The STOP keyword is mandated as unsubscribe at the carrier level (Verizon, ATT, TMo) not just the vendor level. So if you reply STOP, it's very likely that you will not receive another message from that number.
This will be true for any programmatic SMS vendor. There could be smaller scale & more manual approaches, but that would be rare.
There has been a big effort in the last year+ to clean up the space and require consent before any SMS is sent.
FWIW, somewhat surprisingly, my google pixel has an amazing spam filter for SMS and I rarely get SMS that I don't want.
What I want to know is, what's the purpose of those random texts that just say something like, "How's it been?" from a number that I've never communicated with? What's the angle there? Anyone know?
My understanding is that they will pretend it's a wrong number, but then make a joke or talk about some innocuous hobby and try to build up trust over weeks/months to eventually phish or scam you. I forget where I read it (maybe reddit?) but there was a poster who mentioned a personal experience with one such scam, basically a fake romance scam that led to them losing tens of thousands of dollars wiring money to a fake person who pretended to have fallen in love with them over weeks of back and forth texting.
It doesn't have to work on everyone to be profitable, just the once-in-a-while lonely pensioner!
https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/05/why-its-not...
It's called pig butchering. You kidnap people, hold them in Cambodia or whatever (lots of locations where local criminal gangs rule) so the locals don't bother checking for literally kidnapped slaves.
If police stop by, pay them off and make up a story about debts and punishment.
Then you use the slaves to scam others in pig butchering scams. If the slaves refuse, you beat them until they comply.
https://www.propublica.org/article/pig-butchering-scams-raid...
This situation is a little more complicated than to be solved by a back and forth on the hacker news comment section.
I don’t think I’ll ever visit Cambodia and I can call Cambodia for a few cents a minute as well as their embassies.
Their local authorities can’t block us all!
The guy working one computer over elbow-to-elbow is gonna narc you out for better treatment, though.
Hopefully my efforts to waste scammers time instead of “just hang up” has got me removed from a few high-value lists.
1. Someone texting the previous owner of my number (John). I got all kinds of traffic for him, including debt collectors, friends, ex-girlfriends, employers, etc. I gather John ran into a spot of financial trouble, dropped his phone-number, and skipped town.
2. An old high-school classmate trying to find my mom found my number on one of those people search sites, probably associated with her address.
3. A random girl who just wanted to chat. I talked to her for a few messages, but didn't progress to a romance scam. She seemed real to me, but who knows?
It's well worth the watch, but tl;dr: it's a long-con scam. They invest as long as it takes to establish a relationship with you, and then engage you to do something (crypto mostly, apparently) involving cash online. They will say they made a bunch of money, and point you at the super-easy online exchange they used. You buy the crypto, you see the crypto increase in value (because it has in the real world) so you buy more, and more and more.
The problems start when you say you want to cash out. They switch from "buy more, it's going up" to "there are fees to withdraw, just deposit another <whatever> and then you'll get the withdrawal amount plus <whatever>" and of course no money ever comes out.
Oliver interviews people who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars this way, some of whom still believe that if they just toss in another <whatever> it will all be resolved and they'll get their money back. It's very sad, and I'm not doing the video justice.
That's only vaguely true. The FCC has effectively said "here's a list of words that are considered reasonable opt out words and let the courts decide what is reasonable when there is a dispute." [0] They're basically deferring to the courts to determine reasonableness.
Obviously it's a good practice to remove people who are intentionally obtuse, but the courts really don't like people who don't follow the instructions, especially because sending "please don't send me messages" is more inconvenient than sending "STOP":
> The court held that “[t]he totality of the plausibly alleged facts, even when viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, militate against finding that Plaintiff’s revocation method was reasonable.” It also rejected the notion that there is something improper about prompting called parties to text “STOP,” explaining that “heeding Defendant’s opt-out instruction would not have plausibly been more burdensome on Plaintiff than sending verbose requests to terminate the messages.”
[1]
That said, it's reasonable to expect that replying "stop" regardless of case should stop those messages from coming through.
[0]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-24A1.pdf
[1]: https://tcpablog.com/2017/revocation-consent-must-reasonable...
If you contact me without my consent I now have to follow your instructions to stop your harassment?
Nonsense.
How do they know I consented vs the person who had the number prior to me? I recieve texts I didn't sign up for all the time for companies I've never heard of for people with names and addresses that are different than mine.
I really feel the burden of consent should be on the sender vs the receiver.
Think of it this way, the receiver must carefully read what they have received in order to correctly opt out but the sender can just run a regex for "STOP" and call it a day. The more difficult burden should be on the sender. They should have to validate every message received to see if it is requesting to opt out. Put another way, the consent is retracted even if your regex didn't detect it.
When it comes to sex consent doesn't work that way; "She didn't say the safeword I texted her a year ago your honor so I had consent!"
Yikes. The lawyer dog comes to mind (a Fifth and Sixth Amendment Supreme Court case). Suspect speaks voluntarily to police until he realizes they suspect him of a crime. He stops and says, "I want a lawyer, dawg." What is meant to happen then is that the interrogation is stopped until that point. Police carried on the interrogation, and the Court ruled that statements he made in that period of time were admissible in securing a conviction against him.
When this was appealed, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear it, saying, with a completely straight face, that there was ambiguity, and that since the police could reasonably believe that he was in fact asking for a canine lawyer, i.e. Lawyer McDog, Esquire, and that they couldn't find such an attorney, there was no invocation of counsel that warranted a termination of the interview.
Something something greatest legal minds of their generation.
But then they continued spamming three weeks after saying they wouldn't. Pathetic.
Also on a side note, the scams are really horrific. Although obviously scams I can imagine especially the older people getting tricked with "hello grandad here's my new number". Makes me wonder what I'll be getting tricked with when I am old.
"Hey babe, want to see my beautiful TUI? I made it in assembly."
wonder if STOP will work for only the same number, or globally.
I also know political messages have lots of loopholes, thanks to the politicians who create the laws.
Replied to that, same deal. Did it for 20+ numbers before getting bored with it.
1) SMS supports receipt functionality, which means the sender can be notified when a message is delivered to a handset. This happens at the carrier level, so you can't turn it off.
2) SMS supports 'silent' messages which are a different message class that is not shown to users.
Receiving a receipt is not a real indication of delivery, and absence of receipt is not a real indication of absence of delivery.
You could, for instance, be texting an unattended device.
Some people are seriously lonely - eager to pick up any chance of real interaction. And those scams prey on that.
On telegram those spam usually comes together with a profile picture of a pretty women. With text only, it targets the imagination.
TL;DR they are scams
Unless it is political
Also, my understanding is that this isn’t even a case of the politicians making an exception for themselves but for this being protected speech, so there are legal issues with blocking it without the kind of majorities American congress is not capable of anymore.
Just like for the longest time it wasn’t insider trading if you were a politician.
The “do not call” registry had a purpose, and it’d have been so easy to add an additional “and also no political anything” to it. Let them burn.
I inadvertently replied to one of those spam messages because the number coincidentally matched the location a relative had recently moved to (I figured it was them trying to joke around while informing me of their new number, it was something along the lines of "Can you guess who I am?"). They replied with a picture of a girl and some question trying to start a conversation. So, I figure they're just fishing for easily tricked or lonely people to manipulate into sending them money.
FWIW I didn't notice much of an uptick in scam texts/calls after that.
Is that just for programmatic messages, or all messages?
I could see problems if it was all messages. For instance suppose a relative coming to visit for weekend and due to arrive around 5 pm Friday. You get a text from them that afternoon saying that there was an accident that has blocked traffic and police say it will be several hours before the road reopens.
They ask if you would prefer that they continue as soon as the road reopens, which will probably mean they will arrive around 1 am Saturday, or stop and spend the night with another relative who lives near where they are currently stuck, and then come Saturday morning which will get them to your place around 9 am.
You text back "stop" to indicate the latter option, and now texts from that relative are blocked. Oops.
When a company or service sends text messages using an automated system like SMS marketing software or bulk messaging service), these platforms are by design and mandatorily programmed to recognize keywords like "STOP" as a signal to unsubscribe the recipient from future messages. This is a requirement for all such systems under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Text messages to your friends do not go through such platforms and so are not subject to that law.
>I'm Alyssa. are you the equestrian instructor that Tina referred me to?
>I'm very sorry, I just checked the number and it was my assistant who sent the wrong number, I hope I'm not disturbing you.
>Thank you for understanding, you are a friendly person, I have found the right number, your number and the riding instructor's number are only one number away, haha, it was a wrong encounter, but it was a kind of fate. Let me introduce myself, my name is Alyssa Chow what is your name?
Also got it from a "Lillian." I do hope they and her assistants find Tina's equestrian instructor.
I still get notifications for these on my Pixel. I just don't want them.
I only recommend responding STOP to short codes since there's more investment and vetting on getting a short code. Carriers will intercept the request for TFN/local numbers sometimes but I don't really trust it. These numbers are all going to be spammers buying pools of numbers to churn and burn. They'll just import their list into a new account if it unsubs.
Oh and btw, it's actually easier now as a spammer to tell when numbers get burned. A few years back when the CTIA handover on regs happened (and sending costs went up) the carriers finally started to respond with the delivery status of the sent messages. Before this they didn't respond and you only knew your provider delivered the messages to the carrier, not whether the carrier delivered them to the handset.
I think it's different if you're applying for a shortcode vs a regular or toll free number though. There are different regulations governing all of those.
Having been on the purchasing end for wholesale marketing SMS I can tell you most of sales people will suggest the 'correct' way and happily sell things that let you do it the 'wrong' way.
The only phone number I ever texted was my real cell number, it's no longer worth having a Twilio number for a hobby project.
(Which, as an end-user, I'm happy about...)
I report their spam to twilio, but twilio claima they cant do anything about spam from their sub
There is a tiny bit of vetting involved and you've got to be a slightly larger account, but it is possible, so it's not safe to assume that if the message is coming from Twilio that STOP will block them at the platform level.
Also, the provider relayed the STOP to the last of their client that reached the number, they had no way to trace it back with 100% confidence.
However, if they're using some other carrier or rolling their own VOIP setup, etc., or sending from a toll-free number instead of a shortcode, there's no guarantee that their particular platform will honor STOP. And there's no way for you, as a recipient, to know which is which.
Generally I will reply STOP if it's something I know I signed up for but no longer want. Things I never signed up for just get reported as spam and I don't reply.