{"id":1928587,"date":"2026-05-10T13:00:14","date_gmt":"2026-05-10T10:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/?p=1928587"},"modified":"2026-05-10T13:00:14","modified_gmt":"2026-05-10T10:00:14","slug":"fcc-attempts-to-solve-robocall-problem-by-potentially-creating-even-bigger-privacy-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/?p=1928587","title":{"rendered":"FCC Attempts to Solve Robocall Problem by Potentially Creating Even Bigger Privacy Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

[analyse_image type=”featured” src=”https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/app\/uploads\/2024\/11\/BrendanCarrr.jpg”]<\/p>\n

\n
\n

In a press release late last month, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said \u201cWe must bring meaningful robocall relief to consumers.\u201d In another press release two days later, the commission wrote that \u201cStopping illegal calls is the FCC\u2019s top consumer protection priority.\u201d<\/p>\n

At face value, this emphasis should be welcome news to the American public. Late last year a report from the consumer advocacy group U.S. PIRG Education Fund found that Americans had received 2.14 billion robocalls per month in 2024. That\u2019s only about six per month on a per-capita basis, but they aren\u2019t evenly distributed. It\u2019s not unheard of for some Americans to get over 100 spam calls in a day.<\/p>\n

But the FCC\u2019s cure might be worse than the disease.<\/p>\n

Among other sweeping changes, the era of the burner phone could end with the rollout of new \u201cKnow Your Customer\u201d rules voted on by the FCC on April 30, as noted by the blog of the D.C. telecom law firm Wiley Rein. Customers would, according to the proposed rules, have to present a government ID, a physical address, a full legal name, and an existing phone number. FCC rules at this phase are not yet in force, and would not go into effect for a year after full approval. The commission is still seeking comment, and is asking to hear privacy concerns specifically.<\/p>\n

A May 6 blog post on the website of the civil liberties group Reclaim the Net says, \u201cThe result would be an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed, easy access to phones for people in dire situations, such as refugees or people fleeing abusive relationships, is seen as a hugely pro-social use of the relative anonymity provided almost accidentally by low-cost prepaid phone service providers.<\/p>\n

In addition to cracking down on anonymity, there are proposed \u201cred flags\u201d that may trigger scrutiny from the FCC. Using a virtual office, or certain commercial addresses when asked for a physical address, operating a website or using an email address deemed suspicious, and not being traceable to the state claimed in the address provided.<\/p>\n

Paying for phone service with cryptocurrency could also become an FCC red flag.<\/p>\n

\u201cBy screening new and renewing customers, originating voice service providers are in the best position to prevent scammers and other bad actors from flooding telecommunications networks with illegal calls,\u201d the FCC press release about the proposed rule change says.<\/p>\n

The release lays much of the blame at the feet of telecom providers, saying \u201cCommission rules already require originating providers to take \u2018affirmative, effective\u2019 measures to \u2018know its customers,\u2019 and ensure that its services are not used to originate illegal call traffic.\u201d But it claims that some are \u201cnot doing enough,\u201d and the result is \u201cmore illegal calls that defraud Americans and making it difficult to hold the criminals making these [callers] accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Consequently, the enforcement regime these rules would put in place is intriguing. Per Wiley Rein, it would be a fine of $2,500 per call, and against an offending telecom provider\u2014<\/em>not the customer making the calls. The FCC would basically be deputizing telecom companies as ID verifiers and scrutinizers of user behavior, and they would be highly motivated to crack down on their customers heavily, because $2,500 per call in a country with billions of robocalls per year could be devastating.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n

\n

In a press release late last month, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said \u201cWe must bring meaningful robocall relief to consumers.\u201d In another press release two days later, the commission wrote that \u201cStopping illegal calls is the FCC\u2019s top consumer protection priority.\u201d<\/p>\n

At face value, this emphasis should be welcome news to the American public. Late last year a report from the consumer advocacy group U.S. PIRG Education Fund found that Americans had received 2.14 billion robocalls per month in 2024. That\u2019s only about six per month on a per-capita basis, but they aren\u2019t evenly distributed. It\u2019s not unheard of for some Americans to get over 100 spam calls in a day.<\/p>\n

But the FCC\u2019s cure might be worse than the disease.<\/p>\n

Among other sweeping changes, the era of the burner phone could end with the rollout of new \u201cKnow Your Customer\u201d rules voted on by the FCC on April 30, as noted by the blog of the D.C. telecom law firm Wiley Rein. Customers would, according to the proposed rules, have to present a government ID, a physical address, a full legal name, and an existing phone number. FCC rules at this phase are not yet in force, and would not go into effect for a year after full approval. The commission is still seeking comment, and is asking to hear privacy concerns specifically.<\/p>\n

A May 6 blog post on the website of the civil liberties group Reclaim the Net says, \u201cThe result would be an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed, easy access to phones for people in dire situations, such as refugees or people fleeing abusive relationships, is seen as a hugely pro-social use of the relative anonymity provided almost accidentally by low-cost prepaid phone service providers.<\/p>\n

In addition to cracking down on anonymity, there are proposed \u201cred flags\u201d that may trigger scrutiny from the FCC. Using a virtual office, or certain commercial addresses when asked for a physical address, operating a website or using an email address deemed suspicious, and not being traceable to the state claimed in the address provided.<\/p>\n

Paying for phone service with cryptocurrency could also become an FCC red flag.<\/p>\n

\u201cBy screening new and renewing customers, originating voice service providers are in the best position to prevent scammers and other bad actors from flooding telecommunications networks with illegal calls,\u201d the FCC press release about the proposed rule change says.<\/p>\n

The release lays much of the blame at the feet of telecom providers, saying \u201cCommission rules already require originating providers to take \u2018affirmative, effective\u2019 measures to \u2018know its customers,\u2019 and ensure that its services are not used to originate illegal call traffic.\u201d But it claims that some are \u201cnot doing enough,\u201d and the result is \u201cmore illegal calls that defraud Americans and making it difficult to hold the criminals making these [callers] accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Consequently, the enforcement regime these rules would put in place is intriguing. Per Wiley Rein, it would be a fine of $2,500 per call, and against an offending telecom provider\u2014<\/em>not the customer making the calls. The FCC would basically be deputizing telecom companies as ID verifiers and scrutinizers of user behavior, and they would be highly motivated to crack down on their customers heavily, because $2,500 per call in a country with billions of robocalls per year could be devastating.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

[analyse_source url=”https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/fcc-attempts-to-solve-robocall-problem-by-potentially-creating-even-bigger-privacy-problem-2000756762″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[analyse_image type=”featured” src=”https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/app\/uploads\/2024\/11\/BrendanCarrr.jpg”] In a press release late last month, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said \u201cWe must bring meaningful robocall relief to consumers.\u201d In another press release two days later, the commission wrote that \u201cStopping illegal calls is the FCC\u2019s top consumer protection priority.\u201d At face value, this emphasis should be welcome news to the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[226,53],"class_list":["post-1928587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-crawlmanager","tag-gizmodo-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1928587","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1928587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1928587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1928587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1928587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1928587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}