ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Kentucky lawmaker wants telemarketers to list true caller ID

    News
    6
    13
    1.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • DustinB3403D
      DustinB3403 @dafyre
      last edited by

      @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.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DustinB3403D
        DustinB3403
        last edited by

        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?

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
          last edited by

          @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.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
            last edited by

            @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.)

            DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • RojoLocoR
              RojoLoco
              last edited by

              Shouldn't they just pass a bill that would outlaw all forms of telemarketing? Seems much simpler to enforce.

              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller @RojoLoco
                last edited by

                @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 😞

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • DustinB3403D
                  DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  @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?

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                    last edited by

                    @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.

                    wrx7mW 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • wrx7mW
                      wrx7m @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @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?

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @wrx7m
                        last edited by

                        @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.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 1 / 1
                        • First post
                          Last post