Talk:Caller ID spoofing/Archives/2013

Merge into Caller ID

I propose this page be a (large) section of caller id, as it's an aspect thereof. It was started Dec '02; this article was started Feb '06. The questions/issues from Docduke and Dethme0w above are answered there, - info about more reliable ways to track the caller, and the underlying technology. I think that supports a merge; it doesn't make sense that these be separate, IMO. --Elvey (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...this article looks pretty long and detailed and I imagine there's a reason this was spun-out from there. If there are problems with this article, they can probably be addressed by copyediting it and including a better summary of the issues in the parent article, rather than merging it back. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: If the articles were merged, the combined article would be too large to comply with Wikipedia policy. For an example of such a situtation, please see the Dell article. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 10:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The Caller ID article has its own problems that should be resolved first, before any merger consideration. See Talk:Caller_ID. It doesn't need further confusion. Bellhead (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I too oppose this. This caller id spoofing is a big problem of its own... its been causing me nightmares... litterally. I have removed the merged article as well.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

brand name vs. generic name

The term "Caller ID" is very prevalent, but it is a brand name (and thus probably should be capitalized as a proper noun). The generic term would be calling party number (CPN). Should this article be renamed?

I can see the counterargument though, that some brands have become synonymous with the object they represent, such as Xerox (copy or photocopy) or Kleenex ((facial) tissue).

Your thoughts?

The US Government refers this as "Caller ID" in the "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010". I've never heard of Caller ID being a trade name, but I am not too versed in this. If it's good enough for it to be referred to in general as "Caller ID" by an Act of Congress, it should be acceptable on Wiki. 166.216.128.74 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, but also a good counterargument. Let's stick with Caller ID. MrJosiahT (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Page needs a comparison of spoofing services

I think it would be good to add a section to this page that compairs the various spoofing services eg. when they were founded, interface for placing calls, rates, etc sort of like there is in the Comparison of VoIP software article. 151.200.36.205 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly the same, this page is about Caller ID spoofing, not about Comparison of caller ID spoofing services. Moreover, your list included a) signup lists, which make the list into a spam magnet, and b) none of the actual services seems (until now) notable for an own article, which makes this list look like 'well, at least we do mention them somewhere' (whereas for most/all of the mentioned VoIP software, separate articles do exist!). I have cleaned the list a bit, but if none of the services has its own article in due time, I would suggest that the list should go again. We are not an internet directory. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can see the problem with including signup links! Although none of the providers have their own article as of now, SpoofCard is probably notable enough that it should. Although Wikipedia is not an internet directory, my idea in creating the list was to show how extremely varied the prices and services of the various providers are. 151.200.36.205 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We should remove the links to the non-existant articles and instead link to the sites of the spoofing providors. This a good idea? 71.163.238.120 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not the yellow pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

History

Caller ID spoofing is more than 20 years old. A friend of mine who moved away from Montreal in June of 1997 and cut his Montreal service with Bell Canada then. His name and phone number appeared on the caller ID screen of my home phone about November of 1997. Go figure. Peter Horn User talk 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1997 to 2009 is 12 years. Is there a documented spoofing case occurring on or before 1989? Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent billing

A more sinister aspect of telephone number spoofing is the fraudulent billing of long distance telephone charges to s third nomber. This practice was mentioned in the Montreal Gazette some time ago when it featured an article about firms that were hit with $25,000 or $ 35,000 charges for long distance calls that they did NOT make. Peter Horn User talk 01:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Caller ID spoofing does indeed have several sinister aspects, but what you're talking about is probably the ages old third party billing trick. It's a simple trick involving social engineering, doesn't require spoofing, and has been around much longer than Caller ID itself. 151.200.31.38 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

VoIP doesn't use or spoof telephone numbers

This is a topic that doesn't see much discussion and probably deserves some. A pure voice over IP call uses IP addresses to determine the end points. Both end points must have IP connectivity but there is no requirement to expose either end point to a traditional phone switch. A combination of software such as Asterisk and a set of FXO and FXS cards can use VoIP as a carrier to bridge traffic that originates as POTS to an endpoint that terminates as POTS. The software at the VoIP endpoints can create the CallerID at will. In fact, an Asterisk confguration with the apprporiate line cards and no VoIP capabilities can do the very same thing. There are services that provide a POTS termination to a VoIP call and that service can provide any value for a CallerID. The VoIP component is not the spoofing enabler, that is one of the features of the rest of the configuration. Docdave (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that is interesting, but how do you propose it be added to the article? Perhaps adding "It isn't actually VoIP that enables spoofing but software at the VoIP endpoints that bridges the call from VoIP to POTS."  ? MrJosiahT (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad link address and wrong link title

The following reference has an unrelated title and a dead link: 12. "Virginia girl found eating herself in cage in mobile home; parents Brian and Shannon Gore charged". Daily News (New York).[dead link]

Could the following link be used instead? "Brooklyn wife Kisha Jones drugs husband's lover to force miscarriage, sends poison as 'breast milk'" http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-12-05/news/17941538_1_breast-milk-anthony-jones-cops

Alternatively, "Police Allege Elaborate Bid for Revenge by a Wife" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/nyregion/05baby.html

I will not edit the article; I hope that someone more familiar with the topic will take a look.

Mecanoge (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

unclear to me

I could only think of a way to make this work, if the faked number is owned by the provider doing the faking (I'm assuming here (common sense) that the phone company does not provide access to an interface allowing to change the forwarded phone number). This would not be a real faking, but allowing somebody to use ones phone. If the provider allows somebody to use his phone number, he would be responsible for any legal results for the calls done with his phone number. Please somebody explain this to me? Does the phone company provide access so that people can feed in the number they want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.228.23 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

On voice over IP providers like les.net and voip.ms, the user can obtain multiple inbound numbers in multiple cities (DIDs) through a web interface and can also specify any arbitrary number to be sent as caller ID on outbound calls. The caller name, on calls within Canada, is taken from the analog telephone adapter settings - also under user control. That much is a Nortel quirk, the US bell standard is to send just the number as caller ID and use a database lookup at destination to find a corresponding name, but in either case the number is trivial to spoof on VoIP gateways.

On calls going directly from Internet-to-Internet without being gated onto PSTN, this is even more of a bad joke. One can spam telephone calls with bogus return addresses just as trivially as one can spam unsolicited commercial e-mail. K7L (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)