Star Eight Six

[peristaltor]

So, like many out there, I have this pocket phone. It's neither the latest nor the greatest, and it never will be; I have simple needs. Some calls made, some calls received, a bunch of texts. I don't even have the data plan connected. I can't be bothered with that.

But since I've had the number for many years over many phones, a lot of people know that number and use it.

Including, as of about two months ago, spammers.

My phone used to sit in my pocket and not make so much as a peep for days. Now, especially during business hours on weekdays, it can chime away with calls from Florida, Maryland, California, New York, New Jersey, and a bunch of the other states, places where I know maybe one or two people. If I don't recognize the number, I don't answer. But seriously, ten junk calls a day is one too many.

We have become hostage to these assholes, these direct-dialing phishers of info, these hucksters trying to indebt me further or sell me a craptastic thing. Actually, according to the name on the texts, sell some asshole named Jeremy those things, since it seems he is the jerk wad who entered my number wherever numbers go to be so cursed.

Yes, I am aware that I can block numbers; but I would have to block individual junk numbers. Just a glance at my call history screen will tell you that I have many, many of these numbers to block.

Two days ago, though, I got a wonderful, awful idea.

The phone companies have those numbers in their system, don't they? They should be the ones blocking the numbers, and not just for my phone. They can probably look at their call logs and see exactly what numbers pollute their customers and plague their systems. They should be the ones to take the first action.

Ah, but they would first need some information, some flag that an abuse has occurred.

And then it hit me: We could give them that flag.

Imagine this: You get a junk call. Immediately after that call, you dial *86, as in eighty-six, the slang term for get rid of something. I'm not suggesting that this single entry would block that number for you, the end user. (Well, maybe, but not just yet. Bear with me.)

The value added to this feature is that it is a collective ability. Once the number gets enough people flagging it with *86, the company would have to open a file. Get too many of these flags, and a warning letter would be sent to the owner of the number. Get waaay too many, and the number would be blocked at the dialing phone, meaning that number would get not a dial tone, but a message saying something to the effect of "We're sorry, but this number has been flagged for abusive use. To hear the exact information that has generated this action, press one" or something like that.

Until they go through a process to clear the number's record, they lose their dialing privileges. If nothing is done, the number is deleted from any and all systems.

I could expound on the difference between positive and negative freedom of speech and other esoteric philosophical musings, but for now I just thought I'd throw that out there and see what others, like your own good selves, think about the notion.

So, what do you think? Good idea? One worth pursuing?

Comments

[graydon]

It would be a good idea if the source phone number had to be obtained from a phone company.

Since that's not especially factual, I don't think this would work.

[peristaltor]

My sister works in the telephone informatics (if that is the word) industry, the people who bring you caller ID and the products (like those her company, among others, develop) that block IDs for various reasons. From her I do know that the phone companies themselves know exactly who the spammers are, no matter what number might pop up at your house.

I'll get a chance to bounce this notion off of her soon. That will be the real test of its practicality.

Croudsourced moderation

[solarbird]

What you're describing is called croudsourced moderation. And it could be done, perhaps, but the ways it has been being done on places like Facebook and Twitter have now been weaponised by the neofascists to shut down opposition voices.

This case would, however, be possibly meaningfully different in that it should only be allowed after actually receiving a call, particularly if a person was require in order to specifically effect the disabling. It both blocks the ability to mass-action against someone (unless they're mass-acting against you, somehow) and prohibits initial action by the weaponising parties.

So that's a very long way of saying maybe, but it's a maybe, not in any way a no. The hard part is getting the phone companies to care, because wow they don't.

Re: Croudsourced moderation

[peristaltor]

What you're describing is called crowdsourced moderation.

Yes! I was thinking of Clay Shirkey when I came up with the notion, but that's the term.

…it should only be allowed after actually receiving a call….

Exactly. It would be like *69, applying only to the last call received.

The hard part is getting the phone companies to care, because wow they don't.

Yup. Actually, I think *right now* they care about the spammers. Spammers ring up some awfully big long distance bills, after all, and that is phone company revenue. I am fairly certain they have done nothing to keep prevent those golden eggs from coming in, no matter how odious and irritating the damned goose might be.

This system would, though, provide actual numbers that could back up the claim that something needed to be done. Which is another reason it might never happen.

[Edited to correct my perfect prose my stupid.]

Re: Croudsourced moderation

[armiphlage]

I support blocking phonespam; but agreed, the phone companies will never care.

Re: Croudsourced moderation

[ironphoenix]

"Common carrier" rules may prevent them from caring without risking loss of that status, I don't know.