2010 Truth in Caller ID Act

[bbguy5]

Text on the bill can be found here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1258rh.txt.pdf

 

[da1Bear]

I recently sent the message below to Rep. Jared Polis D, Colorado (where I live) a co-sponsor of HR 1258. As the matter will now come before the Senate, I've copied my Senators.

If you agree, you might want to write your own Senator.

Dear Mr. Polis,
Congratulations on your co-sponsorship of HR 1258. It’s a much needed reform. However, I would hope it’s not too late to add my 2 cents on this. As written, I fear it may create more confusion than you intended. May I suggest the addition of a “safe harbor” provision, allowing the substitution of any valid (for the caller) contact number in the number field, and the use of any name which the caller generally uses in the name field.

For instance, I have at least 7 phone numbers, not all of which I accept incoming calls on. I sometimes use my PBX to insert a number in the field which will actually reach me or my voice mail. And I’m known by my Company name, my own name, and the “Board Handle” of da1Bear on a number of online forums. Depending on who I’m trying to reach, da1Bear might be more recognizable than my name.

I’m aware that there is language included at this time that refers to “intent to deceive”. Despite this, there has been some discussion in the technical community that the bill as currently written may cause confusion. It is my opinion that the addition of a safe harbor provision would eliminate that problem.

I’m neither lawyer or lawmaker, so I’m sure you’ll need to word this differently.

 

[rossiv]

I agree with you, DA1Bear. I am sort-of in the same boat as you are. If they pass this bill, I won't be able to send different Caller ID information based on whether I am calling for personal or business. That is not an attempt to deceive as the bill states. However, whether or not you were actually deceiving someone is in the eye of the law enforcement.

15 CALLER ID INFORMATION.—
16 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any
17 person within the United States, in connection with
18 any real time voice communications service, regard19
less of the technology or network utilized, to cause any
20 caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate
21 caller ID information, with the intent to defraud or
22 deceive.

 

[vcallaway]

I can see this as being a problem for providers. They may choose to only allow numbers registered with them for the callerid.

That will break features like forwarding inbound calls out to a cellphone. At least the part where you actually know who is calling you.

And like others I set my outbound callerid based on who I am making the call for. If I'm making work calls from home I set the callerid to my work number.

Typical Government. Use a sledgehammer to drive a very small nail.

 

[da1Bear]

Then I urge you to contact your Senators. The House has already passed this, but letting the legislators know what we think could change this. And as always, we catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

This could be a good law with the safe harbor provision. Lets do something about it.

btw, thanks to bbguy5 for giving us the heads up on this. I wasn't even aware that the bill had passed out of the house before your post.

 

[jehowe]

This is going to be open to interpretation, but the wording "with the intent to defraud or deceive" as stated should mean this bill shouldn't be applicable unless and only unless you are a scammer. That seems to be the clear purpose and motivation for this bill.

It will be interesting to see how this effects US voip providers who allow custom CID, AND how many offshore providers start offering spoofing services.