HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.
Here's a proposal: 1) Caller may choose to hide/suppress their Caller ID, 2) mandatory option for phone carriers to allow Callee to completely block calls (no ring, no voicemail) that don't carry Caller ID, 3) When present Caller ID must be accurate.
The above allows anonymity but disallows deceit. It also provides opt-out for people not to receive anonymous calls. (Anonymity does not give you the right to have any given individual listen to you)
We could have had this for ages, as there are no great technical hurdles.
This takes a little more work to account for, but it shouldn't be a roadblock.
A trusted network is fine, but are the telephone networks trusted? Can't get them to implement simple features in our interests, doesn't seem very much like a trusted third party to me. Meanwhile, OTT services work. Some let you whitelist contacts. Killer features like that will push everyone off POTS eventually anyway.
Inertia and legacy will keep holdouts using POTS, just like people still use fax machines, but they're mostly irrelevant.
In the old days there was an assumption that if you were in the network then you were trusted, which was always dicey but made more sense when Ma Bell controlled everything tightly. Since the monopoly breakup that model was no longer true, and many problems can trace back to the nature of back patching security onto an entirely different model that no longer fits reality.
I frequently advise my clients on website security, and tell them that all day long there are criminals who "jiggle the locks" (to put it tamely) of their website without any legal recourse or ramifications. They always ask why these people aren't identified and criminally prosecuted. I explain to them how they evade detection, and how "anonymity" is built into the ethos of our online world. Clients are shocked there's no way to identify, stop or even prosecute these people. Privacy advocates of course champion this anonymity because of the danger of abuse by government/corporate entities. Why don't we have the same attitude towards telephone calls? Both systems are widely abused, yet privacy for both are important.
Like I said, this one is still rolling a round in my head - feel free to tear my argument a new one ;)
I dunno, folks on HN seem pretty opposed to this given the potential for abuse by government/business.
They typically say someting like "sure it will stop spammers, but what happens when I use my phone to call a political opponent or an organization that criticizes authorities?"
I'm not advocating for or against this, just trying to work out the ethical model where citizens are protected, but criminals can be identified and prosecuted. I don't have the answer ;)
Since the growth of robodiallers and sales scams faked CLID has become almost the default. It got so bad that I simply no longer answer calls that aren't in my contacts. They've ruined the phone system.
As for anonymity, I'm imagine most who would approve of it for individuals would not think it sensible for a business. Why would I trust or give money to a business that wants to be anonymous and lie about themselves?
So yeah, I'd like unfakeable CLID and to get back to a working phone system.