"with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of
value"
Kind of a huge hole that, unless you record all calls which opens other
liability, is hard to prove.
Beckman
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Paul Timmins wrote:
Pretty simply - Sending caller ID to commit fraud. It's literally already
illegal. The legislature has already defined it for us, even.
47 USC 227
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
(B)
to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior
express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for
emergency purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed
to or guaranteed by the United States
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>, or is exempted by rule or
order by theCommission <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>under
paragraph (2)(B);
(e)(1)In general
It shall be unlawful for any person
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227> within the United States
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>, in connection with any
telecommunications service <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>
orIP-enabled voice service, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>
to cause anycaller identification service
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>to knowingly transmit
misleading or inaccuratecaller identification information
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>with the intent to defraud,
cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless such transmission
is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
All I'm asking is to make the carrier liable if it should have been obvious
to a carrier using basic traffic analysis that the service was a robocaller
(low answer rates combined with tons of source numbers, especially situations
where the source and destination number share the first 6 digits) that the
carrier be liable for failing to look into it.
Carriers already look at things like short duration in order to assess higher
charges, and already investigate call center traffic. If they then look at
the caller ID and it looks "suspect", and the customer then is contacted and
barred from sending arbitrary caller ID until they can verify they own the
numbers they're calling from, then they're good to go.
If the carrier continues to just ensure that call center traffic is a revenue
stream they can bill higher without making sure they're outpulsing valid
numbers, then they should absorb the social costs of what's going on.
Let's not get this confused - this isn't about customer PBXen outpulsing
forwarded calls when they do it, it's about people shooting millions of calls
a month, the carrier hitting them with short duration charges, making more
money, and having zero incentive to question the arrangement.
-Paul
On 7/11/19 1:18 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
'illicit use of caller id' - how is caller-id being illicitly used though?
I don't think it's against the law to say a different 'callerid' in the
call
session, practically every actual call center does this, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
