House Passes Bill To Ban Caller ID ‘Spoofing’

[brooklynite]

Source: Congressional Quarterly

The House passed legislation Wednesday to ban “spoofing,” the falsification of telephone numbers on Caller ID screens.

Criminals have used falsified Caller ID numbers to trick victims into believing somebody else is calling. In one case, a criminal ring stole over $15 million from over 6,000 people by such tactics. In another, a pregnant woman was tricked into taking an abortion drug and a poison by somebody who spoofed a pharmacy phone number.

The bill passed by the House would make it illegal to cause any Caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate information with the intent to defraud or deceive.

The ban would not apply to the use of false phone numbers in lawful law enforcement investigations and intelligence activities.

Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003640464

---

Shame! Why isn't the GOP standing up against the heavy hand of Government imposing its will on hard working businesses and preventing the "miracle of the free market" from succeeding?

[marybourg]

1. Hmm. I don't have caller ID. My answering machine tells callers

to announce who they are & I'll pick up. No-one has ever lied. They just hang up. Saves caller ID fees too.

[PatSeg]

4. I don't have caller ID on my home phone either,

but all cell phones have it and I know someone who used fake number IDs to harass and stalk his ex, even impersonating the police department. It should be illegal.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Why is it taking them so long to implement this? Should had been long time ago.

Are these Caller ID services they refer to from the phone company or company that operates with intent to spoof numbers?

[PatSeg]

5. It is not from the phone company

You can go online and find numerous sites that provide this service, as well as voice changers.

[DirkGently]

3. Screw spoofing. What about blocking?

No one should be able to call your home anonymously either. There's no right to "telemarket" even for "legitimate" purposes.

I'd also like to see a better mechanism under the FDCPA or new legislation for misdirected collection calls. I've gotten ... 50? ish calls from some group looking for "Theresa" over the past two years. They call about every day with the same mechanized message. No response to several requests they stop. They're sarcastic when I tell them I'm not her, like I'm lying to them. "Oh, and how long have you had this number. Three years? Oh, come on."

[Trillo]

7. Great idea, "blocking". I'd also like the ability to limit who can ring my phone.

What I'm thinking of would be a "whitelist" of numbers that are input somehow, then if someone calls who isn't on the whitelist, they get a recording that says something like, "I'm sorry, but you're not authorized to call this number. Click," and most importantly, the phone doesn't ring, and the answering machine doesn't answer to record. If the phone does ring, you know it's an authorized family member, probably a boss, or someone else who has been whitelisted.

The USPS is still a good service. If unauthorized callers want to invade my home electronically, they can write me a paper letter requesting that I put them on the whitelist of authorized callers. And I can then choose whether to do so, or not.

[DirkGently]

8. Absolutely

Unsolicited calls (which occur despite the "no call list") are an aggressive intrusion into the home. No one has the right to contact people inside their homes to discuss proposed sales, loans, etc. without an invitation.

[cullen7282]

12. That exists

It's called selective call acceptance/rejection

[ThomThom]

16. good idea......... I feel the same way

[paulsby]

22. blocking is fine

people should have a right to block their # and YOU have the right not to answer.

choice. it's what's for dinner

as for this bill, i support it

[arikara]

6. Weird. Some of that makes no sense

I can see crooks using it to defraud people but there is way more to the story of the pregnant woman.

[ehrnst]

14. Yep - Mifepristone must be administered in the presence of a practitioner

You can't get it at a pharmacy. It's in two doses, 48 hours apart, both of which must be taken at a medical office or facility with a practitioner present.

The part about the woman being scammed into taking it via a phone call is bogus. I wonder if some PL legislator slipped that little fable in in order to start an urban legend. Or some woman thinks that she miscarried because of a phone call...

[spotbird]

17. An ulcer drug, misoprostol, can cause

spontaneous abortion. I don't know if that's what happened, but if the story is true, it likely wasn't Mifepristone that was given to the woman.

[spotbird]

19. Here it is

Cytotec (misoprostol) is a drug that is commonly used to prevent stomach ulcers. It also has the side nasty effect of inducing premature labor and abortion. The perfect drug for Jones’s purposes. But how was she to get a hold of it? Jones stole a prescription pad and wrote a prescription to Hunter for the Cytotec. She then convinced Hunter that she worked in a doctor’s office and that the medication was to prevent her baby from having Down Syndrome. Of course, Down Syndrome is a genetic disorder and Cytotec has no place in preventing its occurrence. Hunter, not knowing this, took the medication and as expected went into premature labor. Fortunately, the child survived.

In order to convince Hunter that she was indeed from a doctor’s office, Jones used to spoofing technique through a private company. Apparently the service allows the user to adopt someone else’s caller ID and even to disguise the user’s voice. In this case, Jones spoofed the doctors phone number and then disguised her voice so that it would not be recognized. Hunter believed that the call did indeed originate from her doctor and that she should take the new medication as directed.

http://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/category/cause-manner-of-death/

[groundloop]

9. Passed the House - yawn.... Now comes the Senate

I predict doom for this bill in the Senate, where every republican't Senator plus Joe Lie-berman will stand up for the rights of telemarketers and prevent a vote.

[tburnsten]

10. I wish they hadn't made an exception for law enforcement

[SkyDaddy7]

11. Almost every law has an exception for law enforcement written in....

Whether it is tint on car windows to this bill...Law Enforcement is ABOVE THE LAW! In most cases...If not, then they just lie about it.

[tburnsten]

13. Or ignore it

They often don't understand that they are civilians, they are not secret agents, they are not military personnel, they are civilians.

Just like everyone else.

God I hate living in a soon to be police state. Especially when it's otherwise so nice.

[paulsby]

23. tactical deception is and should be legal

and this bill recognizes that.

so, if i am contacting an arms dealer (note: i have bought arms before while undercover), i shouldn't be allowed to use a fake # to hide my identity?

seriously?

[tburnsten]

25. Why not just get a real number, a tracfone or something?

[paulsby]

26. that's a good alternative

i am just saying that the entire point of undercover work is DECEPTION, and hiding your identity and/.or pretending to be somebody else.

the idea that law enforcement should not be allowed to do this imo is silly

when i was undercover i routinely possessed (and was authorized to use) illegal drugs.

ditto for illegal guns.

clearly, the reason this is an exception to the laws is because it's written in, but of course the underlying REASON is based on mens rea. no criminal intent.

some of the most violent planned acts are stopped w./o a shot due to good undercover work, whether that occurs in the UK (and they thwarted a major attack this way) or the US or canada.

as long as agents aren't entrapping, i strongly support undercover work. it is a way that often results in far less force and tragedy while bringing bad guys to justice

i do NOT support the war on drugs, but of course since our dem and repub politicians won't end it (citizen initiatives may work quicker), of course undercover work is done in this venue as well

[SkyDaddy7]

28. Of course!

However, there is a growing culture within law enforcement that they are untouchable! You may deny this as you work in law enforcement. However, I have worked on the opposite side and there are huge problems with cops not getting punished for obvious violations of ethics, law and human rights. Judges do not punish cops who get caught lying on the stand, changing police reports...At the same time police chiefs almost always say the their officers acted appropriately regardless...And politicians can't run on reforming law enforcement out of fear of being labeled "soft on crime" or "unpatriotic". So, this problem continues to spiral out of control!

If it were not for cell phone cameras we would not even be having this discussion! That college student charges would never have been dropped and any complaint he would have made would have fallen on deaf ears as almost all complaints do absent video proof. And even then many cops are not "fired" but yet given the chance to "resign" and this allows them to remain in law enforcement just with a different agency.

I understand police have a very hard job to do but enough is enough. We give weapons and tons of authority to people who simply are not fit for the responsibility and then we act like there is no problem...There is! And we should be able to talk about it and not have every incident like this be called an "isolated incident" and thats it.

[paulsby]

29. i love cell phone cameras

and recording

it helps cops protect against false complaints (which are most complaints) and helps others protect against rogue cops

win/win

my state, in all its nannystatism criminalizes recording w/o 2 party consent, but this doesn't really apply (imo and according to case law) to police/citizen interactions

which is good

sunshine is the best disinfectant

all cops should act like they are ALWAYS on camera.

i do

the camera loves me btw

mostly my right side

[MattBaggins]

31. This isn't international so it's worthless.

[SpartanDem]

20. So when the FBI pretended to be tea partiers

and called the guy to catch the person who threatened Senator Murray you think that was wrong?

[tburnsten]

21. Yes, I think that is called "entrapment" in many cases

Regardless of the politics of the criminal. I'm glad they caught him, but I don't see why they needed to falsify their phone number to do so.


Sorry if you feel that a useful police state is any better than a police state turned against you.

[paulsby]

24. it's not entrapment

you don't understand what entrapment means

and undercover investigations =/= police state

try spending 10 minutes IN a police state (i have) and you will understand the difference

[ehrnst]

15. Link to the so-called abortion drug case they're referring to:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/12/05/2009-12-05_vengeful_brooklyn_wife_.html

According to this article, a woman tricked her husband's pregnant mistress into picking up and take a prescription that triggered premature delivery.

The woman stole the prescription pad and wrote a prescription for Cytotec, which is a steroid used to treat ulcers, and can induce labor, but is not considered an abortifacient on its own. It is the second part of a medical abortion, in doses that cause contractions - after the Mifepristone has ended the pregnancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytotec

This case was more about stolen prescription pads than it was about caller ID.

[customerserviceguy]

18. Oh, good, they're passing a law

That should deter criminals!

What about just educating stupid people never to give money to someone over the phone that the person themselves didn't call? Laws against impersonating corrupt Nigerian officials wouldn't have stopped all the idiots from sending their money over there.

[Psephos]

27. Read the bill. As written, it's going to create major headaches.

Here's the bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1258rh.txt.pdf

It appears that nobody on Capitol Hill consulted a voice engineer.

Most caller ID from businesses is "spoofed." When someone calls you from a company that operates a PBX (internal switching network), the number on your ID box is rarely the actual number of the caller. Most likely, it's a designated line that brings you to a directory tree, N.A.L. queue, or something else more appropriate and more responsive than an individual DID (node).

There is no exemption or clarifying language for businesses using private branch exchanges (i.e., most companies over 50 employees). But there is an exemption for law enforcement. Not much of a surprise there.

Now consider VOIP. For example, say you use Skype to make outbound calls. You either have to spoof your caller ID to match your "real" phone, purchase an online number from Skype and then tether your caller ID to that, or transmit a nonsensical ID like 88888888. In short, all of the CID functionality provided by Skype involves spoofing.

So how are VoIP provides like Skype supposed to operate now?

The law is poorly written. There will be an outcry from the millions of people it punks. Regulations and "clarifications" will have to be drafted to hack the law back into what it was supposed to be in the first place, a safeguard against scammers.

[guruoo]

30. Not sure how they'll enforce it.

[defendandprotect]

32. About time Congress moved to stop all the scams -- from personating Soc. Sec./IRS/Banks/etal ...

in e-mail and US mail to "liar loans" --

Congress has plenty to do!!

Let's start with a seat at the table for Consumers!!!

Cabinet post!