But it does pay to be broke?
New York jerks face $25K fines for hassling ex with fake caller IDs
A man who faked the caller IDs of his ex-wife's contacts in order to harass her will be fined $25,000. Gary Braver of North Bellmore, New York, and his work pal Steven Blumenstock faked the numbers of Robin Braver's mom and her child's school, among others, in order to trick her into answering her phone. When she did, they …
COMMENTS
-
-
Friday 5th August 2016 05:47 GMT Katie Saucey
Re: In short, it doesn't pay to be a douchebag
Larry Ellison, Zuckerberg, Jobs, googles entire staff, and numerous Microsoft execs ( specifically the one's who's idea it was to nag me for a year about 'upgrading' ) might disagree, it would not surprise me at all to find out they started their careers as professional douchebags.
-
-
Thursday 4th August 2016 23:34 GMT John Brown (no body)
CallerIDFaker.com
I wonder how long that service will still be legal? After all, they are effectively facilitating fraud.
Maybe I'm naive, but I can't think of a valid legal reason for that service to be operating.
Most legit people might have reasons to withhold their number from Caller ID sometimes. Business have legit reasons to "spoof" their main contact number on all outgoing calls. But a service which allows anyone to spoof any number? That just doesn't sound like there could be a legitimate reason for using it.
-
Friday 5th August 2016 04:16 GMT Kurt Meyer
Re: CallerIDFaker.com
@ John Brown (no body)
In the US, if you call a business to enquire about a product or service, you have, according to current practice, established a "business relationship" with said entity. This allows them to bombard you with offers over the phone. You might wish to hide behind a fake number in this instance.
As you said, an individual could withhold his number, but increasingly, one hears "This number does not accept blocked calls", in which case, a fake number may offer a suitable alternative.
-
Friday 5th August 2016 10:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: CallerIDFaker.com
>established a "business relationship" with said entity. This allows them to bombard you with offers over the phone
This works both ways. When they call you tell them you are recording the call then inform them that if they wish to speak to you it will cost x per call and if they call again it is an indication they have accepted that condition, then hang up. I've never had anyone call back either immediately or later.
-
Friday 5th August 2016 14:15 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: CallerIDFaker.com
"As you said, an individual could withhold his number, but increasingly, one hears "This number does not accept blocked calls", in which case, a fake number may offer a suitable alternative."
I suppose that raises the question of why they refuse withheld number calls and do you still want to business with them if you are likely to be phone spammed by them afterwards.
-
Friday 5th August 2016 07:44 GMT Alan Brown
Re: CallerIDFaker.com
"But a service which allows anyone to spoof any number? That just doesn't sound like there could be a legitimate reason for using it."
There isn't - and there are a few such services in the UK.
Meantime I'm getting spam telesales calls using spoofed London numbers (unallocated), trying to sell me on fake injury insurance claims.
-
Thursday 4th August 2016 23:35 GMT Herby
Begs the question...
Why is Caller ID spoofing allowed at all?
I really don't believe that there is a legitimate use for spoofing caller ID. Sure, you can turn it off, but that is the only thing that should be allowed.
It would help people track down calls from "The IRS" that say I owe money.
-
Friday 5th August 2016 02:02 GMT David 132
Re: Begs the question...
Why is Caller ID spoofing allowed at all?
The most plausible reason I've heard so far is that it allows large companies to have a single "outbound" number that shows up when they call customers, rather than the direct number of the agent calling. I.e. when British Gas call you, it shows on your phone as their main 0800-whatever number, rather than some obscure callcenter number.
Seems to me that the best solution would be to require "legitimate" users of caller ID spoofing, such as the above, to post a large £££ bond with the telco (or government) to buy a licence/certificate to use spoofing. Then have the telephone network block/refuse any calls that have a spoofed ID and don't have that cert on record.
Admittedly, that's just me wildly speculating, on the basis of zero knowledge whatsoever of the underlying technology & concepts. In the best tradition of Internet experts everywhere.
-
Friday 5th August 2016 07:49 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Begs the question...
"Seems to me that the best solution would be to require "legitimate" users of caller ID spoofing, such as the above, to post a large £££ bond with the telco"
The problem is that a VOIP or ISDN origin call can set any callerID they want.
BT started countering the problem some years back (for ISDN origin) by only allowing CID of the numbers allocated to the ISDN connection. Anything else (such as 0800/0300/0845) has to be specifically authorised.
Unfortunately BT is not the only telco providing ISDN in the UK and most of the rest are not diligent. In any case it still doesn't stop spoofing from VOIP origin (calls from my personal VOIP show the userID as the origin number - which doesn't even look like a valid number - without the domain name on the end.)
-
-
Friday 5th August 2016 11:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Begs the question...
I can answer a few of these.
Why Spoof?
An example is our company. We run multiple account on behalf of 3rd parties. When we call out we send out the presentation number of that company, so you know a) which "company" called you and b) gives you a number to call back on.
Now with our carrier, we have to sign in blood that we a) either own the number or b) we have the authority to send that number.
Now many of these issues could be stopped. Regardless of what number you send, you always have an underlying trunk number, this is how they bill other carriers and how the emergency services know where you are actually calling from. The simple answer would be blacklisting any company, such as these caller spoof websites, that fail to conform to acceptable standards.
The big issue it takes a lot of balls to do this.
Many Telco's already drop millions of fake calls every day, but this would be the next level.
-
-
Friday 5th August 2016 07:22 GMT chivo243
Yes, Yes, but
"$10,000 for each violation up to a maximum of $1m. In that sense, both Gary Braver and Steven Blumenstock are getting off lightly with the $25,000 fine, applied against each of them, because the FCC noted that it is their first offence."
Does the victim get some of this money? I thought not... I always wondered when a HUGE fine is levied due to a criminal act, where does that money really go? Surely not to the victims, that would be criminal?! Back to the mint where the Gubbermint mint the money?
-
Tuesday 9th August 2016 14:31 GMT CrazyCanuck
They are in jail most likely due the bitch lying she was beaten by her husband or claimed child abuse or that they could no longer pay child support. it is highly unlikely they will be able to pay the fines if they are jail.
This is why men shouldn't marry because these women are evil. MGTOW all the way.