News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FCC fines robocaller record $120M by Paul-ish on Friday May 11, 2018 @12:42PM (#17048783)
The FCC at some point considered requiring authentication numbers or attaching names to numbers. They ultimately rejected the idea. There were multiple reasons why they rejected it, but from talking to someone at the FCC one of the reasons they rejected connecting numbers to identities too strongly is that victims of domestic abuse may need to call their abuser (eg about child support), but do so without giving away too much information (like address).
Re:FCC fines robocaller record $120M by gruez on Friday May 11, 2018 @01:03PM (#17048954)
payphone? also, can't you call as a blocked number?
Re:FCC fines robocaller record $120M by c22 on Friday May 11, 2018 @01:31PM (#17049238)
The last time I saw a payphone was several months ago, that one was missing the handset and looked like it may have been in a fire.
Re:FCC fines robocaller record $120M by s73v3r_ on Friday May 11, 2018 @03:01PM (#17049985)
What would stop a spammer from using those tactics too?