SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC

Keith Medcalf kmedcalf at dessus.com
Thu Jul 11 18:59:53 UTC 2019


Not my job.  

However, if you hire me I am sure that I can come up with a solution.  

Since retirement my rates have dropped to $1,000/hour with a 4 hour minimum.  Payable in advance since you probably have no established credit with me.

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ross Tajvar [mailto:ross at tajvar.io]
>Sent: Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:54
>To: Keith Medcalf
>Cc: Christopher Morrow; North American Network Operators' Group
>Subject: Re: SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC
>
>Well yeah, people need to take responsibility, but IMO we as
>engineers need to discuss the specific circumstances and
>methodologies that enable that to happen. It's easy to say "they
>should fix it", and you're not wrong that they should, but how? Do
>you have a validation framework in mind which carriers can implement
>that prevents fraudulent caller ID information from being sent
>without preventing legitimate use cases?
>
>On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:46 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf at dessus.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>	On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:38, Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io>
>wrote:
>
>	>What if you use different carriers for termination and
>origination?
>	>How does your termination carrier validate that your
>origination
>	>carrier has allocated certain numbers to you and that you're
>	>therefore allowed to make outbound calls with a caller ID set
>to
>	>those numbers? That doesn't sound to me like something that can
>be
>	>solved as quickly and easily as you imply.
>
>	It does not really matter.  What matters is that they bear
>responsibility for an act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit
>fraud.
>
>	--
>	The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to
>Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
>
>	>
>	>On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:33 PM Keith Medcalf
><kmedcalf at dessus.com>
>	>wrote:
>	>
>	>
>	>
>	>       On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 11:18, Christopher Morrow
>	><morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>	>
>	>       >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins
>	><paul at telcodata.us> wrote:
>	>
>	>       >> Chris it would be trivial for this to be fixed,
>nearly
>	>overnight,
>	>       >> by creating some liability on the part of carriers
>for
>	>illicit use of
>	>       >> caller ID data on behalf of their customers.
>	>
>	>       >'illicit use of caller id' - how is caller-id being
>illicitly
>	>used
>	>       >though?
>	>       >I don't think it's against the law to say a different
>	>'callerid' in
>	>       >the call session, practically every actual call center
>does
>	>this, right?
>	>
>	>       The problem is that CallerID is not really the CallerID.
>It is
>	>some fraudulent shit created by the caller.  This is not how
>	>"CallerID" was originally sold.  It was sold as being the ID of
>the
>	>Caller.  If it is not the ID of the Caller then Fraud is being
>	>committed and the bastards should be castrated (or worse), and
>the
>	>CEO and Directors of the carrier responsible for fraud getting
>	>through to the end-user should face the same penalty.
>	>
>	>       See then how quickly this gets fixed.  You will fall off
>your
>	>chair and it will be a "solved problem" before your arse hits
>the
>	>ground!
>	>
>	>       --
>	>       The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a
>Stairway to
>	>Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>	>
>	>
>	>
>	>
>	>
>
>
>
>
>







More information about the NANOG mailing list