FCC Votes To Outlaw Scam Robocalls That Use AI-Generated Voices (cnn.com) 61
The Federal Communications Commission said Thursday it is immediately outlawing scam robocalls featuring fake, AI-created voices, cracking down on so-called "deepfake" technology that experts say could undermine election security or supercharge fraud. From a report: The unanimous FCC vote extends anti-robocall rules to cover AI deepfake calls by recognizing those voices as "artificial" under a federal law governing telemarketing and robocalling. The FCC's move gives state attorneys general more legal tools to pursue illegal robocallers that use AI-generated voices to impersonate celebrities, politicians and close family members, the FCC said.
A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Because they already have.
This may be to plug the "political robocalls" loophole.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they didn't need another one.
Re: (Score:3)
It might be better then to call this an "explicit focus". IE they're putting effort specifically into this.
IE distracted driving is already a crime, but we've noticed cellphones have become a problem, so we're explicitly banning that specifically to try to raise awareness and all that.
Re: A better idea (Score:2)
Arguably, it wouldn't fall specifically into the category of scam because an AI phone call from a politician may not be soliciting money. It may instead mislead people willfully and in bad faith. A different deception but one that should be prohibited nonetheless
Re: (Score:2)
Because they already have.
This may be to plug the "political robocalls" loophole.
But let’s not ask about how simply eliminating a loophole that shouldn’t exist in the first place, would be a hell of a lot easier than selling shit related to passing some new legislation, which we know will probably fail. Or at minimum take FAR longer than any major American election is going to take, with that delay by design.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they already have.
This may be to plug the "political robocalls" loophole.
I'm gathering it's just another law the FCC won't enforce.
I'm just glad OFCOM isn't nearly as useless (not that OFCOM are good mind you, but I don't get many spam calls).
Re: (Score:2)
Because they seem to be powerless to stop them. Most originate in foreign countries and powerful lobbyists oppose regulations
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
It'd be very simple, actually:
1. Require a bond to connect an exchange to US telecom systems.
2. Revoke the bond if too many rule breaking calls come from said exchange.
3. Scale up the size of the bond until only foreign telecoms willing to do the necessary policing are willing to connect.
But this would require congress to give the FCC sufficient teeth to do it.
Re: A better idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Each scam call is already effectively a denial of service attack. These denial of service attacks are so bad that many victims have disabled their voicemail or the ability to receive calls from unvetted numbers.
Re: A better idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OP didn't mention of any bans, only loss of a security deposit.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I mentioned taking their bond away. They can reconnect as soon as they post a new bond.
Of course, they'll keep bleeding money until they get rid of the scammers, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're onto something with the bond approach. Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, these scams are financial crimes. I believe that that means that the best way to discourage them is also financial. Make it cost them too much money, and they won't do it.
As much as I'd like to hire Agent 47 on scammers, he could wear out his fingers and still not make a dent. So a wider approach is necessary.
The fact that the FCC could self-fund itself off of the fines, well, that's just a bonus. One you need to be a LITTLE careful about, mind you. Don't want to get like cigarette taxes ar
Re: (Score:2)
It's refreshing someone is calling for Congress to do its job, and create laws for regulation, instead of the current fashion, where massive power creep by regulatory agencies into un-envisioned areas is presumed.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe in giving regulatory/policing agencies enough teeth to do their job and correcting them if they attempt to do things that are outside of their job.
As far as I'm concerned, the FCC's role is enabling us to communicate legitimately. Scams and such aren't legit. Ergo, maximum power to prevent that.
Even if my gut response is to hire Agent 47, I know that's not practical, so I look for practical solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they seem to be powerless to stop them.
They will be powerless to stop these too.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the most recent example came from Texas [cnn.com] from a strip mall location.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was wondering this.
Why the limitation to AI generated voices? Are we afraid of endangering jobs in the scamming industry?
How socialist!
Re:A better idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the current legislation said "only human voiced scams are illegal" or something ?
No, FFS are you guys really this thick:
The unanimous ruling targets robocalls made with AI voice-cloning tools under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a 1991 law restricting junk calls that use artificial and prerecorded voice messages.
Under the consumer protection law, telemarketers generally cannot use automated dialers or artificial or prerecorded voice messages to call cellphones, and they cannot make such calls to landlines without prior written consent from the call recipient.
The new ruling classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as “artificial” and thus enforceable by the same standards, the FCC said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/s... [nbcnews.com]
Why the heck is such clarification needed?
To remove any possible ambiguity and make taking action against companies that try to use AI voices of real people easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the heck is such clarification needed?
Because a couple shell-corporations in Texas robocalled voters in New Hampshire, and impersonated Joe Biden telling them not to vote in the primary.
The people behind it only got a warning instead of a trip to prison because "the law didn't (specifically enough) say we couldn't do it"
As part of the response... the FCC is clarifying that this is a violation of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
speaking as a lawyer . . . (Score:2)
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. If you want advice, pay my retainer!
I have seen the same unfortunate grammar in every headline so far. As written, they suggest that these *were* legal beforehand.
After reading a few, and attempting to read between the lines, my suspicion is that these calls didn't meet the definition "recorded".
Also, there is currently an exception for political calls, among other, and possibly this is necessary to clarify that faked voices don't fall within the exception.
B
Re: (Score:1)
Also, there is currently an exception for political calls, among other, and possibly this is necessary to clarify that faked voices don't fall within the exception.
Can we remove this exception? I'm getting non-stop calls and txt msgs from any/all politicians in all 50 states asking me to vote for them. The txt msgs tell me I'm receiving the message because I registered with the candidate to receive them. Like hell I did, I think they "borrowed" the NSA's phone data to populate their "annoy the voters" bots.
How many numbers can my Pixel 6 phone, and/or phone carrier, block? I should be up to a several thousand by now. I tap the "report as spam and block" on all of
Re: (Score:2)
>Can we remove this exception?
somehow, I don't see congresscritters lining up to vote for that . . .
Now, it's certainly something that a phone carrier could let you sign up to get . . . but they don't want to annoy the congresscritters, so I wouldn't hold your breath on that end, either.
I was going to donate a few bucks to Nikki Haley just to get permabanned by MAGA (and it turns out that she'll send you a t-shirt with "banned. permanently." at a $5 donation, but I couldn't find a way to do it without ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's Good and Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You are relying on the people who benefit (politicians) to outlaw the stuff that benefits them (loophole for political spamcalls). That is not going to happen. Ever.
Re: It's Good and Bad (Score:3)
it should come in the form of a law deliberated and passed by Congress
That is exactly what this is. From the announcement [fcc.gov], linked from TFA:
The TCPA [Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991] protects consumers from unwanted calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice. In relevant part, the TCPA prohibits initiating "any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party" unless a statutory exception applies or the call is "exempted by rule or order by the Commission under [section 227(b)(2)(B)]." The TCPA also prohibits, without the prior express consent of the called party, any non-emergency call made using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to certain specified categories of telephone numbers including emergency lines and wireless numbers.
What the FCC has done is the following (also from the announcement), which makes sense:
In this Declaratory Ruling, we confirm that the TCPA's restrictions on the use of "artificial or prerecorded voice" encompass current AI technologies that generate human voices. As a result, calls that use such technologies fall under the TCPA and the Commissionâ(TM)s implementing rules, and therefore require the prior express consent of the called party to initiate such calls absent an emergency purpose or exemption.
Re: (Score:1)
Fair points - thanks. But ideally bureaucratic interpretation should not be necessarythe law should be clear enough to need no interpretation, but apparently it wasn’t because the FCC had to vote on the issue according to the headline on SD. In any case, every additional group that weighs in on a regulation gets to flavor it their way, for their purposes and the purposes of unelected rich fat cats behind the scenes, which can often be at odds with the desires of the voters. But who cares in this in
Know what the current state of the courts (Score:4, Interesting)
scam robocalls (Score:4)
> FCC Votes To Outlaw Scam Robocalls That Use AI-Generated Voices
Are there non-scam robocalls? Would 'non-scam' robocalls using AI voices be allowed?
This is slashdot and I'm not reading past the headline.
Re: (Score:3)
A non-scam robocall, perhaps using an AI voice, might be one that is giving an appointment reminder or such. For older people who don't text/email.
"You have an appointment with Dr. Smith in the lakeview clinic at 10 am tomorrow. Press 1 or say yes to confirm."
Or, I should say, that's an acceptable sort of robocall.
You could also have non-scam SPAM robocalls, where they're trying to sell you siding, windows, water filters, or such. Where the product in question is actually real.
Re:scam robocalls (Score:4, Informative)
That is exactly how the scam works.
1. Start with an automated call about an appointment. Target old people that are forgetful and have lots of appointments.
2. The call is bogus, so the AI voice tells you what number to call to change the appointment if you need.
3. You call to sort out the appointment and the Office tells you that you are behind in payment and requests a payment now.
Still works with humans but you can cast a much wider net with AI voices.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make real appointment calls somehow also become scams.
Of course it still might be a good idea to have such calls be made by real humans (or have a vetting process with a security deposit), so as to prevent scam robocalls from receiving camouflage.
Re: scam robocalls (Score:2)
Congress already outlawed "any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party" in 1991. This ruling just says that prohibition includes AI generated voices.
The headline should have been something more like "FCC Votes that AI-Generated Voices are 'Artificial' and Therefore Cannot be Used for Unsolicited Calls to Residences".
Outlaw != Stop (Score:2)
How about we crack telcos upside the head real good if they let this shit fly on their network? "Don't piss off the telcos?" Why? Because they have money? Oh, right, forgot the golden rule. Those with more gold get to make or completely circumvent the rules.
Caller ID spoofing needs to be addressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Time to throw away SS7 and start over?
Re: (Score:2)
Until they end caller ID spoofing or hiding, robocalls of any kind will never end.
Why do you think that would end it? If I get a call from someone claiming to be from my bank, what is the point of knowing the calling number when I don't know my bank phone number off the top of my head anyway.
More simply, if I pick up to a caller with an Indian accent telling me to transfer all my money to some other "safe" account "because there are hackers in my windows", I don't know about you but I don't need to check his phone number to know it's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Because proper caller ID shows the name of the caller, not just the number, and if I don't recognize the caller, I don't answer. The "where it originates" part of my original post is who is calling. I should've been more clear.
I feel like Robocalls are easy to stop... (Score:2)
Pass a federal law:
Any number identified as a robocall/telemarketer must start paying $200 minute, 5 minute minimum on all outbound calls. Don't charge the robocall scammer though, charge the originating telco company. Any telco company that fails to pay will have their trunks/SIP connections banned.
I guarantee you they'll cut their customers legs off to stop these calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Any number identified as a robocall/telemarketer
I meant to say CONNECTION, not number.
Performative Legislation Round II (Score:2)
Hey, we were just talking about this in the thread about wearing VR goggles while driving! Scamming people is illegal. Scamming people over the phone is also illegal. Now scamming people using robocalls with AI voices is *also* going to be illegal.
Next they need to make it illegal to scam people over cell phones, text messages, VOIP, twitter, and whilst standing on your head. Because the blanket law that makes it illegal to scam people out of their money can't possibly cover all variations of scamming peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure outlaw it (Score:3)
Well, Deja vu again (Score:2)
Pointless laws (Score:2)
There's a real, "we can't do crime, that's illegal" vibe here. Technology kind of supersedes the law. If you're picking up the phone for a number you don't recognize, it's like you're walking naked on top of a trench in the middle of a fire fight. You kind of deserve what you get. The real problem is caller-ID spoofing. I've never picked one up and had the entity on the other end fool me; but it's the stuff of nightmares and you know it's coming.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're picking up the phone for a number you don't recognize, it's like you're walking naked on top of a trench in the middle of a fire fight.
Why? Do you assume that once we pick up we will obey everything the scammer asks for? That might be advice I give to my elderly mother, but we are not all or senile yet. Once you have got as far as checking the caller number you might as well pick up, and if it is an Indian accent telling you there are "hackers in your windows" (or even without the Indian accent), you can enjoy telling them to fuck off. I always do it.
In any case, you must live an uneventful life. In mine there are all sorts of reason
Charge the caller (Score:2)
5 cents for me to pick up the receiver, credited to my phone bill. Normal people will be OK with it. I'd make a fortune until It drove spammers and scammers out of business.
I'm retired, so if I'm in a mood to screw with them, they will waste a lot of time which prevents them from talking to other folks. Usually I go to the bathroom and treat them to some sound effects, or put down the phone to "get my Medicare card/credit card/whatever" then take a nap, or fiddle with "windows" until I admit to running Linu
Huh? (Score:2)
How the fnck are scam calls not outlawed by default?