asterisk users - May 2010 - US "Truth in caller id act"... and it's impact on services

For the 3rd consecutive term, the US Senate has introduced the "Truth in 
caller ID Act of 2009".

It was passed by the Senate (finally) in January, and has moved to the 
House for a vote.

A lot of states have ambiguous or overly restrictive language on how 
caller ID may be manipulated.

For instance, if you have a PBX, and a call comes in from the PSTN, 
which you then loop back out or "hairpin" (without a redirect) to the 
PSTN (therefore as two separate but bridged call legs) and put the 
caller ID of the 1st call onto the 2nd leg (which is, by the way, the 
default behavior of Asterisk) you may be breaking the law in some states.

This law introduces uniformity across all states (it's nice to have a 
level playing field, whether you agree with this law or not).

It also very specifically defines under what condition spoofing/swatting 
is illegal:

(1)IN  GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States,in 
connection with any real time voice communications service, regardless of the
technology or network utilized, to cause anycaller  ID  service to transmit
misleading or inaccuratecaller  ID  information, with the intent to defraud or
deceive.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h1258_eh.xml


which is nice, because it's less ambiguous about when the activity is
illegal (and avoids unnecessary contention between customers, telcos, and
PUC's).


For instance, if you're implementing "single number calling" for
your
employees, so that their cell-originated calls indicates their primary 
(deskphone) work number, the "the intent to defraud or deceive" is
absent.

This act delivers a badly needed brightline definition of what can and 
can't be done within the limits of the law.

If you agree with this law, and believe that it facilitates the 
deployment of useful calling features, then please contact your congressman.

And if you don't, well, you have a voice too, so tell them why it falls 
short.

Either way, this act has been backburnered way too long and it's time to 
have a final conclusion on the matter.

-Philip

hi,

I did not install sounds during the installation of Asterisk, was wondering if
there is any means through which I can get to install sounds without having to
do a complete re-install of asterisk
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20100524/58ae26da/attachment.htm

On 5/23/2010 9:42 PM, ayodele abejide wrote:
> hi,
>
> I did not install sounds during the installation of Asterisk, was 
> wondering if there is any means through which I can get to install 
> sounds without having to do a complete re-install of asterisk
>
Sure, just download them from here:
http://downloads.asterisk.org/pub/telephony/sounds/

Andres
http://www.neuroredes.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. 
> <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>

If the version either 1.4.x or 1.6.x, run "make menuconfig" from
asterisk source directory, pick up sounds you need, and make install
then.

Or, you can do as mentioned above: install sounds you need explicitly.

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:42 AM, ayodele abejide
<ayodeleabejide at hotmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> I did not install sounds during the installation of Asterisk, was wondering
> if there is any means through which I can get to install sounds without
> having to do a complete re-install of asterisk
>
> ________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.asterisk.org/hello
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> ? http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>

I submit this is still very ambiguous.  The "intent to . . . deceive"
is, like "beauty" all in the eye of the beholder, or, (or accuser) one
must be able to accurately read the mind of the "perpetrator".

Also, what is "inaccurate"?  Is that when you transmit the original
ID, as is default?  Is that "accurate"?  Or is it "accurate"
to say it came from the "hairpin" machine?

A field day for lawyers.   As are so many laws.  Wiggle room.

joe a.

i>>> On 5/22/2010 at 3:28 PM, Philip Prindeville
<philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
> For the 3rd consecutive term, the US Senate has introduced the "Truth
in
> caller ID Act of 2009".
> 
> It was passed by the Senate (finally) in January, and has moved to the 
> House for a vote.
> 
> A lot of states have ambiguous or overly restrictive language on how 
> caller ID may be manipulated.
> 
> For instance, if you have a PBX, and a call comes in from the PSTN, 
> which you then loop back out or "hairpin" (without a redirect) to
the
> PSTN (therefore as two separate but bridged call legs) and put the 
> caller ID of the 1st call onto the 2nd leg (which is, by the way, the 
> default behavior of Asterisk) you may be breaking the law in some states.
> 
> This law introduces uniformity across all states (it's nice to have a 
> level playing field, whether you agree with this law or not).
> 
> It also very specifically defines under what condition spoofing/swatting 
> is illegal:
> 
> (1)IN  GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United 
> States,in  connection with any real time voice communications service, 
> regardless of the technology or network utilized, to cause anycaller  ID  
> service to transmit misleading or inaccuratecaller  ID  information, with
the
> intent to defraud or deceive.
> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h1258_eh.xml 
> 
> 
> which is nice, because it's less ambiguous about when the activity is 
> illegal (and avoids unnecessary contention between customers, telcos, and 
> PUC's).
> 
> 
> For instance, if you're implementing "single number calling"
for your
> employees, so that their cell-originated calls indicates their primary 
> (deskphone) work number, the "the intent to defraud or deceive"
is absent.
> 
> This act delivers a badly needed brightline definition of what can and 
> can't be done within the limits of the law.
> 
> If you agree with this law, and believe that it facilitates the 
> deployment of useful calling features, then please contact your
congressman.
> 
> And if you don't, well, you have a voice too, so tell them why it falls
> short.
> 
> Either way, this act has been backburnered way too long and it's time
to
> have a final conclusion on the matter.
> 
> -Philip
> 
>