« New NetComm 3G/WiFi Router To Rival MifI |
| Retail: Why Customers Don't Like Their Mobile Phone Operator »
Following the US Senate's recent actions, the House of Representatives have concurred on banning Caller ID spoofing. The combined bill now will go to the FCC to define how to enact the legislation.
The text of the House bill is available here.
Posted at 08:02 AM | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As usual, the devil (and the truth) lies in the details of the legislation being put forward.
Just note the title of the Act being presented: "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009".
The key words here is "Truth in Caller ID". After all, "Caller ID Spoofing" is all about deception and avoiding one's real identity. The Act is about clamping down on deception used for unlawful purposes. I would think that law abiding citizens would be in favor of that?
There are actually many legitimate reasons to alter one's origination Caller ID. Altering your Caller ID isn't the same as Spoofing.
Here is a good example:
I have various VoIP accounts with various VoIP carriers and services. I have more than one DID phone number. But, I only give out 1 phone number that I want people to call me back on - my Primay DID phone number. So, I often set my alternate outgoing termination lines to display my Primary phone number. This way, if they want to return a call to me, it doesn't go to the number I called from, it will go to the number I want to receive my incoming calls on. Is this spoofing.... No. After all, it is still me who owns the phone number they are calling me back on. There is no deception involved. In my case, it is easily known who owns the number displayed in their Caller ID..... me, even though it's not the number of the line I called from. It is still the number to return calls to me, the originator of the call.
The essence of the "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009" can be summarized in the following quoted text:
"(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B)."
If interpreted correctly, I don't think this legislation will prevent legitimate use of "altering" one's Caller ID. It's all about clamping down on "misleading or inaccurate" Caller ID usage "with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value".
It is interesting to note that the Act exempts law enforcement agencies from engaging in Spoofing. But, what else is new... the laws apply to all equally (you and me)... except for those who are exempt from the laws (the Gov't)...
Jeff - CQVoIP
Jeff B. |
April 16, 2010 at 08:46 AM
I think it will always be possible to spoof because carriers have to allow forwarded and transferred calls to pass originating CID.
So nice for congress, but I expect this to hit some snags when people consider how to implement it.
Instead of the knee jerk reaction to ban spoofed CID they should
legislate a method to authenticate -valid- CID.
This is like trying to ban spam, when a better solution is to validate legitimate senders.
Brandon Svec |
April 15, 2010 at 08:37 PM
Will this affect GoogleVoice?
Somehow they provide this.
Account Deleted |
April 15, 2010 at 08:39 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address