> ** **

> Last week, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that as part of its
> ongoing campaign against illegal, pre-recorded telemarketing calls<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/reporter/donotcall/robocalls.shtml>it was going to conduct an online contest beginning this week called the FTC
> Robocall Challenge <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/robocalls3.shtm> to
> find the best technical or functional solutions and proofs of concept to
> block these calls on both landlines and mobile phones, if possible ****

> The FTC is offering $50 000 for the “best overall solution” which is
> determined using the following criteria:****

>    -     Does it work? (50 percent)
>     ****
>    -     Is it easy to use? (25 percent)
>     ****
>    -     Can it be rolled out? (25 percent)****

> The cash prize, however, will be awarded only to an individual, team or to
> a firm employing fewer than 10 people. Larger organizations may compete for
> the FTC’s Technology Achievement Award, but no moeny will be awarded.****

> Full article:****

> http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/ftc-presents-50k-eng...
> ****

> ** **

> ** **

> ** **

> David Hempy****

> Director of Broadcast and Education Technology****

> Kentucky Educational Television****

> 859-258-7164****

> ** **

> ** **

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Collexion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> collexion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en.

> ** **

> Last week, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that as part of its
> ongoing campaign against illegal, pre-recorded telemarketing calls<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/reporter/donotcall/robocalls.shtml>it was going to conduct an online contest beginning this week called the FTC
> Robocall Challenge <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/robocalls3.shtm> to
> find the best technical or functional solutions and proofs of concept to
> block these calls on both landlines and mobile phones, if possible ****

> The FTC is offering $50 000 for the “best overall solution” which is
> determined using the following criteria:****

>    -     Does it work? (50 percent)
>     ****
>    -     Is it easy to use? (25 percent)
>     ****
>    -     Can it be rolled out? (25 percent)****

> The cash prize, however, will be awarded only to an individual, team or to
> a firm employing fewer than 10 people. Larger organizations may compete for
> the FTC’s Technology Achievement Award, but no moeny will be awarded.****

> Full article:****

> http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/ftc-presents-50k-eng...
> ****

> ** **

> ** **

> ** **

> David Hempy****

> Director of Broadcast and Education Technology****

> Kentucky Educational Television****

> 859-258-7164****

> ** **

> ** **

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Collexion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> collexion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en.

> I'm just worried we'll have more door-bell-ringning robot foot traffic in
> our neighborhood with all the phone calling robot jobs this will eliminate.

> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Dave Hempy <DHe...@ket.org> wrote:

>>  (Sounds like a pretty small prize, compared to the commercial prospects
>> to me…)****

>> ** **

>> Last week, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that as part of
>> its ongoing campaign against illegal, pre-recorded telemarketing calls<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/reporter/donotcall/robocalls.shtml>it was going to conduct an online contest beginning this week called the FTC
>> Robocall Challenge <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/robocalls3.shtm> to
>> find the best technical or functional solutions and proofs of concept to
>> block these calls on both landlines and mobile phones, if possible ****

>> The FTC is offering $50 000 for the “best overall solution” which is
>> determined using the following criteria:****

>>    -     Does it work? (50 percent)
>>     ****
>>    -     Is it easy to use? (25 percent)
>>     ****
>>    -     Can it be rolled out? (25 percent)****

>> The cash prize, however, will be awarded only to an individual, team or
>> to a firm employing fewer than 10 people. Larger organizations may compete
>> for the FTC’s Technology Achievement Award, but no moeny will be awarded.
>> ****

>> Full article:****

>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/ftc-presents-50k-eng...
>> ****

>> ** **

>> ** **

>> ** **

>> David Hempy****

>> Director of Broadcast and Education Technology****

>> Kentucky Educational Television****

>> 859-258-7164****

>> ** **

>> ** **

>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Collexion" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> collexion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en.

> --
> Derek Eggers

>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Collexion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> collexion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en.

> This issue seems to follow the same pattern as email spam...

> I think the trend will be to start implementing more and more black
> and white lists, and ultimately forwarding suspect calls to voice
> mail (just like how you have to clean up your spam folder)

> Robots have feet?
>  
> And if a robot visits, is that really “in person?”

--- On Thu, 10/25/12, Chris Harn <har...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Chris Harn <har...@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: $50,000 to solve robocaller blocking problem.
> To: collexion@googlegroups.com
> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 12:44 PM

> This issue seems to follow the same pattern as email spam...

> I think the trend will be to start implementing more and more black
> and white lists, and ultimately forwarding suspect calls to voice
> mail (just like how you have to clean up your spam folder)

How about a VRU (Voice Response Unit) that answers and instructs the
caller to dial a random password, before connecting the caller to
the callee?  If the caller doesn't enter the correct, randomly
generated password within so many seconds, the call is terminated
(with extreme prejudice?  See below.), or, perhaps, routed to voice
mail (or, maybe the call is terminated, and the calling number added
to a black-list?).  If the correct password is entered, the phone
then rings and alerts the callee that there's a (human originated)
call waiting for them.

The fact that the password is randomly generated for each call
means that the robo-callers can't simply program it in.  The caller
will have to listen to the voice say the number and then punch it
in (I'm assuming DTMF here, although it may be possible for the VRO
to accept dialed numbers.).

Eventually, the robo-callers will be equipped with voice recognition
units to defeat this.  But, by altering the access of the voice,
quite a few of the voice recognition units will be defeated,
especially if everyone programs their VRU themselves.

An interesting variation of this would be to use a black-white list,
and generate randomly generated passwords of different lengths
depending upon whether the calling number is in the white-list,
black-list, or a (shades of) gray-list.  Or, maybe the length of
the password depends upon the area code the call is being
originated from, with local area code calls given a short
password, while outside area codes are given a 256 digit password?
At the very least, it would slow the calls down, reducing the
profitability for the robo-callers, possibly to the point of making
the system unprofitable (Remember, the secret to putting them out of
business is to hit them where it hurts; in the pocketbook!).  ;-)

Hmm, perhaps I should have entered this?  Naw, I'm contractually
limited.  Besides, there's a LOT more work that needs to be done
on such a scheme, and I'm swamped.  Feel free to take it and run
with it, if any of y'all want to put the work in to make it work.

> Fortunately as we move towards smart phones this shouldn t be
> technically feasible. (we have androids (as in google android OS)
> now to battle the robocallers!)

Personally, I rather like this approach, though:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/25/boeing_champ_missile_microwav...

;-)

And, hey, what's wrong with the nuclear EMP approach?

Dave

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Collexion" group.
To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
collexion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en.

> I hate CAPTCHAs
> but I like EMPs!

> -----Original Message----- From: Dave
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:19 PM
> To: collexion@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: $50,000 to solve robocaller blocking problem.

> --- On Thu, 10/25/12, Chris Harn <har...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  From: Chris Harn <har...@hotmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: $50,000 to solve robocaller blocking problem.
>> To: collexion@googlegroups.com
>> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 12:44 PM

>> This issue seems to follow the same pattern as email spam...

>> I think the trend will be to start implementing more and more black
>> and white lists, and ultimately forwarding suspect calls to voice
>> mail (just like how you have to clean up your spam folder)

> How about a VRU (Voice Response Unit) that answers and instructs the
> caller to dial a random password, before connecting the caller to
> the callee?  If the caller doesn't enter the correct, randomly
> generated password within so many seconds, the call is terminated
> (with extreme prejudice?  See below.), or, perhaps, routed to voice
> mail (or, maybe the call is terminated, and the calling number added
> to a black-list?).  If the correct password is entered, the phone
> then rings and alerts the callee that there's a (human originated)
> call waiting for them.

> The fact that the password is randomly generated for each call
> means that the robo-callers can't simply program it in.  The caller
> will have to listen to the voice say the number and then punch it
> in (I'm assuming DTMF here, although it may be possible for the VRO
> to accept dialed numbers.).

> Eventually, the robo-callers will be equipped with voice recognition
> units to defeat this.  But, by altering the access of the voice,
> quite a few of the voice recognition units will be defeated,
> especially if everyone programs their VRU themselves.

> An interesting variation of this would be to use a black-white list,
> and generate randomly generated passwords of different lengths
> depending upon whether the calling number is in the white-list,
> black-list, or a (shades of) gray-list.  Or, maybe the length of
> the password depends upon the area code the call is being
> originated from, with local area code calls given a short
> password, while outside area codes are given a 256 digit password?
> At the very least, it would slow the calls down, reducing the
> profitability for the robo-callers, possibly to the point of making
> the system unprofitable (Remember, the secret to putting them out of
> business is to hit them where it hurts; in the pocketbook!).  ;-)

> Hmm, perhaps I should have entered this?  Naw, I'm contractually
> limited.  Besides, there's a LOT more work that needs to be done
> on such a scheme, and I'm swamped.  Feel free to take it and run
> with it, if any of y'all want to put the work in to make it work.

>  Fortunately as we move towards smart phones this shouldn’t be
>> technically feasible. (we have androids (as in google android OS)
>> now to battle the robocallers!)

> Personally, I rather like this approach, though:

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/**2012/10/25/boeing_champ_**
> missile_microwave_attacks/<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/25/boeing_champ_missile_microwav...>

> ;-)

> And, hey, what's wrong with the nuclear EMP approach?

> Dave

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Collexion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to collexion+unsubscribe@**
> googlegroups.com <collexion%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/collexion?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en>.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Collexion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to collexion@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to collexion+unsubscribe@**
> googlegroups.com <collexion%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/collexion?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/collexion?hl=en>.