly the same thing in exactly the same
way.
Post by VanguardLH
magicJack is definitely VOIP.
Agreed.
Post by VanguardLH
I do sometimes, however, tend to lump the ISP voice
providers operating as telcos along with VOIP providers but I know I'm
being inaccurate. Visually both are using the cable modem but the user
may be unaware that a voice-capable cable modem has an eMTA.
There are minor differences, but essentially all are forms of VoIP.
Post by VanguardLH
VOIP
The acronym is VoIP rather than VOIP.
Post by VanguardLH
is Voice Over Internet Protocol
I'm nitpicking, but it's actually Voice over IP. The 'o' is always lower
case.
Post by VanguardLH
which means VOIP traverses the Internet
No, VoIP just means that the analog voice signals are digitized and
packetized, then carried over an IP protocol to their destination where
they will be converted back to analog. SIP is one such IP protocol, but
there are others. (For example, Sprint uses SIP. I helped to design that
portion of their data network way back in the day.)

VoIP calls may or may not traverse the Internet. In most cases, they do.
Local (intra-exchange) calls don't because they don't need to, but
almost everything else uses the Internet for transport.

What many people may be surprised to know is that virtually all
non-intra-exchange calls are now VoIP, and have been for well over 10
years. Sprint Long Distance, for example, completely converted to VoIP
somewhere around 2003 or 2004, (and the other telcos did likewise around
the same time). The exact timing is fuzzy since it's been so long, but
they use SprintLink, aka the Sprint backbone, aka the Internet, to
transport the digitized voice packets to wherever they need to go. At
some point, the packets are converted back to analog, either at the
exchange that's local to the destination in the case of POTS or at the
eMTA/ATA that's part of the customer's CPE equipment. (Yes, that's
completely redundant but I'm too lazy to fix it.)
Post by VanguardLH
hence why quality suffers due to routing through various hosts, and
VoIP has no real inherent voice quality issues. Did anyone notice when
switched analog circuits gave way to digitized voice packets? I'd say
no, not really. There were a few hiccups in the early years here and
there, but I'm not aware of any significant issues within the last 8-10
years or so. The technology is pretty fully baked by now. QoS is
implemented at each of the bottlenecks, for example. (I helped set that
up, as well.)
Post by VanguardLH
connecting to landlines using VOIP requires the VOIP provider have gear
at the telco exchanges to convert from VOIP to regular telephony (and
why it took years for magicJack to work everywhere in the USA while they
were implanting their converters at the telcos).
VoIP providers don't need to have gear there. They just need to have an
agreement in place, and that's often harder than it might seem. Every
exchange is already connected to the Internet, so no additional gear is
needed.
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2018-07-26 09:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Note that while some are ISPs provide voice service, they are not a VOIP
service.
If it's not POTS, it's a form of VoIP, and in the case of cable
providers, it's not going to be POTS, so it's a form of VoIP.
Post by VanguardLH
They operate as a telco.
True, but all that means is that they tend to hand off the digitized
VoIP traffic to the local telco exchange. If the destination is also
within that exchange, then it's routed directly to its destination,
converted back to analog within the exchange if the receiving customer
is on POTS or forwarded as VoIP packets if the receiving customer has an
eMTA or ATA. In that case, it'll be converted back to analog at the
customer's premises. However, if the destination is not within that
exchange, the packets will go out over the Internet to the exchange
nearest the destination. Once they arrive there, they're treated the
same as above, converted back to analog either at the exchange or at the
customer's premises, depending on the type of service that the customer
has.
In the case of an ISP with a large-ish footprint, if the calling party
and the receiving party aren't local to each other but both are
customers of the same ISP, it's possible that the VoIP traffic will not
be handed off to the local telco exchange but rather kept in-house, but
even then it would travel over the Internet, even though it might stay
within links controlled by that ISP.
Post by VanguardLH
Your voice traffic is NOT traversing the Internet.
It is unless the destination is also serviced by the exchange that the
ISP handed off to. How else would it get delivered?
Post by VanguardLH
For example, Comcast Voice is not a VOIP service.
Actually, it is. They use an eMTA (ATA) to digitize the analog signals,
then stuff the results into IP packets and send them on their way. It's
literally Voice over IP.
Post by VanguardLH
You
are using an eMTA with Comcast Voice, not a VOIP adapter. The eMTA
(embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter) is an embedded ATA (analog
telephone adapter) incorported into the cable modem.
I'm not getting the distinction you're trying to make between a VoIP
adapter (ATA) versus an eMTA (which I agree has an embedded ATA). Both
are an ATA. One is a standalone device while the other is incorporated
into a cable modem. They do exactly the same thing in exactly the same
way.
Post by VanguardLH
magicJack is definitely VOIP.
Agreed.
Post by VanguardLH
I do sometimes, however, tend to lump the ISP voice
providers operating as telcos along with VOIP providers but I know I'm
being inaccurate. Visually both are using the cable modem but the user
may be unaware that a voice-capable cable modem has an eMTA.
There are minor differences, but essentially all are forms of VoIP.
Post by VanguardLH
VOIP
The acronym is VoIP rather than VOIP.
Post by VanguardLH
is Voice Over Internet Protocol
I'm nitpicking, but it's actually Voice over IP. The 'o' is always lower
case.
Post by VanguardLH
which means VOIP traverses the Internet
No, VoIP just means that the analog voice signals are digitized and
packetized, then carried over an IP protocol to their destination where
they will be converted back to analog. SIP is one such IP protocol, but
there are others. (For example, Sprint uses SIP. I helped to design that
portion of their data network way back in the day.)
VoIP calls may or may not traverse the Internet. In most cases, they do.
Local (intra-exchange) calls don't because they don't need to, but
almost everything else uses the Internet for transport.
What many people may be surprised to know is that virtually all
non-intra-exchange calls are now VoIP, and have been for well over 10
years. Sprint Long Distance, for example, completely converted to VoIP
somewhere around 2003 or 2004, (and the other telcos did likewise around
the same time). The exact timing is fuzzy since it's been so long, but
they use SprintLink, aka the Sprint backbone, aka the Internet, to
transport the digitized voice packets to wherever they need to go. At
some point, the packets are converted back to analog, either at the
exchange that's local to the destination in the case of POTS or at the
eMTA/ATA that's part of the customer's CPE equipment. (Yes, that's
completely redundant but I'm too lazy to fix it.)
Post by VanguardLH
hence why quality suffers due to routing through various hosts, and
VoIP has no real inherent voice quality issues. Did anyone notice when
switched analog circuits gave way to digitized voice packets? I'd say
no, not really. There were a few hiccups in the early years here and
there, but I'm not aware of any significant issues within the last 8-10
years or so. The technology is pretty fully baked by now. QoS is
implemented at each of the bottlenecks, for example. (I helped set that
up, as well.)
Post by VanguardLH
connecting to landlines using VOIP requires the VOIP provider have gear
at the telco exchanges to convert from VOIP to regular telephony (and
why it took years for magicJack to work everywhere in the USA while they
were implanting their converters at the telcos).
VoIP providers don't need to have gear there. They just need to have an
agreement in place, and that's often harder than it might seem. Every
exchange is already connected to the Internet, so no additional gear is
needed.
By your definition, all telcos (PSTNs) are VOIP providers even if the
user's connection is via twisted pair (POTS) because, gee, the telcos
then digitize the voice traffic. ISPs, like Comcast, digitize the voice
traffic and may pass it to a telco exchange or across their their own
OCA6 trunks or across the Internet. Might be analog equipment at the
user end but its all digital, even at the telcos. All telephony is VOIP
according to your definition. To remain competitive and survive, even
the PSTNs are switching out their old POTS lines for VOIP infrastructure
- but they're still called landlines. Just like Comcast, the telcos
take the analog traffic and route it various ways. The technical
distinction is becoming muddied; however, most users still use VOIP to
mean Internet-only based connections and landlines to mean the old
telephony technology despite the two are getting mixed.

From your end at the voice-capable cable modem to Comcast, it is not
VOIP. Once Comcast or any telco gets the voice traffic, how they route
it is up to them.

With magicJack, it was VOIP at the user's end. The user must have
Internet service so the magicJack dongle can not only digitize the voice
traffic but encapsulate it into IP traffic.

And, no, the telcos did NOT have VOIP to landline converters and they
were not inspired by altruistic aims to provide free landline services
to callers who weren't even their customers. Coverage wasn't universal
across the USA until the gear was installed at the CLECs. YMAX couldn't
provide VOIP-to-landline service in some areas until those telcos got
updated.

VOIP is data packet switching. PSTNs (for landlines) use TDM circuit
switching. There has to be gear at the telco exchange to convert from
VOIP to landline. Translation is required from a non-realtime
connection between endpoints waiting for data packets delivery over the
Internet with its inherent jitter, packet loss, out-of-order packet
reception, and latency when converting to a real-time voice network.
They just can't splice the wires together. PSTNs saw VOIP providers as
direct competitors offering similar services at very cheap prices, and
then trying to use their POTS network by the VOIP providers.

Sorry, but it's been a decade since YMAX's growing pains when it
encountered deficient telco exchanges that didn't have the translation
gear for me to remember just what they called it. Because of YMAX's
cheap service, it slowed them getting the translation gear in place
along with resistance from the PSTNs.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-21 16:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<***@invalid.news.com> writes:
[]
Post by Ken Blake
I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
(https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.
Looks like an excellent service! Unfortunately:

1. I suspect it's US (and Canada?) only. [Rather silly: I had to select
from a list of providers, at the bottom of which was "other (landline)";
when I selected that, it popped up "sorry, 'other (landline)' doesn't
support noroboco yet." Which made me wonder why they've put it in the
list.]
2. It appears only to be for robot (automatic) callers. I suspect that
wouldn't stop the "there is something wrong with your computer" evils.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the
sixth.)
Ken Blake
2018-07-21 18:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 17:26:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ken Blake
I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
(https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.
1. I suspect it's US (and Canada?) only.
I'm not sure, but I think you're right.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[Rather silly: I had to select
from a list of providers, at the bottom of which was "other (landline)";
when I selected that, it popped up "sorry, 'other (landline)' doesn't
support noroboco yet." Which made me wonder why they've put it in the
list.]
2. It appears only to be for robot (automatic) callers. I suspect that
wouldn't stop the "there is something wrong with your computer" evils.
Yes. It doesn't do everything but what it does, it does well.
VanguardLH
2018-07-21 18:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ken Blake
I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
(https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.
1. I suspect it's US (and Canada?) only. [Rather silly: I had to select
from a list of providers, at the bottom of which was "other (landline)";
when I selected that, it popped up "sorry, 'other (landline)' doesn't
support noroboco yet." Which made me wonder why they've put it in the
list.]
2. It appears only to be for robot (automatic) callers. I suspect that
wouldn't stop the "there is something wrong with your computer" evils.
Yep, NoMoRobo is all about robotic dialing hence its name versus Google
Voice which has an anti-spam blacklist regardless how the call is
originated. I'm not surprised a New York state located company for
NoMoRobo that generates no revenue (other than for their Android app)
only works in the USA (don't know about them in Canada). They were one
of the winners of an FTC (yep, part of the USA) competition on
controlling robodialers. As noted before, another option is Google
Voice but that only works in the USA and Canada.

This is Usenet, so your location is unknown for your posts unless you
explicitely mention your location. Expect respondents to note solutions
that work in their location (I'm in the continental USA). Sorry, I
don't bother keeping personal bios on Usenet posters.

Looks like your screwed by not having similar services (to NoMoRobo or
Google Voice) in your location. If I was there, maybe I'd know more
about what was available in your location. You're stuck with whatever
features your phone provider includes in your service tier (e.g., call
blocking on anonymous callers and/or blacklists that you have to
update), or immediately pushing all calls to voicemail (to screen all)
or an option to accept calls that are screened and dump them into
voicemail if not accepted, or using an answering machine with a screen
feature and perhaps adding the SIT tone at the beginning of your
outgoing message. Review what features your phone provider includes,
how to configure their voicemail (if you use it), or see if an answering
machine works to push all calls to voicemail (you can interrupt to
accept a screened call).

If your ISP has voice service, you might want to look into what they
offer, especially regarding screening or filters. I got Google Voice at
a time when my ISP had nothing close to the same feature set. Back then
all you got was voice service and voicemail. My ISP has improved
significantly on its voice features, like adding simultaneous ringing,
so I could use my ISP's voice service very much like how I use Google
Voice - EXCEPT my ISP's voice service has not anti-spam blacklist (other
than me manually adding blocked numbers).

Are you trying to avoid spam callers on a home phone or cell phone? On
my cell phone, the default ringtone is "silent". That is, by default,
my cell phone does not ring. For my contacts, I assign a ringtone for
them. In fact, on my phone, all my contacts are in a default Contacts
group. I define more groupings (but I haven't the need for it ... yet).
I can assign a default ringtone per group, so I defined a ringtone for
the Contacts group. When a call comes in on my cell phone from one of
my contacts, my cell phone rings. All other calls are silent and the
caller either hangs up (typical of robodialers that hang up after 3
rings) or gets shoved into voicemail. Spammers end up in voicemail or
they went away before voicemail started. Non-contact callers can leave
a voice message. If they don't leave a message, their call was
unimportant. My cell phone rings for my contacts, so I can pick up the
call or let it go to voicemail. For everyone else, their only choice is
to leave voicemail. While I haven't checked, it's possible some
answering machine could do the same: set your phone's ringer to silent
and have the answering machine ring only for callers in your contacts
list stored in the answering machine.

If your phone service has the feature of sending you an e-mail when a
new voicemail was left, you could set your phone to silent and wait for
e-mail notifications about new calls. Whether a contact, someone you
know, or spammer, some users take the stance that if a caller doesn't
leave a message then the call was unimportant. That means a caller must
leave a message if they want to contact you, and you'll get an e-mail
about their new message.

While NoMoRobo is available (to some) to filter out the robodialers,
their method is publicly available to the telco and wireless carriers.
Others could implement the feature but they choose not to involve
themselves in filtering your calls.

https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/phone-companies-can-filter-out-robocalls-they-just-arent-doing-it/
VanguardLH
2018-07-21 18:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
To see if there is something in your location that offers features
similar to Google Voice, you could search online on:

google voice alternative <yourcity> <yourstate> <yourcountry>

I just did a similar search which found articles reviewing several
alternative services. Alas, in the articles that I read, all the
alternatives cost money. Google Voice is free (and so is NoMoRobo other
than when using their Android app). Your own ISP might have voice
service with similar features but likely without the spam blacklist.
Char Jackson
2018-07-25 21:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Are you trying to avoid spam callers on a home phone or cell phone? On
my cell phone, the default ringtone is "silent". That is, by default,
my cell phone does not ring. For my contacts, I assign a ringtone for
them. In fact, on my phone, all my contacts are in a default Contacts
group. I define more groupings (but I haven't the need for it ... yet).
I can assign a default ringtone per group, so I defined a ringtone for
the Contacts group.
I like your approach and have helped a few friends and family members
set it up that way in recent years.
Post by VanguardLH
When a call comes in on my cell phone from one of
my contacts, my cell phone rings. All other calls are silent and the
caller either hangs up (typical of robodialers that hang up after 3
rings) or gets shoved into voicemail.
Robodialers that hang up after 3 rings? I've never seen that but I think
I'd like it. In my experience, they hang on and let the phone ring until
it stops ringing. That's typically 10 rings, at least for me. Maybe it's
something I configured at some point.
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2018-07-21 17:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
 This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
 But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;
http://youtu.be/PDE9b5iU8vI
and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.
Ed (:-
If you have an answering machine (where you can listen to new calls to
screen them by waiting for someone to start leaving a message and then
pick up the handset if you want to talk to them), you could add the
"service disconnected" tone to the beginning of your outgoing voicemail
message.
I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
(https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.
Mentioned yesterday in my first reply. Also mentioned using Google
Voice which also has a blacklist of spam numbers. I use NoMoRobo with
my cell phone and my aunt uses it on her home phone. I use Google Voice
for my home phone but NoMoRobo won't combine with Google Voice (to
combine the two blacklists). NoMoRobo is oriented to robodialers (not
to all spam callers). Google Voice is more about spam whether by
originated by a robodialer or human.
Ken Blake
2018-07-21 18:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Ken Blake
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
| There are many "poor sods trying to make a living" with whom I don't
| sympathize--bank robbers, hired killers, mafia members, and so on.
 This is really only a UK problem. The majority of the
calls I get are scams. Both state and federal gov't
have stopped enforcing DoNotCall lists. But CallerID
means I never have to answer scam calls in the first
place. In the UK they don't seem to have a CallerID
function.
We've had one for years. There are even 'phones you can buy that screen
calls based on them (you press a button to add them to your blocklist).
We call it CLI - calling line identification. (Not sure why - maybe
CallerID might be confused with the criminal investigation department!)
I don't see why _I_ should pay out for such a 'phone, though.
The CLIs are often spoofed though - for example, calls obviously from
Asia show as UK ones, or they show as ones which if called back are
non-existent. I've tried to argue that the telecomm.s companies are
participating in the deception by passing on these faked CLIs (which
ought to be detectable), but unsurprisingly I haven't got anywhere.
Post by Mayayana
 But I agree with you. I always hang up on bank
robbers without so much as a how do you do. :)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from it,
but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it would
work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to their
systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the private
lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime families, and every
police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;
http://youtu.be/PDE9b5iU8vI
and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.
Ed (:-
If you have an answering machine (where you can listen to new calls to
screen them by waiting for someone to start leaving a message and then
pick up the handset if you want to talk to them), you could add the
"service disconnected" tone to the beginning of your outgoing voicemail
message.
I recommend that instead you use the free NoMoRoBo
(https://www.nomorobo.com/). It works very well.
Mentioned yesterday in my first reply.
OK. Sorry, I must have missed it.
Post by VanguardLH
Also mentioned using Google
Voice which also has a blacklist of spam numbers. I use NoMoRobo with
my cell phone and my aunt uses it on her home phone. I use Google Voice
for my home phone but NoMoRobo won't combine with Google Voice (to
combine the two blacklists). NoMoRobo is oriented to robodialers (not
to all spam callers).
Yes.
Post by VanguardLH
Google Voice is more about spam whether by
originated by a robodialer or human.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 18:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'll repeat it in case the thread wander has diverted attention from
it, but I still suspect the answer's no (as I can't think how it
would work), but: anyone think of a way we could upload something to
their systems? (If only a list of numbers to call - including the
private lines of their prime minister and the heads of crime
families, and every police station in their country ...)
Have some harmless fun.
Do you remember the old dial-up connection sound?
Record this;
http://youtu.be/PDE9b5iU8vI
Ah, that was a later one - V42 or X something. Not like the old 300/300
(or, if you were posh, 75/1200) ...
Post by Ed Cryer
and keep it handy on a phone or tablet.
Next time you get a call, just give a whistle and play it into the mic.
Ed (:-
I'm beyond just wanting to waste their time (though I like the old one
someone linked to about simulating a crime scene). I want to do their
systems some harm ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make!
VanguardLH
2018-07-20 21:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I want to do their systems some harm ...
That would make you worse than the scammer calling you. You become part
of the problem. Until you *agree* to commit some action on your own
computer, they haven't done anything illegal to your property. At best,
they might've violated the Do-Not-Call list *if* you subscribed. Are
you going to ASK them if you can commit harm to their property as
eventually they will ASK you to grant access to your computer or ASK you
for your credit card number? What do you think will be their response
when you ask for access and permission to harm their computer(s) or
telephony equipment?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 21:55:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
I want to do their systems some harm ...
That would make you worse than the scammer calling you. You become part
of the problem. Until you *agree* to commit some action on your own
computer, they haven't done anything illegal to your property. At best,
they might've violated the Do-Not-Call list *if* you subscribed. Are
you going to ASK them if you can commit harm to their property as
eventually they will ASK you to grant access to your computer or ASK you
for your credit card number? What do you think will be their response
when you ask for access and permission to harm their computer(s) or
telephony equipment?
*Legally*, with the twisted legal systems in both our countries, you're
probably right. *Morally* ... well, they're wanting to do evil to me who
hasn't ... well, to use the example usually quoted in crime series I
_have_ had parking tickets, but I think have always been successful in
challenging them; whereas I'd be wanting to do evil to people who have
done evil to many and will continue. *Practically*: I'm not going to
succeed (or even try) anyway, as I don't have the necessary skills (and
CBA) - but if I did, I can't _really_ see them complaining to the
authorities ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28
VanguardLH
2018-07-20 23:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by VanguardLH
I want to do their systems some harm ...
That would make you worse than the scammer calling you. You become part
of the problem. Until you *agree* to commit some action on your own
computer, they haven't done anything illegal to your property. At best,
they might've violated the Do-Not-Call list *if* you subscribed. Are
you going to ASK them if you can commit harm to their property as
eventually they will ASK you to grant access to your computer or ASK you
for your credit card number? What do you think will be their response
when you ask for access and permission to harm their computer(s) or
telephony equipment?
*Legally*, with the twisted legal systems in both our countries, you're
probably right. *Morally* ... well, they're wanting to do evil to me who
hasn't ... well, to use the example usually quoted in crime series I
_have_ had parking tickets, but I think have always been successful in
challenging them; whereas I'd be wanting to do evil to people who have
done evil to many and will continue. *Practically*: I'm not going to
succeed (or even try) anyway, as I don't have the necessary skills (and
CBA) - but if I did, I can't _really_ see them complaining to the
authorities ...
They have lots of money to lose if they were forced to discontinue their
operations. They'll hire lawyers and harass you in court.

I used to go to a music shop called CD Shack. Radio Shack threatened to
sue them because they claim to have trademarked "Shack". Didn't even
make it to court. The shop caved and changed their name. I forget what
it was all about but some 30 years ago someone I knew was suing
Microsoft. In court, he had one lawyer. Microsoft have 25. The judge
commanded that only 2 lawyers could sit at the defendent's bench an
voice any objections or arguments. Those two could consult the others
but the others had to stop interferring with the case. As I recall,
Microsoft successfully lured the plantiff by an out-of-court settlement.
Buffaloing by police or lawyers isn't a new tactic, and it often works.

Intending to do harm is not the same as doing harm. Only a few crimes
have "intent" laws, like intent to murder. Intent to steal your money
probably isn't directly legislated, so until you give them your money
(or credit card) and until they actually take that money or use that
credit card number then the argument about [future] intent is
conjecture. They haven't harmed you until they actually do it, not
because they might lead up to that harm with spam/scam phone calls.

Sometimes there is evidence proving intent but often it is
suppositional. If you could gather evidence of their other intents
along with evidence of actual harm (they committed their intent) and in
sufficient number then you might win in court. Well, you might win the
case but financially you would still lose in having to pay a lawyer or
an entire fleet of lawyers.

I'm reminded by users that try to send fake bounces in some uneducated
attempt to harm the spammer that spewed out their crap. These users are
generating bounce spam which incurs bandwidth and disk resources at the
ISPs or e-mail providers along with often hitting innocents (because
spammers don't give out their true e-mail address but may use someone
else's e-mail address, especially one that got harvested). Fake
bouncing can be detected since the receiving mail server did not
generate it. The user's client generated the fake spam, er, fake
bounce. Fake bounces are irresponsible and employed by users that have
no clue how e-mail works. Fake bounces are known as backscatter, and
users that receive misdirected backscatter can report it as spam (from
YOU) as well as e-mail providers can kill your account for generating
the backscatter.

People might bump into you a lot at a theme park but, as an adult, you
don't go spouting "I'll sue you" for all those assaults. Learn to hang
up your phone. Or employ one, or more, of the suggestions mentioned so
far. Passive action is the only legal action to which you have
recourse. Active action where you try to harm others puts you in the
same camp as the evildoers you're complaining about. You devolve to
their level. Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill. You being nuisanced is not an excuse for harming the
property of others, just as you're not allowed to shoot at others
yelling obscenties at you, either.

Life is full of nuisances. You either acquire a thick-skinned ego as
you age into adulthood (mentally if not physically) or you go hide in a
cave away from all humans.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-07-20 23:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
*Legally*, with the twisted legal systems in both our countries, you're
probably right. *Morally* ... well, they're wanting to do evil to me who
hasn't ... well, to use the example usually quoted in crime series I
_have_ had parking tickets, but I think have always been successful in
challenging them; whereas I'd be wanting to do evil to people who have
done evil to many and will continue. *Practically*: I'm not going to
succeed (or even try) anyway, as I don't have the necessary skills (and
CBA) - but if I did, I can't _really_ see them complaining to the
authorities ...
They have lots of money to lose if they were forced to discontinue their
operations. They'll hire lawyers and harass you in court.
1. I'm not talking about the (barely) legal companies that provide
arguably genuine services - offer to, and do, "clean your computer" or
other arguably genuine (if usually unnecessary) services. They're on a
par with companies that offer to do a "winter service" on your car. I'm
talking about the companies who, through deliberate deception, install
malware on your computer, either intending to subsequently be able to
blackmail you if you want your files back, or to steal card, account
etc., details. Or both. I think it is this latter type of caller most of
us in this thread are thinking of.
2. Lighten up! I was really only making a humorous suggestion - which I
think most others here recognised as such.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Buffaloing by police or lawyers isn't a new tactic, and it often works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_%28common_law%29 - bullying by
excessive use of lawyers. I presume hard to prove though.
Post by VanguardLH
Intending to do harm is not the same as doing harm. Only a few crimes
have "intent" laws, like intent to murder. Intent to steal your money
probably isn't directly legislated, so until you give them your money
(or credit card) and until they actually take that money or use that
credit card number then the argument about [future] intent is
conjecture. They haven't harmed you until they actually do it, not
because they might lead up to that harm with spam/scam phone calls.
I suspect even obtaining card details under false pretences is a crime,
even before they're actually used - surely certainly so if the obtainer
is not who they claim to be (e. g. Microsoft). May differ US/UK. IANAL.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
I'm reminded by users that try to send fake bounces in some uneducated
[]
I'm with you there, as (a) the spammer may well have (mis)appropriated
someone else's genuine email [though the majority of spam email I've
seen looks as if it's from unlikely emails], (b) the original reason
suggested for backscatter - that bounces would result in the removal of
your address from lists as "invalid" - has rarely if ever been shown to
be valid [most "spam lists" propagate one-way: there's little incentive
to revise them, they being of dubious legality in the first place]. It's
cognate with "do not feed the trolls" in newsgroups - less likely to
result in action against you, but irritating to other users.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go. - Oscar Wilde
Char Jackson
2018-07-25 21:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill.
I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted
Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly
force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied
on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to
apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be.

Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for
supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked
in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting
and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5
year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a
statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got
shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life.

The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded
murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida.

What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to
kill"? :-)

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/>
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/>

<https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html>
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2018-07-25 22:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill.
I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted
Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly
force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied
on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to
apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be.
Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for
supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked
in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting
and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5
year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a
statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got
shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life.
The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded
murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida.
What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to
kill"? :-)
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/>
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/>
<https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html>
Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically
attacked? Getting pushed to the ground is a hell of lot different than
seeing some big guys walking down the sidewalk that you think look mean.
Did the shooter start firing because the girlfriend was yelling at him?
Nope, it took a physical attack from the boyfriend before he protected
himself.

McGlockton walks out of a store to go push Drekja to the ground.
Seconds after reeling from the physical attack, Drekja pulls out a gun
to shoot McGlockton. For whining at a girl, some asshole comes up on
your side to hurl you to the ground. Where's the connection the victim
would have between the girl and some guy (who turns out to be her
physically abusive boyfriend)? Looks like Drekja got blindsided.

I think McGlockton is one of those boys who have to always prove he's a
man to his girlfriend by getting into fights. Had that happen in an ice
cream store when a gal walked to counter to cut in front of everyone
else and started ordering. The counter clerk said she would have to
wait her turn. She started yelling and left. Came my turn to get to
the front of the line. A really huge guy come storming in and starts
cussing out the clerk. When he went to push me out of the way, I
clasped his hand against my chest and fell to my knees while bending
forward to break 3 of his 4 fingers (thumbs aren't used in pushing).
While knelt, I punched him in his groin. If that hadn't been enough to
disable him, I would've gone a lot further in my counter attack
considering his huge weight advantage.

I don't carry handguns but then I'm not living wherever Drekja lives or
shops. Seems there are parts of the story that the news isn't
revealing. That's so they can sensationalize on the event. Per one
article, '"He had to shoot to defend himself," Pinellas county sheriff
Bob Gualtieri said.' Jacobs (the girlfriend) said her boyfriend was
trying to protect her. From WHAT? Someone complaining that she parked
illegally? Oh yes, we must always physically assault everyone who ever
irritates us, uh huh. McGlockton was not protecting Jacobs. He
assaulted Drekja without due provocation. Drekja was not physically
assualting Jacobs. He was a whiner that protected himself from someone
that actually assaulted him, not because he thought there was some
nebulously interpreted intent to cause harm.

Yes, seems extreme to shoot someone for pushing you down to the ground
and also to be carrying a handgun. Yes, it *is* extreme to assault
someone to the ground for barking at a girlfriend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/21/hes-accused-of-killing-someone-in-a-parking-spot-dispute-authorities-say-he-was-standing-his-ground/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.647c83131c97

Notice that Drekja probably didn't have any time or way to know that the
guy who pushed him down was Jacobs' boyfriend. The asshole just walks
up and blindsides him by pushing Drekja to the ground. Here is some
busybody whining to someone that they parked illegally and out of the
blue some asshole comes over to physcially assault him. At the point
Drekja drew his handgun, McGlockton stayed backed off. However, seeing
this in retrospect doesn't obviate belief of imminent danger which does
allow use of lethal force. This is a case of two extremists but one has
the law on his side.

This incident is far from blasting away at 3 mean-looking dudes walking
at you on a sidewalk on a dark night. Guessing what is their intent
doesn't permit you to shoot them. You could see if the mean dudes just
walk past you, or you could walk around them, or cross the street, or,
in the case of unwanted callers, just hangup on them. There was no
guessing what was McGlockton's intent because it wasn't intent. It was
assault!

Would be interested to know if Drekja has a permit to carry. If not,
well, that's something he could get charged with. Florida does ban open
carry except in some situations. You can get a concealed carry permit
there.

The first jerk bitches at (verbally assaults) a girl for where she
parked. A second jerk physically (not verbally) assaults the first
jerk. The second jerk thinks he has the advantage in willingness to be
physically abusive. The first jerk proves more dangerous than the
second jerk by proving a handgun outweighs the second jerk. The first
jerk has the law on his side. To me, the first jerk reacted too fast in
using his handgun to be sure the second jerk was or was not going to
physically assault the first jerk. However, judging others based on
your combat training doesn't obviate the first jerk might've truly
believed there was imminent danger of further attack. This wasn't a
case of misjudging intent. The assault already happened! The first
jerk already experienced a physical attack by the second jerk. For the
common citizen, they're likely not be to able to read people's body
motions (hip, stance, shoulders), eyes, and jawline to know if another
attack is coming or not. Don't expect citizens to be trained in combat.

This was not a case of reacting to guessed intent. This was a case of
reacting to actual physical assault. "Might they do something bad" is
not the issue in your example.
Char Jackson
2018-07-26 06:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill.
I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted
Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly
force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied
on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to
apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be.
Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for
supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked
in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting
and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5
year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a
statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got
shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life.
The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded
murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida.
What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to
kill"? :-)
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/>
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/>
<https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html>
Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically
attacked?
No, you said "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill" but in this
case the shooter said he fired out of fear for his life, so apparently
in Florida (and potentially 23 other states) 'you getting scared' is
precisely an excuse to kill.
--
Char Jackson
VanguardLH
2018-07-26 09:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill.
I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted
Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly
force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied
on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to
apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be.
Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for
supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked
in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting
and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5
year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a
statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got
shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life.
The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded
murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida.
What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to
kill"? :-)
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/>
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/>
<https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html>
Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically
attacked?
No, you said "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill" but in this
case the shooter said he fired out of fear for his life, so apparently
in Florida (and potentially 23 other states) 'you getting scared' is
precisely an excuse to kill.
My statement was in the context of intent. Intent was not an issue in
the example you cited. Drekja did not shoot as he saw McGlockton
approach him. Drekja shot AFTER getting assaulted. There was no intent
to assault. There was the assault. My statement was about committing
harm based solely on a guess regarding intent. You took my statement
out of context.
Wolf K
2018-07-26 12:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically
attacked?
No, you said "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill" but in this
case the shooter said he fired out of fear for his life, so apparently
in Florida (and potentially 23 other states) 'you getting scared' is
precisely an excuse to kill.
A convenient excuse. If you just don't want somebody in your life,
foment an altercation, become "scared for your life", and shoot them.

Insane law.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)
John B. Smith
2018-07-26 13:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill.
I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted
Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly
force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied
on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to
apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be.
Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for
supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked
in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting
and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5
year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a
statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got
shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life.
The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded
murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida.
What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to
kill"? :-)
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/>
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/>
<https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html>
Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically
attacked?
No, you said "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill" but in this
case the shooter said he fired out of fear for his life, so apparently
in Florida (and potentially 23 other states) 'you getting scared' is
precisely an excuse to kill.
I will punish myself with 30 lashes with a wet noodle for straying SO
far off topic, but can't resist adding 2cents: What a difference a
state makes. In New York State you are guilty if you pick up a gun,
they will do their best to slam you in prison regardless of the
circumstances. Remember Bernie Goetz? Subway shooting NYC 1986. A gang
of youths cruised subway extorting people for money and generally
bullying. (probably a rite of passage for their peer group, ignored by
police). Bernie brought a gun to the party and put one in wheel chair
for life. Naturally we jailed him. I'd love to move to Florida. Too
poor and set in my ways.

Andy
2018-07-26 06:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I say people need to stop freaking out when confronted for doing illegal or
wrong things.
This menelennial generation has is ruining this world for the rest of us
normal folks.
If the guy had just talked calmly to the other person the shooting might not
have happened.
I my self show no mercy for those who park in handicapped spaces with out a
handicapped plate or hang tag its just wrong to park in one for no reason.
Post by Char Jackson
Post by VanguardLH
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring
at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to
whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not
an excuse to kill.
I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted
Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly
force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied
on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to
apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be.
Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for
supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked
in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting
and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5
year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a
statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got
shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life.
The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded
murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida.
What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to
kill"? :-)
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/>
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/>
<https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html>
--
Char Jackson
Nil
2018-07-22 17:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Cryer
I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something
like "Hello. And how are you today?"
It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're
paying for it; you can have a captive audience.
Oh, I'm feeling very down today. My dad died and left me all his
debts. And then my computer blew up, and shattered the house,
bringing down the partition wall with next door. And then an alien
flew in through the window, abducted me to a mother-ship in the
sky and implanted God knows what in me. I'm finding that I've
acquired extraordinary powers; such as I can fly like a bird, and
my eyes give out a beam of light which can cut through solid
objects like a laser beam, and there's a big S carved on my front,
and ... Hello, are you still there?
I used to toy with junk telemarketers until I realized that I was
wasting my own time, not theirs. But when I did, one of the most
effective tacks was to grab a book and start reading random sentances
from it at them in a conversational tone. It had the effect of
responding to their spiel with nonsense answers that sounded like they
should make sense. It rarely failed to keep them going for a good, long
time until they finally hung up in consternation.
Ken Blake
2018-07-22 18:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 13:11:16 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
Post by Ed Cryer
I've used a technique with spam callers who start with something
like "Hello. And how are you today?"
It consists of completely monopolising the conversation. They're
paying for it; you can have a captive audience.
Oh, I'm feeling very down today. My dad died and left me all his
debts. And then my computer blew up, and shattered the house,
bringing down the partition wall with next door. And then an alien
flew in through the window, abducted me to a mother-ship in the
sky and implanted God knows what in me. I'm finding that I've
acquired extraordinary powers; such as I can fly like a bird, and
my eyes give out a beam of light which can cut through solid
objects like a laser beam, and there's a big S carved on my front,
and ... Hello, are you still there?
I used to toy with junk telemarketers until I realized that I was
wasting my own time, not theirs.
That's exactly right. If I get a telemarketer (or almost anyone who
calls me "Mr Blake" or "Kenneth" rather than Ken), I immediately say
"goodbye" and hang up.
VanguardLH
2018-07-20 17:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_


You can also report the spam call at 800notes.com, so others will know
that phone number may be from a scammer (or it could be spoofed by the
scammer) when they do an online search on the phone number (rather than
pay for all the lookup services pretending they'll give more details).

For landlines and VOIP (from ISPs), you could subscribe to NoMoRobo
(nomorobo.com) to get rid of the robocallers. It's free. At most, you
hear one phone ring and then it stops if NoMoRobo decides it was a
robocaller (not if a spam call by a human but by a robodialer). If a
human caller is mis-identified as a robodialer, they are presented with
a 4-digit CAPTCHA to complete their call. You can also report robodial
calls to NoMoRobo to help yourself and others. Alas, while they also
have an Android app, it isn't free. I do use NoMoRobo on my cell phone
number, plus I added it to my aunt's home phone (Comcast Voice).

You can use Google Voice (if you're in the USA or Canada). They have
their own anti-spam caller blacklist. At one time, I got rid of telco
(POTS) service and just had a cell phone number. I moved it to Google
Voice after testing for a few months. It was the same phone number that
I've had for over 40 years (except the area code changed when my area
got split up into multiple area codes). It was the number that family,
banks, employers, and everyone else ever got. Cost me $20 to migrate to
Google Voice. I even got an Obitalk VOIP box to use with my home phone
with Google Voice, and got rid of my ISP's voice service. Since then
the number of spam calls has gone down a lot. In fact, I can go to
voice.google.com, login, and check on the Spam folder, plus I can
designate new calls as spam or otherwise choose to block them. With
screening turned on, unknown callers (not in my contacts list) must say
their name, my phone gets called, and I can choose to accept their call
(press 1) or let it go to voicemail. Wrong number callers hang up after
hearing the screening prompt or when hearing the outgoing voicemail
message, so I'm not bothered with those calls. Human spammers go away
at the screening prompt. Robodialers don't ring longer than about 3
times and they don't respond to the screening prompt, so they keep
ringing and hang up after their 3 or 4 rings. A robodialer that makes
it to the screening prompt won't know to give a name for me to hear, so
I hear their robotized spiel when I press 1 and just hang up, but I get
extremely few of those calls. You cannot use NoMoRobo with a Google
Voice account, so no combining their blacklists.

After getting the robodialer to react to your voice and transfer to a
human scammer, interrupt yourself by saying there's an emergency and put
them on hold. Leave them on hold. The longer they are hold, the less
time they have to afflict other victims. You could interrupt them by
saying, "Okay, I understand, but I'm wondering if you've heard about the
power of Jesus, Praise the Lord, Hallelujah. I'd like to tell you about
salvation, brother, and how you, too, can be reborn." Even if they
start speaking, just keep talking while ignoring anything they say.

One scam trick is to pretend they are from Microsoft who has somehow
divined that your computer is infected. They'll take you to Event
Viewer to have you see all the errors listed in there. Tell them there
are no errors, no warnings, and all entries are info only. They'll be
astonished. Keep pretending to do what they ask but don't bother and
just report anything that contradicts their intent. Toy with the
pissant. You could tell them you don't have a computer. When they get
pushy, say "Hey, you called a public telephone booth and I answered the
call while sitting on the bench waiting for the bus."
David E. Ross
2018-07-20 20:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
If I am sitting at my PC when the phone rings, I sometimes have my PC's
Fax application answer. I told my daughter that, if she calls and hears
Fax synchronization tones, she should hang up; wait a full minute; and
then call again.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Attorney-General Sessions claims the bible favors imprisoning illegal
aliens. However, God repeatedly commanded us to welcome the stranger in
our land. For example, see the following:
Exodus 22:20 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=22#P2131>
Exodus 23:9 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=23#P2151>
Deuteronomy 10:19 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=10#P5200>
David E. Ross
2018-07-22 18:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David E. Ross
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
If I am sitting at my PC when the phone rings, I sometimes have my PC's
Fax application answer. I told my daughter that, if she calls and hears
Fax synchronization tones, she should hang up; wait a full minute; and
then call again.
By the way, I get many non-robo telemarketer calls, mostly from
home-improvement contractors. Sometimes, instead of merely hanging up,
I ask for the name of the contractor. Then I ask for the contractor's
liceense number. I live in California, where the law requires
contractors to provide their license number when requested if they are
soliciting customers. Usually, the caller hangs up instead of giving me
the number; but I already have the contractor's name.

Now it can be interesting. I go online to <http://www.cslb.ca.gov/> and
do a search for the contractor, either by name or by license number. If
the search shows that the license has expired or been revoked by the
state, I file a complaint with the Contractors State License Board.

If the license is current, I file a complaint with the FTC's "Do Not
Call" registry. I also file a complaint with the Contractors State
License Board if the telemarketer fails to provide the license number.

I know the FTC will not start an investigation from my complaint alone.
However, an accumulation of complaints can indeed result not only in an
investigation but also in a fine against the telemarketer.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Attorney-General Sessions claims the bible favors imprisoning illegal
aliens. However, God repeatedly commanded us to welcome the stranger in
our land. For example, see the following:
Exodus 22:20 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=22#P2131>
Exodus 23:9 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=23#P2151>
Deuteronomy 10:19 at
<http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=10#P5200>
Zaidy036
2018-07-22 21:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
Yes, have the Federal law changed to require that the telcos not allow
the calling number to be changed and that it must record the actual source.
--
Zaidy036
VanguardLH
2018-07-23 04:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zaidy036
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I had one of these calls yesterday - "your computer has stopped
communicating with the Windows server", or something like that.
I used my usual: "hang on while I get the police on the other line";
that usually makes them hang up pretty smartish.
However, thinking about it afterwards, I wondered: would it be possible
to devise something that could do something to their systems, while
pretending to do whatever they ask? I've never gone beyond the initial
call - I have always seen through them so far, it's not been difficult!
- so I don't know what they ask you to _do_.
I suspect it isn't likely to be possible, but it would be _so_
Yes, have the Federal law changed to require that the telcos not allow
the calling number to be changed and that it must record the actual source.
Spoofing has been a long-time problem that the telcos are unwilling to
address. There are many online services to assist with spoofing.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/spoofing-and-caller-id
"Under the Truth in Caller ID Act, FCC rules prohibit anyone from
transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the
intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongly obtain anything of value.
Anyone who is illegally spoofing can face penalties of up to $10,000 for
each violation."

Oooh, it's illegal if the intent is to commit harm. Yeah, big deal,
like the law is going to stop illegal spoofing. Plus there are
legitimate uses of spoofing, like a someone calling as a rep for their
company and wanting to show the company's phone number and name in the
Caller ID. Even Google Voice can use spoofing: you can configure their
Hangouts Dialer app to show your Google Voice number instead of your
cell phone number. I don't want anyone calling me on my cell phone
number, especially since I don't dole it out to anyone. I want them
always calling me at my Google Voice number. The app directs my
outbound calls through a Google Voice hub that then re-originates my
outbound call from their hub with the phone number and name from my
Google Voice account. When a callee sees me calling, those that know my
age-old phone number, especially if they have me in their contacts list,
will know it is me calling. They won't know who the hell is calling
them if they see my cell phone number (which can change when I get a new
phone or change carriers).

Only when technology gets involved with spoofing get blocked. That's
why NoMoRobo, albeit not perfect, does impact the number of spoofed
calls you get since most spoofing is used by robodialers (whether it
then redirects to a voicemail system, a human-sounding fake voice, or to
a real human telemarketer - robodialers are at the front end).

The problem the telephony providers had before was the FCC also has
their call completion rules. Providers would end up violating those
rules when blocking spoofed calls. The FCC granted them an exemption.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/new-robocall-blocking-tools-on-the-way-but-carriers-can-charge-you-extra/

Although "authorized" to block spoofed callers, the providers are likely
to offer it as an extra-cost add-on feature; i.e., if you want it, you
pay. While they've been given a go-ahead, tis likely to take 5, or
more, years before it shows up if they do it on their own versus
adopting NoMoRobo (or simply adding the simultaneous ring where you
could add NoMoRobo).

Just getting the telphony carriers to add simultaneous ring has had
dismal results. It inflicts internal costs that they would be hard
pressed to get their customers to pay for.
Loading...