back to article The FCC wants to criminalize AI robocall spam

The FCC wants to make AI-powered robocalls illegal and has warned of a rising wave of scams from voice-cloning technology. On Thursday, Jessica Rosenworcel, boss of America's communications watchdog, said machine-learning software could potentially convince people to do things like donating money to fraudulent causes. It's …

  1. Kev99 Silver badge

    Yes, please. And be sure to ENFORCE the law, unlike the do not call registry which is largely ignored and unenforced.

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      The FCC does enforce the do not call registry, but they have only so many resources so they go after a few big players a year (they make announcements you can google) but there are always more, and smaller ones they ignore.

      IMHO the biggest problem is the exception to do not call politicians have given themselves. The overwhelming majority of calls I get (I live in a hotly contested state) are either politicians or surveys. On my landline (only costs $6/month so I keep it as a way to give out a phone number that doesn't ring and I don't answer, only review voicemails) I get upwards of a half dozen a day during the peak.

      Politicians also figured out my cell number, but fortunately I'm able to block by keyword on SMS messages and spam is not a problem on iMessage (unless the idiots who want to force Apple to open it up to the outside world have their way) so I really don't see it other than every once in a while having to add a new keyword to the SMS filter list. I have my phone set to not ring if I get a call from a number not in my contacts, I get a few of those a day to during election season. They get sent to voicemail but political robocalls never seem to leave a message lol

      Honestly if all political calls and surveys disappeared I'd be fine answering my phone for any call, as the odds it is a call that matters from a number I don't recognize (like my dentist confirming an appointment) would be about equal to it being from a telemarketer, and I would be so few in number I could go back to the old way of dealing with them by simply hanging up.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Ugh. Yes, so much political spam. From probably-spoofed numbers; certainly replying STOP doesn't put an end to it. And the snail mail spam too; can't even opt-out of that because the email on their website bounces!

  2. rerdavies

    Why u no make non-AI robocall spam a criminal offense too? Why? Why?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Outlaw all robocalls and all spam, no distinction.

      Not that this will deter anything...

    2. katrinab Silver badge
      Meh

      It already is apparently, and the FTC are arguing that the same law applies to the supposedly intelligent ones.

      1. Carlie J. Coats, Jr.

        Amend the US Federal Do Not Call Act

        The present Federal Do Not Call Act is ineffective. I think that the Federal "Do Not Call Act" needs to be amended substantially to deal with this situation:

        1) Penalties need to be adjusted for the inflation that has occurred since the 1991 passage of the Act. I suggest they should be adjusted annually by the greater of the annual Consumer Price Index and the annual Producer Consumer Price Index inflation rates.

        2) Presently, the Act lists several "aggravating factors", which increase the statutory penalties from $500 to $1500. Even if multiple aggravating factors are present, the penalty does not increase beyond the penalty for a single aggravating factor,

        Instead, the penalties should have a 1991_$ 1000.00 increment for each aggravating factor, so that, for example, if three aggravating factors are present, the statutory damages should be 1991_$ 3500.00 In particular, each request by the callee never to be called again should also be regarded as a separate aggravation, so in the case of a caller having been told by the callee 100 times never to call again, the damages should be 1991_$ 100,500.00.

        3) Robo-calls are especially disruptive. The statutory damage-increment for robo-calls should be 1991_$ 3000.00 instead of 1991_$ 1000.00. Moreover, the callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs.

        4) Spoofed-number calls are inherently deceptive, and should be considered deliberately fraudulent. The statutory damage-increment for spoofed-number calls should be 1991_$ 5000.00. Moreover, the callee should be reimbursed for attorney and court costs.

        Calls that spoof either medical-provider numbers or government numbers should have penalties as severe as those for impersonating a police officer; moreover, statutory civil damages should be at least 1991_$ 15000.00 per offense.

        5) As noted above, currently telecommunications vendors have no incentive to cooperate with callees, making spoofed-number calls almost impossible to track and penalize. Instead, they need an incentive. Telecommunications vendors should be reimbursed by the court at a rate of 3x their costs, for helping to establish the identities of guilty parties.

        6) When foreign call centers are found responsible for violating the Act, they should be cut off from telecommunications-contact with the US, by whatever means (diplomatic or otherwise) are necessary.

        1. Great Bu

          Re: Amend the US Federal Do Not Call Act

          Nice idea that would continue to be completely ineffective. All the calls will come from foreign centers, all operating over IP and as soon as you 'cut off contact' they just spin up another virtual call center and carry right on.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Amend the US Federal Do Not Call Act

            If you make telcos feel financial pain hurt for failing to prevent ban-dodging, then they will rapidly find ways to actually fix the problem

            They only started going after the IP-based call centres because fraudsters were forging routing data (Which is several layers down from CLID) and the terminating telco wasn't being paid

            Yes, they get paid - usually about 1/3 of the call fee (which is WHY they had a strong disincentive to cooperate in efforts to block inbound spam/scam calls)

        2. katrinab Silver badge

          Re: Amend the US Federal Do Not Call Act

          Can I suggest jail time rather than / in addition to fines?

          It probably doesn't need to be a particularly long time in jail, maybe 6 months for a first offence. They consider fines to be a cost of business that can be avoided with bankruptcy, so it doesn't serve as much of a deterrent. Jail time, even for a few months, would be a lot more effective as a deterrent.

          Also, penalties, including jail time, for any company that hires the services of a robocaller etc, as a strict liability offence.

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Amend the US Federal Do Not Call Act

          "6) When foreign call centers are found responsible for violating the Act, they should be cut off from telecommunications-contact with the US, by whatever means (diplomatic or otherwise) are necessary."

          The phone companies know when they're relaying spam calls and since they make good money on it, they don't care. If they could also be fined and execs subject to jail time, the latter being the most important, they might take steps to shut down the calls. That adds another line of defense if it's not possible to go after somebody in another country.

    3. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Why not outlaw human spam? Because a human can spam one person at a time only. An AI can spam thousands at a time.

  3. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Some months ago I was downvoted

    for pointing out that we have now reached the point that it is impossible to know whether someone said something, or did something, unless you are face-to-face with that person, and can identify them. You cannot trust recordings, film, live video or audio. And of course, the reverse applies. No-one can trust that you are you...

    Can anyone tell me what possible benefit accrues from the development of this sort of technology, other than the obvious 'ooh, shiny, that's a nice trick, I wonder if...?'

    1. HandleBaz

      Re: Some months ago I was downvoted

      Mostly nudes of your ex or Taylor Swift.

      Though it\s certainly debatable if either are a good, they\re definitively things people want.

      1. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: Some months ago I was downvoted

        They are not nudes of Taylor Swift. They are nudes of an unknown woman with a picture of Taylor Swift’s head added. Anyone who is turned on by that is frankly a saddo who needs their head examined.

    2. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: Some months ago I was downvoted

      Benefit in the sense of real broad societal enhancement: nothing. Benefit in the sense that some person manages to make some money: definitely. It doesn't only include people doing illegal or unethical things, either. You could use some of this technology to make certain things more cheaply, for example using modern voice software to perform voice-over work instead of hiring a voice actor or using it to create images instead of hiring a designer. The voice actor and designer probably aren't happy with that option, but it does mean that the costs for whatever involves these will be lower, which may get passed on to you. The harms of unethical and annoying use probably outweigh this, but we don't get to choose not to have it. The technology exists and will be used for all these purposes whether we approve or not. Copyright claims may weaken the one that makes visual art for a bit, but probably not for long, and that's assuming that the side I think is right wins which isn't guaranteed with so much money involved.

  4. Alan Bourke

    Glad this nonsense

    Is illegal in the EU

    1. JDC

      Re: Glad this nonsense

      I got robocalled yesterday, and I'm in Spain. They just call from outside the EU.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Glad this nonsense

        "I got robocalled yesterday, and I'm in Spain. They just call from outside the EU."

        That's ok. If the execs at your local telco could be subject to jail time if they don't put systems in place to shut those calls down, there would be systems in place to shut foreign robocalls from making it to your phone.

    2. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Glad this nonsense

      Also illegal in the UK, but the problem is that the fines issued by the ICO never even get paid, and definitely don't act as a deterrence.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Glad this nonsense

        "Also illegal in the UK, but the problem is that the fines issued by the ICO never even get paid, and definitely don't act as a deterrence."

        Ignoring the regulator's efforts, I notice come telcos are good at stopping spam calls, other are not. My landline is now VOIP'd from A&A, and spam calls are rare as hens teeth. When I had the same number with Virgin Media I was getting about two-four spam calls a day.

        I can't help suspecting that the bigger telcos make serious money from the termination charges for spam calls, and are in no hurry to lose out on that revenue; perhaps somebody who's familiar with the wholesale settlement side of things can tell me if that's correct.

    3. Version 1.0 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Glad this nonsense

      In America I get spam AI calls several times a day ... I assume they are using AI to process my speech so I play Jenny Talia singing F.O.C.U.S. ... I love her song so I am laughing to get an AI spam call.

  5. lglethal Silver badge
    Stop

    Why on Earth are Robo calls even legal? I cannot see a single legitimate use case, outside of perhaps a disaster warning, for Robo calls.

    Ban them, and make the Telco's liable if they dont prevent them. Should be relatively easy to pick up that a single or small number of entry points into the telco network are pumping out hundreds of calls per minute. Those are probably not real people... So just block them. It's not like that wouldnt be hard to automate either.

    Thank $diety, we dont have much of this bollocks in the EU. And that the EU is even cracking down harder on it.

    1. DJO Silver badge

      So just block them. It's not like that wouldnt be hard to automate either.

      What? And lose the revenue from each call made - now you are just being silly.

      As an "innocent" party the telcos probably make more profit from the robo-calls than the people actually making the calls as they will have a tiny success rate but the telcos profit from every call.

      If you want to stop robo-calls you need it to affect the telcos bottom line otherwise there is no incentive for them to throw away revenue.

      1. katrinab Silver badge
        Meh

        Do they get revenue from each called made?

        Pretty much all of their money comes from line rental charges these days.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "Do they get revenue from each called made?"

          Yes, it's called "termination revenue" and it's about 1/3 of the income for an average telco

      2. Mike 137 Silver badge

        "the telcos probably make more profit from the robo-calls than the people actually making the calls"

        Just as the UK postal service makes an undisclosed but probably substantial amount of dosh from distributing junk mail such as pizza parlor flyers, that most people just bin immediately, among the legitimate postal deliveries.

      3. lglethal Silver badge
        Go

        Allow the Telcos to continue to charge for the cost of the Robo calls without ever delivering them. Everyone wins! (Except for the scum making the robocalls, of course. Which is a definite bonus, no?).

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Why on Earth are Robo calls even legal?"

      They're not, except fir disaster warnings or "political canvassing"

  6. Mike 137 Silver badge

    So utterly convincing

    "New Hampshire residents received a fake call mimicking President Joe Biden's voice telling them to not vote in the state's Presidential primary election"

    <sarc>I'm sure the President spends much of his time phoning individual members of the public, regardless of the actual message</sarc>.

    To anyone using half their brain, this is hardly likely to be an effective campaign strategy. And considering the ineptitude of most of the human-generated phone scam calls I get, there's a strong possibility that the bots will be even less convincing.

    1. Jedit Silver badge
      Stop

      "To anyone using half their brain"

      I don't think anyone bar a few people whose brains are even more shrivelled than the two sundowning geriatrics competing to be President actually thinks that Biden called them personally. But it's not unreasonable to believe that it was a message recorded by the President, because that sort of thing happens all the time.

      1. Col_Panek

        Re: "To anyone using half their brain"

        Remember that chicken who lived passably after his head was cut off? I might write in his name for President.

    2. NiteDragon

      Re: So utterly convincing

      There's a surprising amount of humans that can get by in life by clearly having even less than half a brain. If they have less than 1/4 they get to run the country or become executive team members.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fix Caller ID!

    The biggest hole in the current system is the nonfunctional Caller ID. If it's a real caller, it'll tell you who it is; if it's not legitimate, it'll tell you whatever the caller wants it to.

    Tie it to ANI instead; if the ANI doesn't work or doesn't match the supplied caller ID, put a star in front of it. 99+% of spam calls spoof caller ID, so rapidly people would learn not to pick up if there's a star in front of the caller ID.

    1. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: Fix Caller ID!

      This, a thousand times this. DNC lists are unenforceable. Spammers just pop up and vanish too quickly for enforcement agencies to be effective, or they just operate from abroad.

      What would really kill the problem is requiring phone service providers to authenticate Caller ID. Legislation on service providers can actually be enforced comparatively easily. Force them to make it so that users' displays get either an authenticated ID, or a marker that tells them it's unauthenticated (e.g. because it's from a foreign country that doesn't enforce this).

      Having done that, building and maintaining a spammer blacklist becomes vastly easier, and you can just auto-block all unauthenticated calls.

  8. jezza99

    Just hang up!

    I always hang up within seconds if I receive a robocall. They are the ultimate in disrespect and I would not want to deal with any organisation which uses them.

    1. PRR Silver badge

      Re: Just hang up!

      > I always hang up within seconds if I receive a robocall.

      I pass them off to the dog. Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark

      Robo-machinery is cheap but not quite free. The longer we tie-up their resources the less attractive their business is.

  9. Claptrap314 Silver badge

    I get six calls a day

    Every day. Each from a different number with the same first 6 digits--the last four appear to be random from a set of 2000 or so.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like