Congress looking to make Caller ID spoofing illegal

The days of countermining caller ID systems could be coming to an end, at least for those who prefer to live life lawfully. A recent bill introduced in the US Congress, dubbed the "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007," seems to have ripped a line from Suncom commercials of days past, and also seeks to "make it unlawful for any person in the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate information." Of course, the bill definitely leaves loopholes for those involved in law enforcement, but for folks just horsing around, you could face penalties "of up $10,000 for each violation." Leave it to The Man to inhibit our fun.

[Via Slashdot]

[Tom @ Jun 29th 2007 3:50PM]

What about "Restricted" or "Unknown" calls? There are places that people call which they prefer not knowing their phone number.

[matt @ Jun 29th 2007 3:56PM]

Geez i just did this today! it is the only way to get some people to answer there phone. Use someone elses number for your caller id. Besides it makes for some good pranks!

[The ZeroCorpse @ Jun 29th 2007 3:57PM]

I'd just like anyone who places calls and leaves "Restricted" or "Private Caller" or "Unknown" to know that I will not answer such calls. Ever. If I don't know who you are, you don't get the courtesy of an answer, just as if you were standing at my door. If I don't know you, you're not coming into my house.

Block caller I.D. if you want, guys, but you're going to find people are a lot more receptive when you're not so secretive.

As for this bill, it's a good idea. No arguments from me.

[Don @ Jun 29th 2007 5:39PM]

Same here. If you aren't honest enough to tell me who you are, you get no answer. EVER.

[masos @ Jul 1st 2007 5:16AM]

My question is what did you do before caller ID came about? did you just never answer your phone? there used to be a time when there was no caller ID. All these people worrying about who is calling them. If you answer the phone and its someone you dont want to talk to then hang up on them thats how phones work. Phones have been around for along time. Alot longer than caller ID. People who dont answer if it comes up unkown are just plain rude some people still live in little towns that dont have calelr ID srevice and therefore there phones do not transmit caller ID information. Why have a phone if your not gonna answer it. People like this must have something to hide

[eh @ Jun 29th 2007 4:11PM]

10 bucks says it wont get passed since it makes too much sense.

[mark @ Jun 29th 2007 4:12PM]

...Why?




With all of the bills we could be passing to help the environment, the homeless, etc., we choose to put our resources into prohibiting myself from making sure certain people can't get my phone number? So again....




...Why?

[Mark @ Jun 29th 2007 4:17PM]

Yay! no more calls from blockbuster with phone # [phone]! Only bad thing is this is 1 step closer to phone police who come and lock you away if you make prank phone calls and make every1 forget who you are. Who's Afraid of the Dark FTW!

[Moff @ Jun 29th 2007 4:20PM]

What is sad is that it will cost the taxpayers over 10+ Million dollars!

More info:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR251:&t=1

[zedly @ Jun 29th 2007 4:24PM]

Yeah, I agree with Mark, and I think this is just the big telco's securing their features for their customers, so they can make more money off of us. It's the same thing with blocking cell phone signals. You can buy devices to jam cellphones and it it great fun btw, but illegal. Also, you can only buy radio scanners that have cell frequencies blocked, know as the Newt Gingrich law, cause he got in trouble via a scanned call. It's all about controlling people from doing what they want, so company profits are secure. This explains a lot of the behavior of our government I think. Undoubtedly, some money has changed hands here to get this legislation on the docket, and not just a $1000 or less donation!

[Todd @ Jun 29th 2007 4:24PM]

Jack Meoff 555-1212

...dammit!

[Larry @ Jun 29th 2007 4:40PM]

If you read the proposed bill it does not restrict caller id blocking. Your number should still be passed over the PSTN network with privacy flags which prevent the callee from receiving your phone number.

[Matt B @ Jun 29th 2007 4:44PM]

Bye Bye Amanda Hugenkiss 123-555-4311.

[Brian @ Jun 29th 2007 4:46PM]

Yes! YES! This is a fantastic idea! It's too easy to spoof phone numbers, and having gullible old parents, it wouldn't be hard for someone to spoof a bank number and attain security information, or other valuable info.

Do it!

[Joe @ Jun 29th 2007 5:00PM]

I'm so sick of telemarketers calling several times a day at all times of the day or night with unavailable, out of area or toll free call showing up with no number. Half the time you answer there is no one even there. Just a computer dialer.

[Scott S @ Jun 29th 2007 4:58PM]

I hope this does not cause me to loose the ability to set my callerID on my Asterisk voip system. When I forward my calls to my cell, I like being able the change the callerID to the person that is calling so that on my cell phone, I know who is calling.

[Darnell Clayton @ Jun 29th 2007 4:59PM]

Would this bill outlaw Skype as it gives everyone a masked number when you call them?

[James @ Jun 29th 2007 5:02PM]

Meh. "Number Not Given" is neither inaccurate nor misleading, so that would be fine under the bill. I do wonder if there aren't some legit uses of spoofing that aren't covered, though -- didn't Google have a service where they call both you and a 3rd party and connect you at no charge? I think that spoofed the 3rd party's ID so that it showed up in your call log (so that you could call it again later). I thought that was pretty clever, and it would be a shame to mandate that nobody could ever do something clever like that.

We already have fraud laws on the books. If somebody spoofs caller ID in order to commit fraud, they've already committed a crime (fraud!), so why tack on something else to charge them with? If the (much more serious, I assume) laws against fraud don't stop them, why would you expect a law against spoofing to do any good?

[giedrys @ Jun 29th 2007 5:54PM]

My good old P900 is on the picture. Damn, i miss that phone!!!

[HaX80r @ Jun 29th 2007 5:57PM]

I agree with Moff. My tax money sould get spent trying to kick those illegal aliens *cough*Mexicans*cough* out of our country, no arresting 10-year-olds for prank calling the older folks down the street. If someone's using Caller ID spoofing to commit fruad, then bloody well convict them of fraud! The US gavernment is starting to act a lot like Massachusetts. Soon enough they'll start telling us hou much water our toilets can use....oh wait, they already do that.

[eh @ Jun 29th 2007 6:05PM]

Its not meant to stop blocked calls, its meant to stop bogus names and numbers like what spammers do with email addresses. Ive gotten calls from people named California, Vermont, Canada, Whitehouse, Mayor, and abunch of other stupid stuff. They trick people into answering by making it seem they are from the government or a relative who might live in one of the states they are spoofing.

[Russell @ Jun 29th 2007 6:28PM]

I wonder if this will make it illegal for my outsourced phone system with RingCentral (www.ringcentral.com) to "fake" my main business number on all outbound calls through the service even though my main business line is just an ATT local number forwarded to another local ringcentral number...

That would really suck.

[Scptt Davidson @ Jun 29th 2007 7:56PM]

This is crappy nonsense. I do not need the government to protect me from configuration changes to displayed information. Isn't the purpose of government to provide the services, we as individuals are incapable of providing for ourselves? national defense, incoming asteroids, spam, caller id spoofing. I rather they protect me from documentary spoofing. If Michael Moore can take quotes out of context under the guise of free speech, I should be able to rearrange letters on caller id in the same spirit.

[RijilV @ Jun 30th 2007 12:46PM]

so... what about services that don't having an incoming number... this law is about as stupid as they come.

[Urge @ Aug 22nd 2007 1:40AM]

So has this bill passed yet or not? I'm wondering if I still have time to spoof someone.

I'm an ass. And you should be too!