Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
ring them. Any number ringing more than one of them would be
automatically blocked.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:31:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
>B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
>ring them. Any number ringing more than one of them would be
>automatically blocked.

I have always thought the techniques for spam emails could be adapted.
Surely the computer must know how many incoming calls there are from
one line then trigger an alert if this number is excessive? Surely
artificial intelligence could have a field day.

On 13/12/2023 10:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
> B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
> ring them. Any number ringing more than one of them would be
> automatically blocked.
>

They simply rotate the "from" numbers. With VOIP it can be faked.

Dave

On 13/12/2023 10:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
> B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
> ring them. Any number ringing more than one of them would be
> automatically blocked.

I suggested that years ago!

They could have forensic call tracing available to identify the sources
but I suspect the scammers have the skills to even defeat that.

On 13 Dec 2023 10:31, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)
wrote:
> Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
> B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
> ring them. Any number ringing more than one of them would be
> automatically blocked.

Why just BT and not all the service providers, including, say,
Microsoft?

Who would fund that activity?
And under what power what a CSP intercept a call?

On 13/12/2023 12:35, JMB99 wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 10:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
>> B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
>> ring them.  Any number ringing more than one of them would be
>> automatically blocked.
>
>
>
> I suggested that years ago!
>
> They could have forensic call tracing available to identify the sources
> but I suspect the scammers have the skills to even defeat that.
>
>

That would result in lots of angry customers. My mobile number has been
used as spoof CID number. Most annoying, but I expect its common...
.... perhaps I spent too long winding up the last "Microsoft Enginner"
that called it....

Dave

Here is a way spoof calling could be stopped in the future: Each
telephone number could have a key, which would be long, say 30
digits. Then each time a call is made with the number as caller-id, the
key also has to be provided by the phone. If the right key for the
number is not provided the call would be rejected. Spammers might try to
guess a key but would be unlikely to succeed.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:41:42 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:

>On 13/12/2023 12:35, JMB99 wrote:
>> On 13/12/2023 10:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Surely the easiest way of stopping automated spoof calls would be for
>>> B.T. to monitor a selection of unused numbers and log the numbers that
>>> ring them.  Any number ringing more than one of them would be
>>> automatically blocked.
>>
>> I suggested that years ago!
>>
>> They could have forensic call tracing available to identify the sources
>> but I suspect the scammers have the skills to even defeat that.
>
>That would result in lots of angry customers. My mobile number has been
>used as spoof CID number. Most annoying, but I expect its common...
>... perhaps I spent too long winding up the last "Microsoft Enginner"
>that called it....
>
I would be more annoyed about my number being spoofed that I would
about BT investigating.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:55:33 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>Here is a way spoof calling could be stopped in the future: Each
>telephone number could have a key, which would be long, say 30
>digits. Then each time a call is made with the number as caller-id, the
>key also has to be provided by the phone. If the right key for the
>number is not provided the call would be rejected. Spammers might try to
>guess a key but would be unlikely to succeed.

If someone phones the emergency services and withholds their number, I
believe emergency services still have access to the caller's number.
Will this be the real number or the presentation number?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:55:33 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Here is a way spoof calling could be stopped in the future: Each
>>telephone number could have a key, which would be long, say 30
>>digits. Then each time a call is made with the number as caller-id, the
>>key also has to be provided by the phone. If the right key for the
>>number is not provided the call would be rejected. Spammers might try to
>>guess a key but would be unlikely to succeed.
>
> If someone phones the emergency services and withholds their number, I
> believe emergency services still have access to the caller's number.
> Will this be the real number or the presentation number?

I don't know. If a call comes from overseas via the internet it may not
even have a number I think. But all calls to 999 ought to go through
anyway. I am sure such things would be possible with VOIP.

On 14/12/2023 13:55, Richmond wrote:
> Here is a way spoof calling could be stopped in the future: Each
> telephone number could have a key, which would be long, say 30
> digits. Then each time a call is made with the number as caller-id, the
> key also has to be provided by the phone. If the right key for the
> number is not provided the call would be rejected. Spammers might try to
> guess a key but would be unlikely to succeed.

Not exactly that, but the system in the US, which has gone live this
year, STIR/SHAKEN, has the immediate provider, of the caller,
cryptographically sign details of VoIP calls, and classify them into one
of three categories (attestation levels):

A - the caller ID is a number controlled by the originating organisation.
B - the identity of the originating organisation is known, but the
caller ID doesn't belong to them (this can include when a call is
relayed, e.g. to a remote or mobile worker, with the original caller ID).
C - the true caller is unknown (e.g. an international connect with a
country that doesn't implement the system).

I think one of the excuses given for not filtering spoofed calls in the
UK was that Digital Voice needed to be implemented, so that this
information could be conveyed over VoIP.

One of STIR and SHAKEN refers to the the VoIP signing and the other to
how this information is forwarded to legacy networks.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:10:28 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:55:33 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here is a way spoof calling could be stopped in the future: Each
>>>telephone number could have a key, which would be long, say 30
>>>digits. Then each time a call is made with the number as caller-id, the
>>>key also has to be provided by the phone. If the right key for the
>>>number is not provided the call would be rejected. Spammers might try to
>>>guess a key but would be unlikely to succeed.
>>
>> If someone phones the emergency services and withholds their number, I
>> believe emergency services still have access to the caller's number.
>> Will this be the real number or the presentation number?
>
>I don't know. If a call comes from overseas via the internet it may not
>even have a number I think. But all calls to 999 ought to go through
>anyway. I am sure such things would be possible with VOIP.

It's more than just the calls going through. I believe the cops use
the number to locate the caller, eg for a silent 999 call.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:10:28 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:55:33 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here is a way spoof calling could be stopped in the future: Each
>>>>telephone number could have a key, which would be long, say 30
>>>>digits. Then each time a call is made with the number as caller-id,
>>>>the key also has to be provided by the phone. If the right key for
>>>>the number is not provided the call would be rejected. Spammers
>>>>might try to guess a key but would be unlikely to succeed.
>>>
>>> If someone phones the emergency services and withholds their number,
>>> I believe emergency services still have access to the caller's
>>> number. Will this be the real number or the presentation number?
>>
>>I don't know. If a call comes from overseas via the internet it may
>>not even have a number I think. But all calls to 999 ought to go
>>through anyway. I am sure such things would be possible with VOIP.
>
> It's more than just the calls going through. I believe the cops use
> the number to locate the caller, eg for a silent 999 call.

That isn't a spoof calling problem then. The idea here is to ensure that
people have the right to use the caller id they are using. But there are
cases where that might not be the same as the number they are calling
from, for example Skype allows you to put your own mobile number in the
caller-id, but the call is coming over the internet from Microsoft's
servers, so I don't know what the emergency services would see in that
case.

On 13/12/2023 16:56, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:

> ... Who would fund that activity? ...

Exactly. Reducinging spoof calls would reduce BT's profit, so what's
their incentive?

--
Reentrant

On 15/12/2023 10:46, Reentrant wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 16:56, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>
>> ... Who would fund that activity? ...
>
>
> Exactly. Reducinging spoof calls would reduce BT's profit, so what's
> their incentive?
>
>
If a VOIP phone calls me from India, how does BT make money from it?

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> If a VOIP phone calls me from India, how does BT make money from it?

Call Termination charges from whatever provider delivers the calls?
0.0292 p/min

On Fri 15/12/2023 11:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> If a VOIP phone calls me from India, how does BT make money from it?
>
> Call Termination charges from whatever provider delivers the calls?
> 0.0292 p/min

But if the call comes from Asia but presents with a UK number are there
still termination charges?

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:14:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 15/12/2023 10:46, Reentrant wrote:
>> On 13/12/2023 16:56, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>
>>> ... Who would fund that activity? ...
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Reducinging spoof calls would reduce BT's profit, so what's
>> their incentive?
>>
>>
>If a VOIP phone calls me from India, how does BT make money from it?

I thought there was a termination charge for every international call.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 16:02:07 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>I thought there was a termination charge for every international call.

Sorry, I should have read Andy's posting first.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 15/12/2023 10:46, Reentrant wrote:
>> On 13/12/2023 16:56, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>
>>> ... Who would fund that activity? ...
>> Exactly. Reducinging spoof calls would reduce BT's profit, so what's
>> their incentive?
>>
> If a VOIP phone calls me from India, how does BT make money from it?

O2 makes money by charging me to listen to Chinese voicemail messages.

Woody wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Call Termination charges from whatever provider delivers the calls?
>> 0.0292 p/min
>
> But if the call comes from Asia but presents with a UK number are there
> still termination charges?

I strongly doubt openreach accept VoIP trunks straight from the
internet, so it must come in via someone's cable (likely fibre rather
than copper) to reach an openreach exchange, there will be a contract
associated with that cable, so it can be charged for ...

On 15 Dec 2023 10:46, Reentrant wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 16:56, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>
>> ... Who would fund that activity? ...
>
>
> Exactly. Reducinging spoof calls would reduce BT's profit, so what's
> their incentive?

Not realty. I'm talking about all the effort in writing and deploying
software to multiple platforms.

I don't think BT get much revenue for terminating unanswered calls
these days and there are plenty of other CSPs providing either transit
or termination.

On 15 Dec 2023 16:54, Andy Burns wrote:
> Woody wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Call Termination charges from whatever provider delivers the calls?
>>> 0.0292 p/min
>>
>> But if the call comes from Asia but presents with a UK number are there
>> still termination charges?
>
> I strongly doubt openreach accept VoIP trunks straight from the
> internet, so it must come in via someone's cable (likely fibre rather
> than copper) to reach an openreach exchange, there will be a contract
> associated with that cable, so it can be charged for ...

What Openreach product do you think accepts any sort of VOIP?
The OP said "BT". Assuming they actually meant Openreach then what law
would allow Openreach to intercept customer traffic?

Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:

> What Openreach product do you think accepts any sort of VOIP?
> The OP said "BT". Assuming they actually meant Openreach then what law
> would allow Openreach to intercept customer traffic?

I'm not talking about anything that one person would buy, but a GBFO fat
pipe to deliver phone calls to openreach/BT exchanges ... the sort of
thing that would have been SS7 ... maybe still would be?

On 15 Dec 2023 18:05, Andy Burns wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>
>> What Openreach product do you think accepts any sort of VOIP?
>> The OP said "BT". Assuming they actually meant Openreach then what law
>> would allow Openreach to intercept customer traffic?
>
> I'm not talking about anything that one person would buy, but a GBFO fat
> pipe to deliver phone calls to openreach/BT exchanges ... the sort of
> thing that would have been SS7 ... maybe still would be?

Openreach have no exchanges.
BT is one of many phone providers. Wholesale, as was, also provide
phone services to other CSPs. But, again, under what law would they
intercept calls being delivered for one of those CSPS.

The Government are busy "stopping the boats" so there is no time for
this sort of legislation. And how would the government fund it?