The solution is simple, and I've proposed it before.
If someone used spoofing to break the law, there's strict liability for some kind of statutory damages, say $100, applicable to everyone across the chain. I.e. I can sue Verizon for sending the call to my phone, Verizon can sue whoever connected to their network, they can sue whoever spoofed on their network, etc.
This will quickly lead to networks requiring proof of authorization or at least posting some kind of bond to be allowed to spoof numbers.
And there's no real downside. Nobody has a pressing need to spoof but not enough to post a bond convincing the phone networks that they won't break the law.
> The solution is simple, and I've proposed it before.
Actually, I think the solution is even simpler, and is already in place here in Europe: Make all calls cost a minimum of $0.25 to the caller.
The issue right now is that having a robot call a million phone lines costs basically peanuts. If a million phone calls cost $250,000 instead, then this sort of spam calling wouldn't be effective anymore.
And you don't have to wonder what it looks like. In Europe and the UK, the caller has always paid for the entire connection, including the airtime of mobile phones. It doesn't cost you a dime to receive calls on your mobile phone in the UK; but it costs the caller around 20p per minute. As a result, robocalling mobile phones is not cost effective.
No need for complicated regulatory intervention in this case.
Yeah, a fail2ban would be great. Bell labs ushered in a lot of our infrastructure, it isn't like baby bells haven't been involved in the ecosystem that creates these tools, it looks like they aren't willing to lose any traffic.
Yeah, let's throw out the entire idea, because it is not perfect. Spoofing is the main problem here. If that was blocked the $20 disposable phone would be much harder and more expensive to exploit (his many disposable phones they would have to use to perform a single successful campaign?
Things don't happen in a vacuum, don't be so dismissive. There would probably have been put something in place to stop a $20 sim from doing these things in the first place.
You could, but you also need to take into account the number travels with the SIM, not the handset.
The SIM is you. People already buy burner SIM's, and many countries have started to implement tighter controls on SIM purchasing in order to aid law enforcement's ability to track down telephony enabled crime.
I agree, anyone, everywhere and anywhere in "the chain" is liable immediately - - that will change things promptly as Telecoms will not allow themselves to be liable . . .
If someone used spoofing to break the law, there's strict liability for some kind of statutory damages, say $100, applicable to everyone across the chain. I.e. I can sue Verizon for sending the call to my phone, Verizon can sue whoever connected to their network, they can sue whoever spoofed on their network, etc.
This will quickly lead to networks requiring proof of authorization or at least posting some kind of bond to be allowed to spoof numbers.
And there's no real downside. Nobody has a pressing need to spoof but not enough to post a bond convincing the phone networks that they won't break the law.