• Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    311
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    To the same audience: quit selling my fucking phone number!

    I ditched a phone number I had for 10+ years because it was leaked everywhere. Only a few short months after updating my number with the DMV and a handful of other government agencies I started receiving scam calls/messages again.

    At some point we need to adopt some fucking privacy laws. This is absolutely bonkers—is no one else fed up??

    Edit: I already know how to silence unknown callers. What I want is to not have the problem in the first place, ideally by 1) having companies not sell personal data to third parties and 2) being able to block spoofed (non-encrypted) caller ID.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      134
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      20 days ago

      Oh everyone is fed up but we just elected a guy and government who is sure to make it all way way way worse.

      He just helped put the nail in the coffin of the lie that crypto is for anything but scams, don’t worry, it’s gonna get real bad before it gets any better.

      • tourist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        20 days ago

        In South Africa, where I live, everyone is assigned an ID Number at Birth. You need an ID number, thumbprint scan AND proof of address to get issued a SIM card number due to a law introduced called RICA. It was meant to help fight crime. Worried that the government could listen in to calls or read their SMSs, the criminals just switched to WhatsApp, which also happened to become cheaper than SMSs and gained popularity in this time.

        The cops never seemed to crack WhatsApp. The only drug busts that happen are when an open secret becomes laughably too open and when they harass every person arriving from South America at O.R. Tambo international airport just to catch the decoy mules carrying 12g of cocaine (total). Every dealer I ever organised with was over WhatsApp.

        So now, woopsi, RICA stopped nothing and just became a liability. That treasure trove of fragile data made its way to scammers and spammers. A total net negative.

        I’d encourage everyone else in other countries to apply major pushback to any government proposals in this direction.

        • nyan@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          20 days ago

          There’s a subset of Americans who are rather like ostriches: heads so deeply buried in the sand that they forget anything exists outside their immediate surroundings. Reminding them that the rest of the world is out there rarely has any positive results, however.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        “Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam,” Mr Trump said. “I don’t like it because it’s another currency competing against the dollar.”

        — Donald Trump

        Of course, Trump Coin made just for him is fine. And any security who bribes him. Oh wait now none of them are securities; Gary Gensler was our last line of defense.

        [Edit: got it backwards]

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      20 days ago

      I’m pretty sure a lot of scam calls use machines that call every possible phone number within an area code and see who answers. There is no way to avoid it.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        20 days ago

        this right here. I stopped getting scam calls years ago, I stopped answering and they just eventually stopped calling. If you don’t interact with the call (interact being ignore it or mute it NOT reject it) and it just goes to voicemail, they seem to eventually stop

        • BlemboTheThird
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          20 days ago

          Lucky you. I’ve been letting calls from any number I don’t recognize go to voicemail for years and nothing ever seems to change.

          • ElegantBiscuit@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            I just block and report as spam any spam text messages I get and any calls that get marked as scam likely. It was terrible before the election because I live in a swing county in a swing state and I think everyone was just mass spamming every number in the area code, but since then I haven’t really gotten much, maybe one errant text every 2 or 3 weeks. Which is much better than it was last spring and summer when the amount started picking up for me.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          If you’re job hunting, or work in specific fields this may not be a reasonable thing to do and that’s at least part of the problem.

          • Pika@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 days ago

            This would deem troublesome yea, being said I firmly believe in separating work and home. I wouldn’t be willing to use a personal number for work related activities, at least not public related activities. Being said, I have no good solution for that, at least you are being paid for the scam call I guess.

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 days ago

              Job hunting is what I meant. And you pretty much have to use your personal phone for that. I haven’t ever had a company phone. Doubt they’d give it to techs.

    • adarza
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      20 days ago

      lists sourced from drivers licenses and motor vehicle registration records are literally sold by some states.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Australia has a “do not call register”. It seems to mostly work, but telcos are having trouble with calls originating from outside the network with spoofed caller ID. We still get spam/scam calls from India among other places.

      Even if they’re not calling you directly, they are still using your phone number to link you to things and create a shadow profile behind the scenes.

    • Shimitar@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      19 days ago

      Don’t worry, here in Europe we are full of privacy laws but I still receive tents of spam calls per day. Usually from non UE countries faking the number with my country numbers.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        Anything with a London 020 number is guaranteed to be a man with an Indian accent pretending to be from British Telecom.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      19 days ago

      At some point we need to adopt some fucking privacy laws.

      Yeah we absolutely had to ban TilTok because of privacy concerns but the idea of creating a law to protect our privacy is ridiculous beyond all reasoning. The stupidity of the United States government is absolute.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 days ago

      I set my phone to decline calls from unknown callers years ago.

      These calls are already illegal. I used to report them to the FTC but I never heard anything back so I have no idea what happens, but I presume nothing. If I had the time to take them, and if they spoke English, I would record them with the Cube ACR app (which no longer works) and convince them to incriminate themselves. Ask their name, company, location, time/date, whether they ran my number through the DNC registry.

    • john89
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      At some point we need to adopt some fucking privacy laws. This is absolutely bonkers—is no one else fed up??

      Look at you, trying to use the government to solve every day problems that face pretty much all of us.

      Don’t you know we only focus on gridlock issues to distract us from real issues now?

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      I’m confused of how this keeps happening to people.

      Like I use my phone on most sites that allow it and I’ve never had spam/scam calls really, but I’ve also explicitly unchecked the marketing boxes that appear on the signup so maybe that it.

      The last instance that actually happened to me was with entering my university a few years ago for my BS degree. They 1000% sold my contact information as some part of the deans/honors list process. I reached out to them and stopped that so fast.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    This should be what digital ID looks like:

    -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

    mDMEZ26+ARYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAsUGMjbGNUyyz9PHsHKP4xj/tIfYIuHb4miPH 0iCPpu60K0VSUk9SOiBFYXJ0aC5leGUgaGFzIGNyYXNoZWQgPG5vQGVtYWlsLmV4 ZT6IcgQTFggAGgQLCQgHAhUIAhYBAhkBBYJnbr4BAp4BApsDAAoJEI6E3uMn31Z3 028BAM5o8ER0dqTsxFlZSgZOvvgFHGuy2eFgF3rULkGKl1KrAP9fdE7WwnYbBer/ AVmw5jr0P5m/XsEQQrSueuk/FLYBBbg4BGduvgESCisGAQQBl1UBBQEBB0BDR0Bv pf4jxbwp9rVowFTnL59NGqnnh6XyF/LjAoYDGgMBCAeIYQQYFggACQWCZ26+AQKb DAAKCRCOhN7jJ99Wd1dMAP45xmN03SodkWHi7PYOORqNXJUBdMzzfsRXdqE8ZXaW vAD+PqNqPcbwJYCOEAXkg7DlZ0SX3o9MViZLdzHFQ3TpUA8= =krDh -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

    PGP Key Fingerprint: 857957d40f06cc816fd3d29a8e84dee327df5677

    Should be good until quantum computers come around

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      20 days ago

      I’m sad PGP didn’t become a popular way to log into websites. A challenge-response protocol could have even been built into web browsers. Big tech is reinventing that idea as Passkey, but with a very big tech flavor.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          I’m already hearing about restrictions on exporting passkeys and some apps requiring that you’re not running a custom ROM on Android and stuff like that. Makes me worried they’re going to fuck that up and make it restrictive bs

            • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              19 days ago

              From what I heard passkeys need google services framework for some reason. Don’t know technical reasons behind it but I would assume its bs given its google.

              • dracs@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                19 days ago

                Yes, they don’t work without Google Play Services. Google didn’t implement passkeys in Android, only their own services.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              I’m living this pain with a custom ROM already, with some banking stuff, Google Wallet, WhatsApp passkeys and I think Netflix (haven’t installed it) block you for tripping up Google’s security tests.

              If passkeys become a big thing and they’ll start enforcing them and apps that have those security measures I’m going to fucking firebomb something. REEEEEE

              • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                19 days ago

                Shit like this is why I don’t have a smartphone anymore. I have a brick phone that half the time I don’t even take out with me.

          • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            Passkeys or WebAuthn are an open web standard, and the implementation is flexible. An authenticator can be implemented in software, with a hardware system integrated into the client device, or off-device.

            Exportability/portability of the passkey is up to the authenticator. Bitwarden already exports them, and other authenticators likely do, too.

            WebAuthn relying parties (ie, web applications) make trust decisions by specifying characteristics of eligible authenticators & authentication responses & by checking data reported in the responses. Those decisions are left to the relying party’s discretion. I could imagine locked-down workplace environments allowing only company-approved configurations connect to internal systems.

            WebAuthn has no bearing on whether an app runs on a custom platform: that’s entirely on the developer & platform capabilities to reveal customization.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        The California DMV requires you to renew your vehicle registration every year by paying with a bank account number (no card) which is like a 30ish digit number and they disable paste. If you get it wrong they won’t notify you in any way until you get pulled over by a cop who is one bad sneeze away from murdering you. It’s a great system.

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            I think my question was clear enough. The comment didn’t mention banks, I’ve never had a bank that did that, and we generally don’t try to hide our identities from our banks anyway. My best guess was that they misunderstood how public/private keys work, but since that was only a guess, I asked.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          20 days ago

          I’ve seen a few. They’re super annoying when trying to use a password manager with a decent password.

          • llii@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            Can’t your password manager do autotype? That’s what I use mostly, because I don’t want all my passwords in my clipboard.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              Probably. It works >99% of the time I need it so I haven’t poked around in the settings too much.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        A bit of a hacky workaround on Android. Get Keepass2Android, use the included keyboard.

        “Paste” whatever via the inbuilt password input functionality. It basically auto types out your passwords. (You protect this behind a master password/and optionally quick accessed by biometrics)

        Profit

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Yeah… I did this kind of thing before as a password and found that out the hard way

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      I want to preface this response saying I full agree with this, I want something like this to happen, I am responding because of some concerns I have. The real major one: How do you verify the authentication part of the data security chain?

      A PGP key alone does not authentically validate that you are who you say you are. When the source is the untrusted party, it doesn’t accomplish the site’s goal. It’s the equivalent to me handing you a piece of paper saying “I’m John Smith and this is what I use to say I’m this” which works amazing for trusted exchanges, but when the source is “just trust me bro” it doesn’t solve anything for the website owner.

      Websites get around this by having trust certificates/root servers that are co-signed with the PGP key. However, we lack any system like that for personal identities. Arguably, setting up such a system would isolate most of the known internet, as it is a significant roadblock, much like how SSL certificate usage was a huge roadblock for sites before Let’s Encrypt became a thing.

      This setup would be amazing for logging into sites. However, it fails to accomplish what the websites that are asking for PII are looking for, which is verification that their user is who they say they are, and not a random third party.

      To reliably use this setup, we would need something similar to Let’s Encrypt, but for user identification. The issue with that is it would become the de-facto attack vector (for both law enforcement and criminal parties), and that site would need to require PII to address the biggest concern on these sites, which is that you are who you say you are, and not Jo Smo or a bot looking to harvest data. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, a massive retraining of the internet would need to be done, which would mostly affect non-tech folk.

      I am hopeful that an easy function that won’t violate users privacy comes out, but I don’t think the two topics are compatible sadly

      • socsa@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        The solution here is distributed trust by proxy. You start with a single exchange between two trusted peers, and build from there. As long as every individual link within the network is trusted, then any route between two disconnected endpoints can be trusted as well. As the network grows there is a very high statistical likelihood that there will exist many individual trust graphs between two nodes, which provides redundant validation.

        I have always thought this would make a cool chat app. You enter the network by scanning someone’s QR code to become their validated peer, and then you can theoretically communicate with anyone else on the network by exchanging keys via trust graphs. You could then build a social network on top of it which shows you how many hops it takes you to get to some celebrity or some shit.

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          tox did something similar with this outcome, but it never took off. Basically with tox each account is actually stored locally, much like how Skype did when it was p2p, but the difference is your account is actually on your device, as in if you lost your “key” you lost your account, when you connected with others, you gave your friends your TOXID which was essentially your public key signature with some added information regarding what you wanted for privacy added to it, and then your messages were relayed through a p2p DHS network. Every communication was encrypted e2e. With tox anyone could create an account with any information, but only people you added were able to message you, and visa versa. The only time you were ever publicly disclosed was during adding contacts to people you didn’t already have, which helped minimize botting on it as bots wouldn’t be able to message you without your ID. The issue with that method was, both parties had to be online to message each other, there was no central server to manage identity and handle users, so every connection was considered trusted since you had to manually add the person via their tox ID.

          I expect this solution /could/ be moved into a centralized system for all user accounts, since the only way to add people was manually adding their private key, but I would expect that on large scale, the lack of ability to actually stop problematic users might dissuade platforms from wanting to implement it, since account creation was as easy as just clicking “create account” and no accounts were ever verified server side, which in order to do, brings back to the issue topic: Privacy vs Security

      • wellbuddyweek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        How do they currently solve this problem for passwords? You could just have the register/create account button lead to a pubkey upload instead of a ‘set password’, no?

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          20 days ago

          This problem isn’t addressing password authentication, its the website knowing who you are and that you are legitimate. Websites that collect things such as phone numbers during account creation don’t collect your PII as part of your password procedure. They collect it as a verification that you are an actual being and not a fake account/bot. The ease of being able to go through a forgot password thing is just a positive side effect.

          This solution would work amazingly for logging in, there’s no argument for that, but it doesn’t address the elephant in the room: That the website wants to make sure you are a person/legitimate account and not a fake alias or a bot to scrape info, and when you are the only one providing that information that claim can’t be verified.