DOCSLIB.ORG

Robocall Abatement Apps for Ios Devices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Robocall Abatement Apps for Ios Devices Robocall Abatement Apps for iOS Devices App Price Features Automatic fraud blocking, manual call blocking, report spam calls, AT&T Call Protect Free suspected spam warning Avast Call Blocker - Spam Automatically block spam numbers, once a spam number is identified Free Blocking for iOS10 the app will either warn the user or block it outright Black List Call (Emanuele Free Block unwanted calls Floris) Black List Call Pro (Emanuele $1.99 Block unwanted calls Floris) Blacklist : caller ID & Blocker Turn off blocking, private and unknown call blocking, block range of Free (Sergey Smirnov) numbers Block private and unknown numbers, identify callers, block range of Blacklist Pro: Call Blocker $2.99 numbers, turn off block calls Block Spam Calls SMS MMS Block numbers and filter SMS/MMS messages, requires iPhone 5 or $1.99 (Valerii Andrusyk) higher, blocked calls can be forwarded to voicemail Call Blacklist -Identify & Blocked unwanted calls, block spam, has a spam number database built Block spam phone calls $1.99 into the app (WeiZi Liang) Call Bliss - Silence unwanted $9.99 Blacklist, whitelist, personalized lists calls and texts Call Blocker - Block Spam Block spam calls and texts, backup block list, report spam number, Free (shoki kin) check blocked calls Call Blocker - Block Create personalized block list, add large numbers to block list, do not $0.99 unwelcome spam&robo calls disturb, pause or resume blocking service Do not disturb, create personalized block list, import numbers from Call Blocker Cloud $1.99 Mac/PC, report spam numbers to developer and others, pause and resume blocking Block calls and texts, unlimited block list, backup phone list, report Call Blocker Pro (shoki kin) $1.99 spam and communicate it with everyone Call Blocker U.S. Block phone numbers, report suspicious numbers, identify commercial Free (unknownphone.com) calls, avoid common scams Block number ranges, share contacts with the app, third party apps can Call Blocking List (Emil Thies) $0.99 pass blocked numbers to others Call center blocker & Block individual numbers or block everyone at the same time, do not identifyer - BLOC (Gabriel $10.99 need internet access Hohener) Automatically blocks numbers or display a SpamRank score to indicate Call Cleaner-ID and Block Free how likely the call is spam, stay anonymous and never gathers personal Spam (Nekosan Studios, LLC) info 1 Robocall Abatement Apps for iOS Devices Call Control! (Call Control, Block unwanted calls, personal blacklist, block calls from FTC/FCC Do Free LLC) Not Call list Call Filter (Imran Yousaf) $99.99 Do not disturb, call blocking 14-day free trial, Real time spam protection, block unwanted calls, get spam risk Call Guardian (Cequint Inc.) $3.99/month assessment Call Handler (M Omer Rauf) Free Blacklist, block ranges, import blacklist from contacts CallBlock - Block Block unwanted callers, identify spam calls, do not disturb, app does not telemarketers and spam calls $3.99 access contacts (Jenghis, LLC) Free for one month, then Identifies almost 87% of telemarketing calls, but cannot block calls with Callblock (Rocketship Apps) $1.99/month or no caller ID $19.99/year CallBlocker - Block Spam Range blocking to select the number of digit to block, pre-defined Calls (Konstantinos $0.99 blacklist Papadakis) CallHound Unwanted Calls Block calls marked as spam or customize notifications of unwanted $1.99 Block (Konstantin Klyagin) incoming calls Do Not Disturb Allowed Callers and Calls App $2.99 Blacklist, whitelist, do not disturb (Component Studios) Import and block contacts from contact list, call blocking on/off, privacy Don't Call Me (Jorge Cozain) $1.99 protection, unlimited blocking, calls identified/blocked even when app is closed Donut Call (jacob berkman) Free Block callers from numbers like yours or any other prefixes you like DU Caller: Caller ID & Spam One tap to add a blacklist, spam number database with global spam Phone Blocker (Baidu (Hong Free numbers Kong) Limited) User based call/spam reporters, block unwanted calls & texts, identify Everycaller Free incoming callers by name Uses database of phone numbers to block robocalls, users can report HawkBloc $1.99 fraudulent numbers and get them added to the database Auto spam detection, reverse phone lookup, spam-check dialer, blacklist Hiya Caller ID and Block Free #, report spam Blocks calls from numbers associated with known scams or fraud, Mr. Number: Spam Free numbers belonging to telemarketers, solicitors, and bill collectors, and Protection & Number Search specific numbers on your blacklist My BlackList & WhiteList Create blacklist and whitelist for blocked calls and sms, edit and delete $0.99 manager contacts contacts, export list to contacts 2 Robocall Abatement Apps for iOS Devices Never Called Again (Dion Free Blacklist, disable call blocking, access contacts Fisher) 14-day free trial, Nomorobo $1.99/ month or Voice robocalls and SMS text message spam/phishing protection $19.99/ yr after Numbo - Call Protect & Blocker (Master App Free Block unwanted calls, blacklist, use blocking database, back up blacklist Solutions) Numler Caller ID & Blocker Free Blacklist Phone Defender - Call Blocked calls silently sent to voicemail, block robocalls, scams and $0.99 Blocker (Banzai Labs) telemarketers using apps database, block individual numbers Free or $89.99 for Phone Number Lookup: 6-month Search unknown callers, find true caller ID and identity behind the call Caller ID (Readale Carroll) subscription PhoneGuard - Call Spam and Scam Blocker (BergTech, $0.99 Blacklist, whitelist LLC) Lets you see who is calling (name, business, location, etc.) while caller is Pikup- Call screening and Free still on line; enables users to tag as spam to help Pikup community get spam caller ID better results PrivacyStar Free Block any number, lookup any number and report any number Reverd free spam call Free Detects unwanted calls, manually add unwanted calls detector app for iPhone Filter calls using registry with over 100,000 reported spam numbers, RoboFence - Block Robocalls, $0.99 does not access address book or incoming calls to block unwanted Respects Your Privacy callers 7-day free trial; RoboKiller - Stop Spam Calls $3.99/month; Blacklist, play back blocked calls, spam list automatically updates (TelTech Systems) $29.99/year Should I Answer (Mister Notification of spam incoming calls, block unwanted calls, has list of Free Group s.r.o.) spam number database in the app SPAM - Block Spam SMS Free Block Spam SMS using keywords (Apposter.Inc.) SPAM Alert - Know When Notifies user anytime a spam call comes through and allows you to $2.99 SPAM is Calling! ignore it, easy to report spam calls Spam Call Block Pro (SVG $3.99 Blocks spam, telemarketing and robocalls, real-time protection Apps) Spam Call Stopper - Block Free Blocks spam, telemarketing and robocalls, real-time protection Spam (SVG Apps) Spam Defender & Call Blacklist, filter SMS spam with keywords, frequent updates with list of Free Blocker (LMP7) suspicious callers 3 Robocall Abatement Apps for iOS Devices Spam Filters for SMS and Block SMS based on number, sender phrase, content or word, see Free MMS (do vu) blocked SMS in junk tab, no limit on number of blacklist entries Free, in-app Sync.ME Caller ID, identify unknown callers, block spam callers, number search purchases TrapCall: Always Know Who's Free Blocks unknown and unwanted calls Calling Truecaller: Number Search & Free Blacklist, top spammers list Block Avoid unwanted callers with real-time spam detection, add unsolicited 10-day free trial, Verizon Caller Name ID callers to personal spam list, block unwanted callers, get caller name ID $2.99/month on incoming call screen Who called - filter calls&text Free Block scammers and advertisers (Everyday Apps Inc.) Who calls? Caller Name ID Free Social blacklist, blacklist, block unwanted or fake callers (Numbuster) WhoCalls - Blocker of Identify spam callers, blacklist, report unwanted calls to data center, Unwanted Spam Calls Free automatically get latest block list update from data center (Fengsie Inc.) WhoIs - Phone Number Free Block unwanted callers, search over 100 million numbers worldwide Lookup (Numan Sattar) XContact $0.99 Call and SMS blocker Blocks & blacklist unwanted caller, sends directly to voicemail w/o YouMail Free ringing, up to date report of top spamming # in US 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vermont Robocall Spoofing Survey
    WHO’S REALLY ON THE LINE? AN AARP VERMONT SURVEY OF ADULTS 18+ ABOUT ROBOCALLS AND SPOOFING May 2019 AARP.ORG/RESEARCH | © 2019 AARP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DOI: https://doi.org/10.26419/res.00298.004 AARP RESEARCH Table of Contents Introduction 3 Key Findings 4 Devices Owned and Caller ID 6 Experiences with Robocalls 9 Robocall Spoofing and Scams 13 Reducing Spoofing and Robocalls 20 Summary and Implications 25 Methodology 28 Appendix 30 AARP.ORG/RESEARCH | © 2019 AARP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AARP RESEARCH 2 Introduction Most of us are familiar with robocall technology – where computers autodial thousands of households with legitimate messages such as pre-recorded school announcements, general reminders of an upcoming scheduled event, or emergency and disaster warnings. However, robocalling also has made it easier for scammers to inexpensively reach millions of consumers and to “spoof” (i.e., disguise) the scammers’ phone numbers. Criminals will generate phone numbers that appear local and familiar to the consumer – known as “neighbor spoofing” – so they will be more likely to answer and respond. Criminal telemarketers will impersonate such entities as the IRS, popular charities, software tech companies, or police officials to entice or threaten consumers into sharing personal identification information or sending money in order to win prizes or money, pay exorbitant fines, or avoid criminal arrest or even jail time. According to the YouMail Robocall index, there were over 43.6 million robocalls placed in Vermont in 2018, more than double the number from 2016.1 The growth of illegal robocalling and spoofing has fueled an increase in telephone fraud victimization.
    [Show full text]
  • Spamming Botnets: Signatures and Characteristics
    Spamming Botnets: Signatures and Characteristics Yinglian Xie, Fang Yu, Kannan Achan, Rina Panigrahy, Geoff Hulten+,IvanOsipkov+ Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley +Microsoft Corporation {yxie,fangyu,kachan,rina,ghulten,ivano}@microsoft.com ABSTRACT botnet infection and their associated control process [4, 17, 6], little In this paper, we focus on characterizing spamming botnets by effort has been devoted to understanding the aggregate behaviors of leveraging both spam payload and spam server traffic properties. botnets from the perspective of large email servers that are popular Towards this goal, we developed a spam signature generation frame- targets of botnet spam attacks. work called AutoRE to detect botnet-based spam emails and botnet An important goal of this paper is to perform a large scale analy- membership. AutoRE does not require pre-classified training data sis of spamming botnet characteristics and identify trends that can or white lists. Moreover, it outputs high quality regular expression benefit future botnet detection and defense mechanisms. In our signatures that can detect botnet spam with a low false positive rate. analysis, we make use of an email dataset collected from a large Using a three-month sample of emails from Hotmail, AutoRE suc- email service provider, namely, MSN Hotmail. Our study not only cessfully identified 7,721 botnet-based spam campaigns together detects botnet membership across the Internet, but also tracks the with 340,050 unique botnet host IP addresses. sending behavior and the associated email content patterns that are Our in-depth analysis of the identified botnets revealed several directly observable from an email service provider. Information interesting findings regarding the degree of email obfuscation, prop- pertaining to botnet membership can be used to prevent future ne- erties of botnet IP addresses, sending patterns, and their correlation farious activities such as phishing and DDoS attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Zambia and Spam
    ZAMNET COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS LTD (ZAMBIA) Spam – The Zambian Experience Submission to ITU WSIS Thematic meeting on countering Spam By: Annabel S Kangombe – Maseko June 2004 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 What is spam? 1 1.2 The nature of Spam 1 1.3 Statistics 2 2.0 Technical view 4 2.1 Main Sources of Spam 4 2.1.1 Harvesting 4 2.1.2 Dictionary Attacks 4 2.1.3 Open Relays 4 2.1.4 Email databases 4 2.1.5 Inadequacies in the SMTP protocol 4 2.2 Effects of Spam 5 2.3 The fight against spam 5 2.3.1 Blacklists 6 2.3.2 White lists 6 2.3.3 Dial‐up Lists (DUL) 6 2.3.4 Spam filtering programs 6 2.4 Challenges of fighting spam 7 3.0 Legal Framework 9 3.1 Laws against spam in Zambia 9 3.2 International Regulations or Laws 9 3.2.1 US State Laws 9 3.2.2 The USA’s CAN‐SPAM Act 10 4.0 The Way forward 11 4.1 A global effort 11 4.2 Collaboration between ISPs 11 4.3 Strengthening Anti‐spam regulation 11 4.4 User education 11 4.5 Source authentication 12 4.6 Rewriting the Internet Mail Exchange protocol 12 1.0 Introduction I get to the office in the morning, walk to my desk and switch on the computer. One of the first things I do after checking the status of the network devices is to check my email.
    [Show full text]
  • Enisa Etl2020
    EN From January 2019 to April 2020 Spam ENISA Threat Landscape Overview The first spam message was sent in 1978 by a marketing manager to 393 people via ARPANET. It was an advertising campaign for a new product from the company he worked for, the Digital Equipment Corporation. For those first 393 spammed people it was as annoying as it would be today, regardless of the novelty of the idea.1 Receiving spam is an inconvenience, but it may also create an opportunity for a malicious actor to steal personal information or install malware.2 Spam consists of sending unsolicited messages in bulk. It is considered a cybersecurity threat when used as an attack vector to distribute or enable other threats. Another noteworthy aspect is how spam may sometimes be confused or misclassified as a phishing campaign. The main difference between the two is the fact that phishing is a targeted action using social engineering tactics, actively aiming to steal users’ data. In contrast spam is a tactic for sending unsolicited e-mails to a bulk list. Phishing campaigns can use spam tactics to distribute messages while spam can link the user to a compromised website to install malware and steal personal data. Spam campaigns, during these last 41 years have taken advantage of many popular global social and sports events such as UEFA Europa League Final, US Open, among others. Even so, nothing compared with the spam activity seen this year with the COVID-19 pandemic.8 2 __Findings 85%_of all e-mails exchanged in April 2019 were spam, a 15-month high1 14_million
    [Show full text]
  • Locating Spambots on the Internet
    BOTMAGNIFIER: Locating Spambots on the Internet Gianluca Stringhinix, Thorsten Holzz, Brett Stone-Grossx, Christopher Kruegelx, and Giovanni Vignax xUniversity of California, Santa Barbara z Ruhr-University Bochum fgianluca,bstone,chris,[email protected] [email protected] Abstract the world-wide email traffic [20], and a lucrative busi- Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is used by cyber- ness has emerged around them [12]. The content of spam criminals to lure users into scams and to spread mal- emails lures users into scams, promises to sell cheap ware infections. Most of these unwanted messages are goods and pharmaceutical products, and spreads mali- sent by spam botnets, which are networks of compro- cious software by distributing links to websites that per- mised machines under the control of a single (malicious) form drive-by download attacks [24]. entity. Often, these botnets are rented out to particular Recent studies indicate that, nowadays, about 85% of groups to carry out spam campaigns, in which similar the overall spam traffic on the Internet is sent with the mail messages are sent to a large group of Internet users help of spamming botnets [20,36]. Botnets are networks in a short amount of time. Tracking the bot-infected hosts of compromised machines under the direction of a sin- that participate in spam campaigns, and attributing these gle entity, the so-called botmaster. While different bot- hosts to spam botnets that are active on the Internet, are nets serve different, nefarious goals, one important pur- challenging but important tasks. In particular, this infor- pose of botnets is the distribution of spam emails.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Spam Timeline of Events and Notable Occurrences in the Advance of Spam
    The History of Spam Timeline of events and notable occurrences in the advance of spam July 2014 The History of Spam The growth of unsolicited e-mail imposes increasing costs on networks and causes considerable aggravation on the part of e-mail recipients. The history of spam is one that is closely tied to the history and evolution of the Internet itself. 1971 RFC 733: Mail Specifications 1978 First email spam was sent out to users of ARPANET – it was an ad for a presentation by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) 1984 Domain Name System (DNS) introduced 1986 Eric Thomas develops first commercial mailing list program called LISTSERV 1988 First know email Chain letter sent 1988 “Spamming” starts as prank by participants in multi-user dungeon games by MUDers (Multi User Dungeon) to fill rivals accounts with unwanted electronic junk mail. 1990 ARPANET terminates 1993 First use of the term spam was for a post from USENET by Richard Depew to news.admin.policy, which was the result of a bug in a software program that caused 200 messages to go out to the news group. The term “spam” itself was thought to have come from the spam skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus. In the sketch, a restaurant serves all its food with lots of spam, and the waitress repeats the word several times in describing how much spam is in the items. When she does this, a group of Vikings in the corner start a song: "Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, lovely spam! Wonderful spam!" Until told to shut up.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Learning-Based Techniques of Email Spam Filtering
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Unitn-eprints Research A SURVEY OF LEARNING-BASED TECHNIQUES OF EMAIL SPAM FILTERING Enrico Blanzieri and Anton Bryl January 2008 (Updated version) Technical Report # DIT-06-056 A Survey of Learning-Based Techniques of Email Spam Filtering Enrico Blanzieri, University of Trento, Italy, and Anton Bryl University of Trento, Italy, Create-Net, Italy [email protected] January 11, 2008 Abstract vertising pornography, pyramid schemes, etc. [68]. The total worldwide financial losses caused by spam Email spam is one of the major problems of the to- in 2005 were estimated by Ferris Research Analyzer day’s Internet, bringing financial damage to compa- Information Service at $50 billion [31]. nies and annoying individual users. Among the ap- Lately, Goodman et al. [39] presented an overview proaches developed to stop spam, filtering is an im- of the field of anti-spam protection, giving a brief portant and popular one. In this paper we give an history of spam and anti-spam and describing major overview of the state of the art of machine learn- directions of development. They are quite optimistic ing applications for spam filtering, and of the ways in their conclusions, indicating learning-based spam of evaluation and comparison of different filtering recognition, together with anti-spoofing technologies methods. We also provide a brief description of and economic approaches, as one of the measures other branches of anti-spam protection and discuss which together will probably lead to the final victory the use of various approaches in commercial and non- over email spammers in the near future.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Robocalls Through Audio and Metadata Analysis
    Who’s Calling? Characterizing Robocalls through Audio and Metadata Analysis Sathvik Prasad, Elijah Bouma-Sims, Athishay Kiran Mylappan, and Bradley Reaves, North Carolina State University https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/presentation/prasad This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium. August 12–14, 2020 978-1-939133-17-5 Open access to the Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium is sponsored by USENIX. Who’s Calling? Characterizing Robocalls through Audio and Metadata Analysis Sathvik Prasad Elijah Bouma-Sims North Carolina State University North Carolina State University [email protected] [email protected] Athishay Kiran Mylappan Bradley Reaves North Carolina State University North Carolina State University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Despite the clear importance of the problem, much of what Unsolicited calls are one of the most prominent security is known about the unsolicited calling epidemic is anecdotal issues facing individuals today. Despite wide-spread anec- in nature. Despite early work on the problem [6–10], the re- dotal discussion of the problem, many important questions search community still lacks techniques that enable rigorous remain unanswered. In this paper, we present the first large- analysis of the scope of the problem and the factors that drive scale, longitudinal analysis of unsolicited calls to a honeypot it. There are several challenges that we seek to overcome. of up to 66,606 lines over 11 months. From call metadata we First, we note that most measurements to date of unsolicited characterize the long-term trends of unsolicited calls, develop volumes, trends, and motivations (e.g., sales, scams, etc.) have the first techniques to measure voicemail spam, wangiri at- been based on reports from end users.
    [Show full text]
  • "Best Way to Stop Robocalls", and Pulls on Both My Own Experience in A
    Dear FTC: The following is my submission on the "best way to stop robocalls", and pulls on both my own experience in anti-telemarketing-abuse and anti-spam activity and—more particularly—my personal experience in investigation of the "worst actors" and coordinating with the Kentucky Attorney-General's office to get some of the worse offenders shut down. A little bit of prelude/backstory is necessary to discuss my particular solution. Kentucky has had a particularly stringent do-not-call since the early 2000s even in comparison with the FTC's do-not-call regulations. Specifically, rather than being a mere civil offense, violation of telemarketing laws is a Class D felony in Kentucky (resulting from 1 to 5 years imprisonment). The majority of the issues that the Kentucky A/G (and myself, as a private actor) have had in stopping the worst offenders has been the following: • Much of the problem is both technical and regulatory--the major technical issue is that the majority of "bad actors" are now using SIP-based VoIP calling from "phish farms" overseas which may not even be located in a specific call center but may be "farmed out" to people's homes worldwide from a central location. (A good example of the latter is the "Telemarketing 1-2- 3/Total Home Systems" phish-farm located out of Guadalajara, Mexico which uses SIP-based "softphone" VoIP to conduct illegal telemarketing to Americans (and other countries) and which typically uses a client PC located in a worker's home to call from.) • Most illegal robocalling is conducted by "phish farms" which may or may not have a US actor at all, but whose primary operations do seem to be located overseas; sometimes US companies hire out, some are overseas, but usually there is some US presence if via the PBX used on the American end of a VoIP call center setup.
    [Show full text]
  • Stopping Outgoing Spam
    Stopping Outgoing Spam ∗ Joshua Goodman Robert Rounthwaite Microsoft Research Microsoft Anti-Spam Technology and Strategy One Microsoft Way Group Redmond, WA 98052 One Microsoft Way [email protected] Redmond, WA 98052 [email protected] ABSTRACT year. The vast majority of research on spam has focused on We analyze the problem of preventing outgoing spam. We helping the recipients of spam avoid receiving it [6, 13, 16] show that some conventional techniques for limiting outgo- (to cite a few). We instead focus on helping Email Service ing spam are likely to be ineffective. We show that while Providers (ESPs) prevent their users from sending spam. imposing per message costs would work, less annoying tech- ESPs include most consumer ISPs (e.g. AOL and MSN), niques also work. In particular, it is only necessary that free email systems (e.g. Hotmail and Yahoo), universities, the average cost to the spammer over the lifetime of an ac- etc. Stopping outbound spam at ESPs will not prevent all count exceed his profits, meaning that not every message outgoing spam, as many spammers own direct internet con- need be challenged. We develop three techniques, one based nectivity and cannot be forced to adopt these techniques, on additional HIP challenges, one based on computational but it will stop a substantial source of spam. ESPs want to challenges, and one based on paid subscriptions. Each sys- stop outgoing spam to lessen the load on their own servers, tem is designed to impose minimal costs on legitimate users, to prevent their systems from being blocked from sending while being too costly for spammers.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Digital Spam
    The History of Digital Spam Emilio Ferrara University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute Marina Del Rey, CA [email protected] ACM Reference Format: This broad definition will allow me to track, in an inclusive Emilio Ferrara. 2019. The History of Digital Spam. In Communications of manner, the evolution of digital spam across its most popular appli- the ACM, August 2019, Vol. 62 No. 8, Pages 82-91. ACM, New York, NY, USA, cations, starting from spam emails to modern-days spam. For each 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3299768 highlighted application domain, I will dive deep to understand the nuances of different digital spam strategies, including their intents Spam!: that’s what Lorrie Faith Cranor and Brian LaMacchia ex- and catalysts and, from a technical standpoint, how they are carried claimed in the title of a popular call-to-action article that appeared out and how they can be detected. twenty years ago on Communications of the ACM [10]. And yet, Wikipedia provides an extensive list of domains of application: despite the tremendous efforts of the research community over the last two decades to mitigate this problem, the sense of urgency ``While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant remains unchanged, as emerging technologies have brought new messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, dangerous forms of digital spam under the spotlight. Furthermore, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile when spam is carried out with the intent to deceive or influence phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax at scale, it can alter the very fabric of society and our behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • The Do-Not-Call Registry Model Is Not the Answer to Spam, 22 J
    The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law Volume 22 Issue 1 Journal of Computer & Information Law Article 4 - Fall 2003 Fall 2003 The Do-Not-Call Registry Model is Not the Answer to Spam, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 79 (2003) Richard C. Balough Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl Part of the Computer Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard C. Balough, The Do-Not-Call Registry Model is Not the Answer to Spam, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 79 (2003) https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol22/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY MODEL IS NOT THE ANSWER TO SPAM RICHARD C. BALOUGHt I. INTRODUCTION The overwhelming response to the federal Do-Not-Call telephone registry maintained by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") indicates that telephone customers do not like to receive telemarketing calls at home.' Whether the Do-Not-Call telephone registry will ultimately re- 2 duce unwanted telemarketing as planned remains to be seen. A recent survey of Internet users indicated that they would like to see a Do-Not-Spam registry as well. But, as will be discussed here, dif- ferences between Internet spain and telephone telemarketing make an "opt-out" Do-Not-Spam registry an impractical model to the Internet users' lament.
    [Show full text]