Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID
-
@gjacobse said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
House Majority Whip Kevin Bratcher, R - Louisville, has pre-filed a bill for the 2019 Legislative Session which would require telemarketers to list their true caller ID number or have it listed as unknown.
Every telemarketer would just go with unknown and not disclose their number.
$500 for the first time offense, $3000 per afterwards. (I'm assuming per call with a fake number).
-
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@gjacobse said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
House Majority Whip Kevin Bratcher, R - Louisville, has pre-filed a bill for the 2019 Legislative Session which would require telemarketers to list their true caller ID number or have it listed as unknown.
Every telemarketer would just go with unknown and not disclose their number.
$500 for the first time offense, $3000 per afterwards. (I'm assuming per call with a fake number).
$3k per incident afterwards... That don't seem steep enough to me.
-
@dafyre said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@gjacobse said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
House Majority Whip Kevin Bratcher, R - Louisville, has pre-filed a bill for the 2019 Legislative Session which would require telemarketers to list their true caller ID number or have it listed as unknown.
Every telemarketer would just go with unknown and not disclose their number.
$500 for the first time offense, $3000 per afterwards. (I'm assuming per call with a fake number).
$3k per incident afterwards... That don't seem steep enough to me.
Well think about the volume of the calls. If you robocalled 10,000 people that's $30 Million in fines. Assuming it wasn't your first offence.
-
Technically, isn't listing "Unknown" as the caller-id name; disguising the phone number? Anything but the actual number or the business name would be, right?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@gjacobse said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
House Majority Whip Kevin Bratcher, R - Louisville, has pre-filed a bill for the 2019 Legislative Session which would require telemarketers to list their true caller ID number or have it listed as unknown.
Every telemarketer would just go with unknown and not disclose their number.
$500 for the first time offense, $3000 per afterwards. (I'm assuming per call with a fake number).
Sure, but then EVERYONE can just block unknown. Problem solved.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
Technically, isn't listing "Unknown" as the caller-id name; disguising the phone number? Anything but the actual number or the business name would be, right?
Technically, no. Not disguising. Hiding and disguising are different.
Disguising means making it look like something else. Hiding means it is clear that it is not known. One is a deception, the other is openly witholding.
Think about kids being told that they ARE getting X for their birthday instead of really getting Y (a lie) versus simply being told it is a surprise and they have to wait to see what they got (openly withholding.)
-
Shouldn't they just pass a bill that would outlaw all forms of telemarketing? Seems much simpler to enforce.
-
@RojoLoco said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
Shouldn't they just pass a bill that would outlaw all forms of telemarketing? Seems much simpler to enforce.
Then you'd have to define telemarketing. And that would cover all that protected marketing like politicians
-
@scottalanmiller said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
Technically, isn't listing "Unknown" as the caller-id name; disguising the phone number? Anything but the actual number or the business name would be, right?
Technically, no. Not disguising. Hiding and disguising are different.
Disguising means making it look like something else. Hiding means it is clear that it is not known. One is a deception, the other is openly witholding.
Think about kids being told that they ARE getting X for their birthday instead of really getting Y (a lie) versus simply being told it is a surprise and they have to wait to see what they got (openly withholding.)
Yeah that makes sense, wouldn't do anything to stop phishing calls in any way. Which isn't the goal of this law?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@scottalanmiller said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
Technically, isn't listing "Unknown" as the caller-id name; disguising the phone number? Anything but the actual number or the business name would be, right?
Technically, no. Not disguising. Hiding and disguising are different.
Disguising means making it look like something else. Hiding means it is clear that it is not known. One is a deception, the other is openly witholding.
Think about kids being told that they ARE getting X for their birthday instead of really getting Y (a lie) versus simply being told it is a surprise and they have to wait to see what they got (openly withholding.)
Yeah that makes sense, wouldn't do anything to stop phishing calls in any way. Which isn't the goal of this law?
Kind of. Faked called IDs are nearly always done for the purpose of phishing, even if just lightly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@scottalanmiller said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
Technically, isn't listing "Unknown" as the caller-id name; disguising the phone number? Anything but the actual number or the business name would be, right?
Technically, no. Not disguising. Hiding and disguising are different.
Disguising means making it look like something else. Hiding means it is clear that it is not known. One is a deception, the other is openly witholding.
Think about kids being told that they ARE getting X for their birthday instead of really getting Y (a lie) versus simply being told it is a surprise and they have to wait to see what they got (openly withholding.)
Yeah that makes sense, wouldn't do anything to stop phishing calls in any way. Which isn't the goal of this law?
Kind of. Faked called IDs are nearly always done for the purpose of phishing, even if just lightly.
Right. But, isn't their already a law against what phishers are doing?
-
@wrx7m said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@scottalanmiller said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@scottalanmiller said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
@DustinB3403 said in Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID:
Technically, isn't listing "Unknown" as the caller-id name; disguising the phone number? Anything but the actual number or the business name would be, right?
Technically, no. Not disguising. Hiding and disguising are different.
Disguising means making it look like something else. Hiding means it is clear that it is not known. One is a deception, the other is openly witholding.
Think about kids being told that they ARE getting X for their birthday instead of really getting Y (a lie) versus simply being told it is a surprise and they have to wait to see what they got (openly withholding.)
Yeah that makes sense, wouldn't do anything to stop phishing calls in any way. Which isn't the goal of this law?
Kind of. Faked called IDs are nearly always done for the purpose of phishing, even if just lightly.
Right. But, isn't their already a law against what phishers are doing?
With phones? Don't believe so. Legacy tech like phones and postal mail often have the worst behaviours protected by law.
