Not my job.
However, if you hire me I am sure that I can come up with a solution. Since retirement my rates have dropped to $1,000/hour with a 4 hour minimum. Payable in advance since you probably have no established credit with me. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-----Original Message----- >From: Ross Tajvar [mailto:r...@tajvar.io] >Sent: Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:54 >To: Keith Medcalf >Cc: Christopher Morrow; North American Network Operators' Group >Subject: Re: SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC > >Well yeah, people need to take responsibility, but IMO we as >engineers need to discuss the specific circumstances and >methodologies that enable that to happen. It's easy to say "they >should fix it", and you're not wrong that they should, but how? Do >you have a validation framework in mind which carriers can implement >that prevents fraudulent caller ID information from being sent >without preventing legitimate use cases? > >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:46 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> >wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:38, Ross Tajvar <r...@tajvar.io> >wrote: > > >What if you use different carriers for termination and >origination? > >How does your termination carrier validate that your >origination > >carrier has allocated certain numbers to you and that you're > >therefore allowed to make outbound calls with a caller ID set >to > >those numbers? That doesn't sound to me like something that can >be > >solved as quickly and easily as you imply. > > It does not really matter. What matters is that they bear >responsibility for an act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit >fraud. > > -- > The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to >Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 2:33 PM Keith Medcalf ><kmedc...@dessus.com> > >wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 11:18, Christopher Morrow > ><morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Paul Timmins > ><p...@telcodata.us> wrote: > > > > >> Chris it would be trivial for this to be fixed, >nearly > >overnight, > > >> by creating some liability on the part of carriers >for > >illicit use of > > >> caller ID data on behalf of their customers. > > > > >'illicit use of caller id' - how is caller-id being >illicitly > >used > > >though? > > >I don't think it's against the law to say a different > >'callerid' in > > >the call session, practically every actual call center >does > >this, right? > > > > The problem is that CallerID is not really the CallerID. >It is > >some fraudulent shit created by the caller. This is not how > >"CallerID" was originally sold. It was sold as being the ID of >the > >Caller. If it is not the ID of the Caller then Fraud is being > >committed and the bastards should be castrated (or worse), and >the > >CEO and Directors of the carrier responsible for fraud getting > >through to the end-user should face the same penalty. > > > > See then how quickly this gets fixed. You will fall off >your > >chair and it will be a "solved problem" before your arse hits >the > >ground! > > > > -- > > The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a >Stairway to > >Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
