Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010 makes Caller ID spoofing a crime
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted April 15th 2010 3:41PM
posted April 15th 2010 3:41PM
Caller ID spoofers, your days are numbered! The "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010" has just passed the House. The bill -- which has been kickin' around in one form or another since 2007, and which only passed the Senate as recently as this February -- makes it illegal "to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information." As Ars Technica points out, there are some exceptions, including blocking your own outgoing caller ID info, and law enforcement is exempt. This bad boy is aimed at any and all real-time voice service, "regardless of the technology or network utilized," ensuring that VoIP is included. Look for the punitive measures (including flogging) to kick in about six months from now. [Warning: PDF read link]
Hmm. I think skype just sends "1234567890" or something (last i checked years ago). I guess they'll have to come up with something less "misleading", lest someone think that's your number...
@Taylor Yes Taylor I think should just try caller ID blocked.
@Viakenny *they should try.
@Taylor Yes Taylor
you can tell Skype to use your number, something that I do. I hope that isn't outlawed, it makes things so much easier not having to explain VoIP to people when they see the goofy number.
@knewman
I agree that's a nice feature. According to the wording, it wouldn't fall under the "misleading" category, but I suppose it would technically be inaccurate. I doubt it'd be a problem though.
There is a god.
@strawe Indeed - you haven't lived until you get 387 calls from people all around the country at all times during the day and night asking "Why did you call me?" because some marketeer has decided your family's home phone number that has been yours fro 20 years is a good one to display on their outgoing calls.
@strawe no there isn't.
Sigh.
@normz
Why have we not heard about how all tweets will be stored by the Library of Congress (this is a fact). The government gets access to all you say and think. I hope we enjoy the police state....
@New Reformation
It's not just the government, it's everybody. Stop posting all you say and think in public places like, you know, THE INTERNET, and then it wont be an issue
@New Reformation Only public tweets are archived by LoC.
@New Reformation
Users approve it when they accept the TOS. If they don't like it, then they shouldn't be using the site.
@vanmankline
I never saw anything about Library of Congress in the TOS. Although must people skip through the TOS, I usually search for keywords like government, arrested, court, fine, fee, trail...that sorta thing.
@Plazmic Flame gotta give a +1 for a good thought on how to skim TOS.
So instead of seeing "Out of Area" from god know's who's calling we'll just start to see their phone numbers which are equally useless. WooHoo.
@KyleLipp you obviously don't get it
you will still see "out of area" number, but if you call me from (123) 333-4444 and that number belongs to my dad, then you can get to jail.
@KyleLipp
Exactly. What normal person or business would hide their number? So now instead of ignoring "Anonymous" or "Out of Area" callers I have to answer every call just in case it's really an important call and I just don't recognize the number.
Honestly, can't Congress find something else to screw up?
So what can we do that is not a crime nowadays?
@staticjethro
Pay taxes.
@JeezWhiz87 but pay exactly the right amount of taxes mind, or else that's a crime too.
@tracdoor
Or you can overpay; that's perfectly legal.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Making a law against it has done wonders for stopping Spam.
@Kingpcgeek yes but those arnt massive buisnesses doing that. where as collection agencys and things of that nature do it all the time
@Kingpcgeek Spam can originate internationally and we wont do much about it. This is much more traceable, localized and preventable. That wont necessarily stop it, but if it can do anything to curb it should we complain much?
I think that every number should also list the persons/businesses name, instead of "800 number" or unknown. There should also be a way to do this for cell phones, besides just saying the states initials and "cell". Also, why don't they enforce the do not call list?
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget Go bitch at your own carrier for that. T-Mobile's been showing my name for quite some time.
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget the DNCL is enforced. Do a search for "do not call list fine" and you will see. The FTC requires complaints from people though, so, if you file a complaint, they wont do anthing.
https://www.donotcall.gov/
left side, second from bottom "file a complaint"
what will Sal and Richard do now
@blink4ever87 what they always do: Keep creating contrived bits and pass them off as legitimate prank calls.
@blink4ever87 - buy throwaway numbers and keep pranking the Tradio and Swap Shop Rubes. Blumpkin Pie! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDYGXBpIm8
@blink4ever87
That's funny you said that... I work for Sirius H100/H101 and it hadn't even crossed my mind. I just forwarded this article to Gary.
This is horrible. There are plenty of times that this has been useful with the callerIDfaker app for my Droid. Horrible news for late night shenaningans
Yay.
Next thing you know, Congress will pass a law that forces you to use account names that are not misleading....Sorry Yoda. We'll all know you are a fake anyway.
This is good news but it makes me concerned about things like Google Voice. I am hoping that their services don't get tied into however the bill was worded.
@Jouva Ditto. The whole point of GV is to have a single point of contact. It allows me to avoid number porting annoyances (I'm prepaid), use VoiP seamlessly (through gizmo5) without confusing people about who is calling and have a single messagebox to check.
The law apparently only applies to those with an intent to defraud, but what does that mean? If I intend to make you think I'm calling from some quasi-existant GV line when really I'm on my cell or GV, have I defrauded you?
I hope to hear from Google about this. I'm sorry Engadget didn't spot the issue and reach out to them for comment.
@fortunzfavor this has also been a concern for me, I hope this bill is written correctly and is not abused by corporations like AT&T who might use it to attack VOIP companies and google voice
Does this include the restricted and/or blocked feature that many phones have?
@jmachol
wow couldn't even make it through the entire paragraph could you?
@rutter9
Ah, read the top and then scanned the bottom half, must have missed that section.
P.S - A simple yes would have worked as well.
Wow. Many of you have poor reading comprehension. Just read it carefully. The answers are there.
Of course, Engadget leaves out the last part of the sentence after the comma: ", with the intent to defraud or deceive." Spoofing my google voice number, while using my cell phone, or vice versa, will still be legal.
@ISEPIC That was actually exactly what I was wondering about...my google voice number is a totally legit number, but its not technically the number im calling from.
@ISEPIC Thanks. People should read the short bill, as Engadget seems to have not gotten past the headline. :~)
no more OwnagePranks :(
I sent an email to SpoofApp, the company behind the caller ID spoofing application for jailbroken iPhones. Their response? http://yfrog.com/jpscreenshot20100415at401p
damn...i love spooftel
i didn't bother reading the bill, but what about the one legit use of CID spoofing: people who are victims of abuse and their abuser is still loose or others who need extra privacy in that sense.