Any third grader could tell you how much fun prank calling a stranger is. But with modern technology, the same phone pranks we played as kids could have severe, potentially deadly consequences if action isn’t taken soon.Modern phone spoofing applications, like iSpoof, can change caller ID numbers, disguise voices with a real-time voice changer, record and replay calls, and place calls straight to voicemails (resulting in a missed call without any actual ringing), among other things.The application provides free, unlimited national and international calls with no registration required — provided calls are limited to two minutes and preceded by a nine second advertisement. The application also provides integration, which means it can incorporate user and victim telephone address books.For example, as a 2006 Associated Press story noted, users can make calls to any number from any number, including typical favorites from the likes of Satan (666-666-6666), pi (314-159-2653), Hollywood (555-555-5555) or Tommy Tutone (867-5309).But the program isn’t all fun and games — it can sometimes lead to life-changing, even life-threatening consequences.Though its intended use is aimed at law enforcement agencies, private investigators and collection agencies, it has been predictably abused by deceivers of various sorts. Reportedly, thieves have used the service to activate stolen credit cards, hackers have used them to access celebrity voicemail boxes, telemarketers have used them to evade identification and pranksters have used them to disguise themselves.An extreme example, called swatting, involves engineering a fake hostage situation by calling the police with a victim’s phone number. This results in police officers bursting into innocent people’s homes — and has occurred hundreds of times nationwide.In 2006, Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa, became the service’s most prominent victim. Prior to an upcoming election, his congressional office began receiving calls from constituents claiming they had received calls from Murphy’s office belittling Murphy. He later found out his telephone system had been hit by a flood attack cloaked by a spoofing service.This technology has been around for some time, but the added danger lies in the unfamiliar ease with which the technology can now readily be applied. Caller ID spoofing technologies make it simple to bypass the appropriate equipment and experience previously required to engage in such deception.As the AP noted, a solution to combat the problem exists, but revolves around a difficult and laborious process.Lawmakers have also set their sights on the technology through legislation.Murphy introduced a Senate bill making it illegal to pose as someone else to obtain phone records. An Alaska state representative introduced a bill to make spoofing a misdemeanor. Later, the FCC opened an investigation into caller ID spoofing companies.The evidently adverse public reaction against the service seemingly produced effective legislative action. Accordingly, since the issue first gained notoriety in 2006, it has largely faded from public awareness. But awareness is only half the battle.The public recognized a familiar political dance and closed the case on the issue.Because, in politics, perception is reality. And as long as it looks like they’re cleaning up problems, then everyone is happy.Fraud is already illegal — by proposing and enacting similar legislation, politicians and the public accept the easy way out. Redundant legislation isn’t the answer, as Wired noted.Because, hypothetically speaking, what’s to stop all iPhoners from iSpoofing state legislators right now?If this legislation weren’t redundant and actually carried weight, then three years after legislation was first proposed, the spoofing service wouldn’t still function with impunity.Efficient government and execution of the law is what is necessary. Accountability is what is lacking — not legislation.Daniel Lumetta is a 22-year-old mass communication senior from Metairie.–Contact Daniel Lumetta at [email protected]
Louisianimal: Pranks reveal deficit in execution, excess in legislation
March 16, 2009