News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Verified by Twilio. Parent comment

Re:Verified by Twilio by zbentley on Sunday September 01, 2019 @11:49AM (#20852883)
How is that a test of GP's hypothesis? Their claim was about commercial spam or scam calls, not potentially felonious threats.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Verified by Twilio by jdc on Sunday September 01, 2019 @03:08PM (#20854094)
It seems to me the claim is that identifying VOIP subscribers is not feasible.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Verified by Twilio by zbentley on Monday September 02, 2019 @09:35AM (#20859031)
Feasible (as in practical in general to identify spammers/scammers) and possible (as in "could a concerted legal effort identify a single caller who made a threat against an official?") aren't the same thing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Verified by Twilio by jdc on Monday September 02, 2019 @01:19PM (#20860512)
Absolutely. So now that we've established the possibility, the question is, why exactly is it infeasible to use our existing means to identify spammers. And what do we have to do make it feasible?
[ Parent | on HN ]