House Passes Ban On Caller ID Spoofing

WASHINGTON — Using false caller ID with the intent of tricking people into revealing personal information or otherwise causing harm would become illegal under legislation that passed the House Wednesday.

Backers of the bill, passed by voice vote, said caller ID "spoofing" is a growing threat to people because of new technology making it cheap and easy to change the name and number that phone call recipients see on their caller ID.

For example, a scammer might use the caller ID of a bank as a way of duping a person into revealing his Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chief sponsor of the bill with Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, cited a case last year where New York City police uncovered an identity theft ring that used caller ID spoofing to steal more than $15 million from 6,000 victims.

In another case, he said, a woman used the caller ID of a pharmacist to trick a romantic rival into taking a drug used to cause abortions.

Engel and others speaking on the legislation also raised an issue that strikes closer to home – the use of spoofing during political campaigns to mislead voters or get voters angry at a candidate they mistakenly think is calling them, perhaps in the middle of the night.

The legislation would only outlaw the use of spoofing technology when the intent is to deceive and harm the recipient of the call. Legitimate uses of the technology, such as a domestic abuse shelter changing its number to protect an occupant of the shelter, would still be permitted.

The measure gives the Federal Communications Commission authority to develop regulations to enforce the new law. Violators could be subject to $10,000 in fines and up to a year in prison.

The House has passed similar legislation in the past two sessions of Congress. It awaits action in the Senate, where Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has introduced a companion measure.

___

The bill is H.R. 1258.

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Comments

[VegasWolf]

11:21 AM on 04/15/2010

I guess they will exclude those endless telemarketers that politicians use to raise cash for their own campaigns.

[jasev01]

07:04 AM on 04/15/2010

This is a failure. Its content based regulation, unconstitutional.

[KevinFletcherTweedy]

07:04 AM on 04/15/2010

One wise reminder: Always request calling back to the "real" institution when confidential details are being requested. Spoofers will go away quickly.

[Soundofthunder]

06:47 AM on 04/15/2010

Good. My plan of ignoring my cell phone seems to be paying off then.

S

[Le Samurai]

03:07 AM on 04/15/2010

it's a step in the right direction. now how about including telemarketing to be included in the invasion of privacy umbrella

[Naithom]

01:10 AM on 04/15/2010

I'm surprised that the pro-credit card company members were willing to vote for this one as it's not unusual for debt collectors to use fake numbers.

[tailgateshirts]

09:42 PM on 04/14/2010

Thank God,

Sick of BS calls that spoof phone #s

[CapsFan78]

06:02 PM on 04/14/2010

Question for the Tea Partyers - Do you support this legislation?

If so, can you tell me what article in the Constitution gives Congress the right to pass this legislation?

[blakef]

06:24 AM on 04/15/2010

Honestly, there isn't. Article I, Section 8, The constitution specifically states:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"

My reading of that (and the reading at the time of the creation of the constitution) was to give congress the power to pass criminal law ONLY over dirt they controlled (i.e. DC, Military bases). The constitution gives congress no power to pass criminal law that reaches into a state.

The closes thing that could be stretched to cover this would be:
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
But there is no actual commerce involved in this law.

I actually do agree with the law and thing that congress should be given the actual power (via amendment) to make laws of this nature, that are CLEARLY interstate, no intrastate. If you want to read about the bastardization of the commerce clause read and how things that don’t involve interstate commerce “effect” interstate commerce, they by giving congress the power to legislate it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[suec03]

12:15 PM on 04/15/2010

Using an instrumentality of interstate commerce such as the interstate system of telephone lines which is used for commercial activities could bring it within the coverage of the commerce clause and within the purview of the Federal Trade Commission as an unfair business practice.

[LewDan]

10:41 AM on 04/16/2010

You cannot make any use of the phone system without engaging in interstate commerce as phone service is a commercial service. You also could not have a modern phone system without government regulation unless you really believe every phone company in the world would spontaneously and altruistically agree to cooperate with competitors to provide universal global phone service without engaging in any anticompetitive or monopolistic behavior.

In other words, phone service is exactly the kind of "commerce" for which the constitution's commerce clause was written and intended.--One that requires interstate, and even international cooperation.

[blakef]

06:26 AM on 04/15/2010

CapsFan78,

From the tone of your question it doesn't sound like you care if Congress actually works within the confines of the powers that they were given. Would you prefer we just do away with the states and let DC pass all law?

[CapsFan78]

09:56 AM on 04/15/2010

Asking me my opinion on the matter is a deflection from the intent of my original question.

If members of the Tea Party believe that such a law lies outside the bounds of the Constitution then they must object to it on principle and add it to their complaints against Congress.

If they support it, according to their own principles, they must show exactly where the Constitution grants Congress the power to take such action.

But you asked my opinion - and I will oblige. I think that everyone is bound by the laws of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Even so, does that mean that the Constitution is perfect and absolute? The Founders didn't think so, which is why they created the Supreme Court and the amendment process. If the Constitution was meant to be the final word as written - why does it call for a body to interpret its meaning and a describe a process to change it?