Mississippi makes Caller ID spoofing illegal [Telecom]

Mississippi HB-872 was signed into law Monday by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and makes Caller ID spoofing illegal:

The law covers alterations to the caller's name, telephone number, or name and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call or otherwise presented to the network. The law applies to PSTN, wireless and VoIP calls. Penalties for each violation can be up to $1,000 and one year in jail. Blocking of caller identification information is still permitted.

Reply to
Thad Floryan
Loading thread data ...

I would hope so since that is a F.C.C. mandate.

Reply to
Sam Spade

And how are they going to enforce their state law from someone spoofing who is in India or China?

Reply to
Steven

Is there an SS7 compatible data channel between India or China to the U.S. that can carry the CPIN message?

Second question: Do the U.S. gateway switches send the CPIN message to foreign countries (other than Canada, which is not really foreign from a telephony standpoint)?

Reply to
Sam Spade

India: "yes", from direct experience -- don't know how deep the penetration is to more rural areas, though. China: no hard knowledge

-- I _expect_ there is SS7 at least to the border; open question about penetration, internally.

In actuality, "less developed" areas, that _have_ phone service, are more likely to have 'state of the art' capabilities than places with long- established plant. Putting in facilities 'for the first time', you tend to install 'state of the art'. With an established facility, you have to wait till you can economically justify the upgrade.

look at how long some step, panel, and crossbar switches survived in North America. It's a safe bet that nobody was putting any of those into _new_ installations (anywhere) for decades before the 'last one' was retired.

Yes.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

Yes. I get CLID on calls to and from the UK all the time.

R's, John

Reply to
John Levine

That represents progress, for certain.

Reply to
Sam Spade

There was an examples of that in Oklahoma where Oklahoma City and Tulsa and a few, I believe seven, CDOS were the only places with dial service. After World War II, when equipment became available some years after the end of the war, there was a big push to convert eveything to dial. Most of the new dial exchanges went in with DDD, and customers in Oklahoma City and Tulsa were well familiar with it from there contacts with people in those towns and wanted it in the larger cities. The projections when CAMA went in in Oklahoma Citey and Tulsa, were that it would take a year or so to fully educate customers in how to use it and get it up to the projected amount of DDD traffic. Because of customers' familiarity with it, when it was cut over the percentage of DDD traffic was up to the projected volume several months away was attatined in a week or two, and the one-year perojection was reached in a few months. Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@aol.com snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

Reply to
Wesrock

Interesting: here in former SNET land, inbound calls from Poland to our land-line *never* show any CLID, but inbound calls to our cell-phones always *do*.

Cheers, -- tlvp

-- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply to
tlvp

Sounds like Verizon is not getting the SS7 data. I have a problem like that with a friend from UC Riverside, his office phone does not show CID to my home phone with AT&T but comes through fine on my Sprint Cell phone.

Reply to
Steven

Not Verizon here -- "former SNET land" means AT&T, just like for you.

Think it's really "not getting the SS7 data"? or just not bothering to pass it along?

And yes, our cellular carrier, like yours, is *not* AT&T (unlike yours, though, it's T-Mobile, not Sprint).

Cheers, -- tlvp

-- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply to
tlvp

I forgot that SNET is now AT&T, never figured out why they sold out to AT&T.

I'm told from CO techs that I work with is for some reason the University switch is not passing it on over the trunks to AT&T, they use a system that finds the cheapest route for each call. This group at UCR is off campus and uses the PBX of Bourns Corp, and it is a Joes Telephone and Screen Door Co. I think it is a NT switch, I saw it through an open door once and it was Dark brown and green

Reply to
Steven

My guess is that there's a variety of paths from Poland to the US, your legacy ILEC is getting old paths that don't have full SS7 connectivity, your recently created mobile carrier is getting newer paths that do.

There's no reason I know for T or VZ to want to discard SS7 info if they have it available, and I gather there's reasons for them to want to keep it. For example, if the called number is busy, they can tell the foreign switch to generate the busy signal, and free up the trunk.

R's, John

Reply to
John Levine

Is there any possibility of *STUPID* caller-id CPE on the land-line?

One that only understands NANP format numbers -- and chokes, and therefore doesn't display anything, when confronted with something 'foreign'?

In years past, I've encountered a lot of budget CPE gear that was very US-centric.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

They didn't -- they sold out to SBC. Ultimately SBC, after acquiring AT&T, decided to adopt its acquisition's name.

Cheers, -- tlvp

-- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply to
tlvp

Certainly stupid CPE is at least as likely as inept CO SS7 signal-handling.

Cheers, -- tlvp

-- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Reply to
tlvp

|>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:35:16 -0400, John Levine wrote: |>

|>

|>Interesting: here in former SNET land, inbound calls from Poland to |>our land-line *never* show any CLID, but inbound calls to our |>cell-phones always *do*. | |Is there any possibility of *STUPID* caller-id CPE on the land-line? | |One that only understands NANP format numbers -- and chokes, and therefore |doesn't display anything, when confronted with something 'foreign'? | |In years past, I've encountered a lot of budget CPE gear that was very |US-centric.

What about stupid land-line switch (or perhaps "helpful" programming)?

I have some phones set up in an internal VOIP system. The number of one such phone is "2". I can dial out to the PSTN via a VOIP gateway service. When I call my POTS land line from "2" the caller ID is out-of-area. I always assumed that either the gateway doesn't trust me or the network doesn't trust the gateway. One day for some reason I called my ISDN land line from "2" and was surprised to see "2" come through as the caller id. I temporarily changed the station name of "2" to something that looked like a normal 10-digit US phone number and sure enough it showed up on my POTS land line caller ID. I suppose this is all illegal now, at least in Mississippi. :)

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

[[.. sneck ..]]

'out of area' is displayed for CID data fields that the display box "doesn't understand". Symptomatic of idiot-level programming in the ID display.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

'out of area' is displayed for CID data fields that the display box "doesn't understand". Symptomatic of idiot-level programming in the ID display.

--------------------------------Reply-------------------------------- ")ut of Area" is perhaps a function of the display device, since I one that instead shows "Unknown." So the translation of whichever code is sent from the C.O. for that purpose must be a function of the display device. Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@aol.com snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html

Reply to
Wesrock

|In article , |Dan Lanciani wrote: |> snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: |>

|[[.. sneck ..]] |>| |>|One that only understands NANP format numbers -- and chokes, and therefore |>|doesn't display anything, when confronted with something 'foreign'? |>| |>|In years past, I've encountered a lot of budget CPE gear that was very |>|US-centric. |>

|>What about stupid land-line switch (or perhaps "helpful" programming)? |>

|>I have some phones set up in an internal VOIP system. The number of |>one such phone is "2". I can dial out to the PSTN via a VOIP gateway |>service. When I call my POTS land line from "2" the caller ID is |>out-of-area. I always assumed that either the gateway doesn't trust |>me or the network doesn't trust the gateway. One day for some reason |>I called my ISDN land line from "2" and was surprised to see "2" come |>through as the caller id. I temporarily changed the station name of |>"2" to something that looked like a normal 10-digit US phone number and |>sure enough it showed up on my POTS land line caller ID. I suppose this |>is all illegal now, at least in Mississippi. :) | |'out of area' is displayed for CID data fields that the display box |"doesn't understand". Symptomatic of idiot-level programming in the |ID display.

No, in this case it is happening at the CO. I use RS232 CID dongles which are little more than Bell 202 AFSK receive-only modems. They give me the unaltered bit stream as sent by the CO. With my station ID set to "2" the CO sends my POTS line a CID multi-part message with reason for no number "O" and reason for no name "O". My ISDN line gets the "2".

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.