jfalcon

Caller ID Spoofing Bill - 2010 edition

13 posts in this topic

thats great maybe they will make

a canspoof bill also to protect

those pesky phreaks n hackers

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do not like that they keep trying to ban CID spoofing.. there are many legitimate reasons to spoof your CID...

reasons that I have used CID spoofing are:

1- for free CNAM look ups of phone numbers - i spoof the number, to another phone in my home, and am able to see what the name associated with that number is..

2- to call customers/clients from my cell phone and show the office telephone number on the CID screen, so that people can not get my cell phone number and annoy me at all hours of the day, when they should be calling into the office..

3- not so legitimate, but harmless - i like calling my wifes cell phone from the house phone number, or vice versa, just to confuse the fuck out of her...

another problem with this bill is that it wants to ensure that VoIP service providers provide accurate CID info... what happens to providers that do not provide you with a DID (voipbuster) or where incoming calling and a DID cost more (skype) will they end up going away, or being forced to charge you for a DID and incoming calls? could you use a third party to obtain a DID (ipkall) and spoof your outgoing number to appear as this number? can you spoof your calls to appear from your google voice number? there are many legit reasons for spoofing... just because it CAN be abused does not mean that it should be banned... should everything that has the potential to be misused for negative, or criminal purposes also be banned?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3- not so legitimate, but harmless - i like calling my wifes cell phone from the house phone number, or vice versa, just to confuse the fuck out of her...

LOL!

another problem with this bill is that it wants to ensure that VoIP service providers provide accurate CID info... what happens to providers that do not provide you with a DID (voipbuster) or where incoming calling and a DID cost more (skype) will they end up going away, or being forced to charge you for a DID and incoming calls? could you use a third party to obtain a DID (ipkall) and spoof your outgoing number to appear as this number? can you spoof your calls to appear from your google voice number? there are many legit reasons for spoofing... just because it CAN be abused does not mean that it should be banned... should everything that has the potential to be misused for negative, or criminal purposes also be banned?

I agree with you entirely. Instead of wasting taxpayer money writing new laws and making everything more complex, why can't they just enforce the laws they already have?

The only reason I see spoofing CID being a problem is when someone tries to fraud someone for monetary gain. In that case, wouldn't the wire fraud laws be sufficient?

I guess it's just politicians looking for votes, or trying to hide pork barrel fat in some amendment or other.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3- not so legitimate, but harmless - i like calling my wifes cell phone from the house phone number, or vice versa, just to confuse the fuck out of her...

LOL!

yea - the (free) spoofing service that i use (bluff my call) does not allow you to spoof the number that you are calling as the CID - i guess to prevent VMB hacking with CID vulnerable systems - that would have really confused the shit out of her, if her phone was calling herself...

edit =

i just spoofed my wife with the white house number.. i could hardly hold back my laughter -

her: " hello"

me: "this is the president"

her: "you have the wrong number"

me: "this is obama"

her confused: "ok.."

me: "you owe taxes"

her realizing it was me: "stop that you asshole..."

Edited by nyphonejacks
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are they going to pass a law requiring that the authors of laws have at least a faint idea as to what the fuck they are talking about.

And as stupid the politicians are who write this legislation, those assigned to enforce it are not only dumber than you imagine, but are dumber than you can imagine. :wink:

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people get in such a bitch fit over what's essentially a commodity service. My first thought was that this was targeted more at people using spoofing for malicious things such as exploiting banks or swatting, but as PurpleJesus pointed out, these're already covered under existing laws. Until or if someone bothers writing an exception for telemarketters, this could make their life a little more interesting.

All I can say is I'm thankful they didn't (seemingly) bother to cover ANI fails.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people get in such a bitch fit over what's essentially a commodity service. My first thought was that this was targeted more at people using spoofing for malicious things such as exploiting banks or swatting, but as PurpleJesus pointed out, these're already covered under existing laws.

Well, what Purple Jesus refers to is basically after-the-fact type legislation. This legislation is to prevent something that would lead up to fraud. It's legislation that protects a service which could be used for fraud. A subtle difference.

At any rate, I can already see this section as being vague enough to cause enforcement/judicial problems...

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection with any real time voice communications service, regardless of the technology or network utilized, to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, with the intent to defraud or deceive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit, so I can't spoof to my friends on my private frame relay network? :'(

EDIT: To add something useful to this post, it's worth pointing out that the horrendous amount of black routes employed by VoipBuster, every other Betamax subsidiary, and many other providers (AT&T even uses black routes to terminate to Cuba) generally stop the transmission of caller-id, or sometimes even set something entirely different - especially in cases where, I kid you not, they re-originate the calls over POTS lines.

As ridiculous as it sounds, this sort of practice really is quite common in countries that cost a lot of money to terminate to, or to parts of the US by quite a few VoIP providers.

Edited by ThoughtPhreaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect every single major (and minor) communications provider (and other large corporations) to be criminally charged as soon as possible for calling my phone with an 800 number showing as caller id.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two important facts that they didn't take into account with this bill and the sheep in Congress just drove past it...

1.) There are no exemptions for "Greater Good" policies... (ie: Women's shelters)

2.) That taxpayer money will be used to fix yet another flaw in a privately owned company. Make Ma Bell fix her own shit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if spoofcard.com is going to make it to CNN

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now