Re:FCC will require phone carriers to authenticate calls by ...
by kube-system on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @01:26PM
(#22751242)
CID spoofing is an entirely different thing from getting a local VoIP number. A lot of spammers just get local VoIP number, that's not spoofing, that's just a real local number.
CID spoofing is when you tell the network to display a different caller ID value than the actual originator. This never had any sort of authentication in the US (until the announcement in the OP)
Most of the spam calls in the US aren't CID spoofed, but some egregious scams are. This is usually used for things like scammers displaying "SOCIAL SECURITY" on the caller ID.
The US just generally doesn't make carriers liable for the crimes of their users. We don't need to change that, and I don't think it's a good idea either because of the unintended affects that could have on accessibility. We just need to require controls that authenticate proper use of the network. The announcement in the OP is one step towards doing that.
But preventing CID spoofing alone is not going to stop spam calls from local numbers, because VoIP.
CID spoofing is when you tell the network to display a different caller ID value than the actual originator. This never had any sort of authentication in the US (until the announcement in the OP)
Most of the spam calls in the US aren't CID spoofed, but some egregious scams are. This is usually used for things like scammers displaying "SOCIAL SECURITY" on the caller ID.
The US just generally doesn't make carriers liable for the crimes of their users. We don't need to change that, and I don't think it's a good idea either because of the unintended affects that could have on accessibility. We just need to require controls that authenticate proper use of the network. The announcement in the OP is one step towards doing that.
But preventing CID spoofing alone is not going to stop spam calls from local numbers, because VoIP.