We need action to cut off fake phone numbers

I agree that is one possible way of dealing with the diversion of calls to reassigned numbers. It could lessen the impact of robo-calls, but it doesn’t deal with the main issue in the UK of nuisance calls set up by an agent who then tries to sell something, procure personal data, or take-over the computer.

I see Bill’s proposal as a more strategic approach because it turns the call back if the caller doesn’t own the line number being presented and makes the perpetrator pay for it [that’s if I have understood his proposal correctly].

It’s a remarkably ineffectual series of proposals. ” PROPOS(ed) MEASURES TO REDUCE UNWANTED ROBOCALLS” doesn’t sound like the sort of concrete measure we need. But then, what more could we expect from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai who deftly presided over the demise of net neutrality regulations in the US.

While a ‘ reassigned number database.’ might have some effect it seems clear that the US are as stymied as we appear to be in the face of determined spammers.

So it seems John is right: stopping all nuisance calls – at least prior to the person or machine making the call – is impossible.

Prior to the person making the call ?
You mean making the call don’t you Ian, as even at their best the US government isn’t fully Physic or should I say sane when it comes to policy outside its borders.

But don’t you know that could be stopped but wont be for the very same reasons as our government wont stop it .
By closing down all the businesses selling the means of doing it as they buy in bulk numbering using VOIP , I have already mentioned twice on this website that I have the URL,s for 2 USA websites —Legally selling (at present ) this service.
It would not stop hacking but it would stop automatic bulk number dialing but they wont stop it because businesses use the same system.
As far as I know one town in England has been connected to BT,s VOIP dialing but BT (strangely ) has not told the inhabitants.

I have seen nothing to convince me that every potential spam call can be intercepted prior to the ‘phone ringing in the house of the intended target. Of course there are ways of limiting the effect but the one truism the bad guys live by is that crime will always find a way (apologies to James Blish).

This conversation is about nuisance calls, not the superfast broadband roll-out.

Yeah that.

No, they’re not, James; that’s not how the system works. The principal motivations for HTTPS are authentication of the accessed website and protection of the privacy and integrity of the exchanged data while in transit. It protects against man-in-the-middle attacks.

But it has a number of flaws, so many in fact, that Browser makers are attempting to introduce a better system. We know, for example, that many connections between you and an HTTPS site are intercepted. I could go into how you tell this, but suffice to know that it’s not a secure system.

It also relies heavily on signed certificates, which are often allowed to lapse.

So make bonafide users of spoofed numbers use certificates. No valid certificate: no ability to spoof on the BT network.

James, until such time as that technology get built-in to “oven-ready” telephone networks, a lot of householders are opting to invest in their own call blocking technology.

Earlier this week, I was surprised to see that this is even sold by my local B&Q (see:-https://www.diy.com/departments/cpr-grey-corded-nuisance-call-blocker/578065_BQ.prd ). More sophisticated / complicated products are also available (e.g.:-https://www.cprcallblocker.com/pages/instruction-manuals and:-https://btplc.com/inclusion/ProductsAndServices/Choosetherightphone/BT8600AdvancedCallBlocker/index.htm ).

Yesterday, I had to cold call someone who has invested in such kit. Thankfully my call was duly screened but not blocked, so they did eventually call me back.