我們很多人都有過這樣的經(jīng)歷:在某個(gè)周一的早上,你接到了一通電話,電話里明顯是一段提前錄制好的聲音,向你提供關(guān)于汽車保修或者關(guān)于信用卡的“重要信息”(當(dāng)然,通常所謂的保修政策和信用卡全然是虛構(gòu)的)。這些自動(dòng)呼叫電話已經(jīng)成了現(xiàn)代生活的一種“瘟疫”。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)(Federal Communications Commission)和聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)(Federal Trade Commission)等政府機(jī)構(gòu),都將這些騷擾電話列為2020年的頭號(hào)投訴事由。而且這個(gè)問題還愈演愈烈,根據(jù)根據(jù)通訊公司YouMail的數(shù)據(jù),今年1月,美國(guó)的自動(dòng)呼叫電話數(shù)量增長(zhǎng)了近4%,而且全年有望達(dá)到480億次。
值得注意的是,一年多以前,美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)剛剛通過了一項(xiàng)法律,試圖通過一系列技術(shù)和法律手段,遏制自動(dòng)呼叫電話高發(fā)態(tài)勢(shì)。然而自動(dòng)呼叫電話為什么不減反增?以至于大多數(shù)美國(guó)人除非認(rèn)出號(hào)碼,否則絕不再接陌生電話?
簡(jiǎn)而言之,每天數(shù)以億計(jì)的自動(dòng)呼叫電話背后,隱藏著一個(gè)大賺其財(cái)?shù)暮诨耶a(chǎn)業(yè),執(zhí)法的速度始終沒有跟上它的發(fā)展速度。另外,一些大企業(yè)對(duì)自動(dòng)呼叫電話的縱容綏靖也難辭其咎。還有就是一些聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)的緩慢拖沓,他們本可以在執(zhí)法方面做得更多。
這些電話是誰打來的?
曾幾何時(shí),如果你想搞電話營(yíng)銷業(yè)務(wù),你就得租一個(gè)大倉(cāng)庫(kù),在里面搞一堆小隔間,裝上幾公里長(zhǎng)的電話線。而現(xiàn)在,你在自家的客廳里就能夠達(dá)到同樣的效果。
亞利桑那州的尼克·帕倫博就是做這項(xiàng)工作的,他注冊(cè)了好幾家公司,在自己家中運(yùn)營(yíng)著幾千條基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的電話線路,然后向需要購(gòu)買自動(dòng)呼叫電話服務(wù)的客戶收費(fèi)——這些客戶有不少都在海外。據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》(Wall Street Journal)報(bào)道,光是帕倫博的幾家公司就給美國(guó)的消費(fèi)者打過好幾億個(gè)電話,其中很多電話都冒充了社保公司。
2019年,帕倫博因?yàn)樯嫦釉p騙相關(guān)指控而被聯(lián)邦警方逮捕。去年夏天,他與美國(guó)司法部(Justice Department)達(dá)成協(xié)議,他和他的妻子從此將被禁止從事自動(dòng)呼叫電話業(yè)務(wù)。然而時(shí)至今日,自動(dòng)詐騙電話仍然不斷轟炸著每個(gè)美國(guó)人的神經(jīng),充分說明了帕倫博遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不是唯一一個(gè)縱容騙子的公司老板。
像帕倫博這種“中間商”并非電詐騙局的發(fā)起者,那些發(fā)起者往往是位于印度、菲律賓、墨西哥等國(guó)的電詐窩點(diǎn),其目的就是繞過美國(guó)監(jiān)管部門視線,竊取公民個(gè)人信息和信用卡信息。
但是要把電話打到你的手機(jī)上,他們就需要美國(guó)的接線商來轉(zhuǎn)接他們的電話。這些企業(yè)通常也為美國(guó)境內(nèi)有關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)、企業(yè)提供超低成本的電話服務(wù)——比如競(jìng)選拉票電話,不過在利益面前,他們很可能會(huì)對(duì)搞電信詐騙的客戶睜一只眼閉一只眼。
當(dāng)然,為了確保讓你接到詐騙電話,你的電信服務(wù)提供商必須也得配合才行。在美國(guó),這些電信運(yùn)營(yíng)商包括威瑞森(Verizon)、AT&T和T-Mobile等等。那么,這些運(yùn)營(yíng)商為什么不打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話呢?
公允地說,他們也并非沒有努力。據(jù)電信專家、律師格雷格·古伊斯介紹,這些運(yùn)營(yíng)商是有動(dòng)機(jī)打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話的——這一定程度上也是因?yàn)槔习傩諏?duì)電信詐騙深惡痛絕,但同時(shí)也是因?yàn)楹芏嘞M(fèi)者不堪其擾,選擇停掉了固定電話服務(wù),而固話業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)于AT&T和威瑞森來說仍然是一個(gè)重要收入來源(對(duì)T-Mobile則沒有那么重要)。
另外,運(yùn)營(yíng)商們一向不大敢切斷自動(dòng)呼叫電話。首先是因?yàn)殡娦判袠I(yè)的職責(zé)使命是保障每一通電話的完整,同時(shí),他們也擔(dān)心自己會(huì)因?yàn)槠帘坞娫挾黄鹪V。不過最新的聯(lián)邦自動(dòng)呼叫電話法已經(jīng)降低了運(yùn)營(yíng)商的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn),并且鼓勵(lì)他們采用通話識(shí)別技術(shù)——這就是為什么越來越多的消費(fèi)者會(huì)在手機(jī)上接到“疑似詐騙電話”的提醒信息。
瑪格特·桑德斯是全美消費(fèi)者法律中心(National Consumer Law Center)的一名律師,她認(rèn)為,運(yùn)營(yíng)商在屏蔽自動(dòng)呼叫電話上已經(jīng)有所進(jìn)步了。她尤其表?yè)P(yáng)了威瑞森,不過她也表示,運(yùn)營(yíng)商們可以做的還有很多。
桑德斯認(rèn)為,如果運(yùn)營(yíng)商需要對(duì)詐騙電話承擔(dān)連帶法律責(zé)任,那么當(dāng)前的電詐形勢(shì)或?qū)@著改善,因?yàn)檫\(yùn)營(yíng)商將有巨大動(dòng)力去遏止電詐。不過鑒于電信行業(yè)擁有巨大政治影響力,這個(gè)方案可能在國(guó)會(huì)根本就通不過。
桑德斯同時(shí)認(rèn)為,利用技術(shù)手段阻斷自動(dòng)呼叫電話,并非是一件很難做到的事情。
“我不想說具體應(yīng)該采用哪些技術(shù),但現(xiàn)在我們甚至有了登陸火星和給心臟做手術(shù)的能力,所以我們也能夠有足夠的技術(shù)去做這件事情。”
新法案的大漏洞
2019年,美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)通過了《反自動(dòng)呼叫電話濫用法》(Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence),該法案獲得了兩黨的共同支持,共和黨和民主黨都表示要堅(jiān)決打擊電詐行為。雖然該法案旨在識(shí)別和打擊電信詐騙從業(yè)者,但它卻并未堵住一些重要漏洞。
這些漏洞為哪些自動(dòng)呼叫電話可以被豁免提供了回旋余地。比如,很多自動(dòng)催收債務(wù)的電話仍然被定義為合法(這是金融服務(wù)業(yè)常用的催收手段),各種被歸為與選舉或政治相關(guān)的電話也是如此。
另外,自動(dòng)呼叫電話的撥打者還能夠聲稱,顧客是同意接到這些電話的,以來此來規(guī)避法律。對(duì)消費(fèi)者來說,他們可能無意間真的表示了同意——比如他們?cè)诰W(wǎng)上勾選了一個(gè)方框,允許一家公司聯(lián)系他們。而在許多情況下,這種許可也賦予了一家公司向第三方出售該“許可”的權(quán)利,包括將數(shù)據(jù)賣給所謂的“數(shù)據(jù)掮客”行業(yè)。結(jié)果是,一旦消費(fèi)者給予了這樣的許可,它就讓各路推廣人員擁有了持續(xù)糾纏消費(fèi)者的法律“護(hù)身符”。
此外還有企業(yè)的律師,他們會(huì)不遺余力地在法庭上鉆任何法律的空子。最近的一個(gè)例子是皇家海洋郵輪公司(Royal Seas Cruises),今年,該公司有驚無險(xiǎn)地逃過了一起1.23億美元的集體訴訟案。消費(fèi)者指控該公司給他們撥打了幾百萬個(gè)電話,推銷他們的度假產(chǎn)品。為了洗脫自己,該公司稱這些電話不是它自己打的,而是由第三方機(jī)構(gòu)打的。從常識(shí)來看,這種區(qū)別可能并不重要——哪個(gè)第三方機(jī)構(gòu)會(huì)在客戶企業(yè)不知情或者不同意的情況下,開展大規(guī)模的自動(dòng)呼叫電話推廣活動(dòng)呢?這個(gè)借口無疑很荒謬。但從法律角度,它卻說服了一位聯(lián)邦法官。
桑德斯等人認(rèn)為,美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)需要收緊這些漏洞,使相關(guān)企業(yè)不至于太過恣意妄為。同時(shí)她指出,一些大型行業(yè)背地里反對(duì)真正的改革,因?yàn)閷?duì)它們來說,自動(dòng)呼叫電話正是一種廉價(jià)且有效的營(yíng)銷手段。
最后還有一個(gè)問題:有關(guān)政府部門是否已經(jīng)在竭盡所能地遏止和打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)確實(shí)已經(jīng)對(duì)相關(guān)責(zé)任企業(yè)處以一系列巨額罰款,但在古伊斯看來,這些罰款無異于杯水車薪。他認(rèn)為,這主要是由于美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)與負(fù)責(zé)起訴和執(zhí)行判決的美國(guó)司法部之間缺乏協(xié)調(diào)導(dǎo)致的。
隨著拜登政府上臺(tái),美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)也迎來了一位新主席,這種情況可能會(huì)有所改變。在特朗普時(shí)期,特朗普任命的美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)主席阿吉特·帕伊雖然也開展了相關(guān)工作,但很多人都認(rèn)為,他的工作方向更有利于企業(yè),而非日常消費(fèi)者關(guān)注的問題。雖然一些公共利益組織宣稱,帕伊已經(jīng)采取了一些措施打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話濫用問題,但還是有一些人質(zhì)疑他的步子邁得太小。
一位要求匿名的律師在談及帕伊?xí)r說:“他相對(duì)比較年輕,他希望在公共服務(wù)行業(yè)有比較長(zhǎng)的職業(yè)生涯,但他(在打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話上)的激進(jìn)做法,可能已經(jīng)阻礙了他的事業(yè)發(fā)展。他害怕激怒美國(guó)商會(huì)(Chamber of Commerce)?!保ㄅ烈帘救瞬⑽椿貞?yīng)我們通過社交媒體發(fā)出的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求。)
對(duì)拜登選擇杰西卡·羅森沃塞爾擔(dān)任美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)人的決定,不少消費(fèi)者團(tuán)體都感到了振奮。他們認(rèn)為,羅森沃塞爾應(yīng)該更有決心整治那些有可能阻礙對(duì)自動(dòng)呼叫電話采取更嚴(yán)格措施的腐敗利益問題。
不過,這些消費(fèi)者權(quán)益人士也表示,羅森沃塞爾可能會(huì)更關(guān)心其他事情,比如在疫情期間為低收入兒童提供可靠的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)。雖然在羅森沃塞爾上任后的首次會(huì)議上,她并未提到自動(dòng)呼叫電話的問題,但美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)的一位發(fā)言人表示,該問題仍然是羅森沃塞爾將要解決的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)。
該發(fā)言人稱:“自動(dòng)呼叫電話已經(jīng)失控了,而且近年來持續(xù)呈上升趨勢(shì)……保護(hù)消費(fèi)者是主席的首要任務(wù)之一?!痹摪l(fā)言人還表示,美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)正在就當(dāng)前和將來的打擊政策進(jìn)行研究。
不過在美國(guó),自動(dòng)呼叫電話問題涉及多股經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治力量博弈,因此,自動(dòng)呼叫電話亂象并不會(huì)很快消失。對(duì)少數(shù)確實(shí)想收到汽車保修推廣信息的美國(guó)人來說,這或許不是什么大問題。但是在可見的將來,大多數(shù)美國(guó)人仍將不得不忍受這些麻煩。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
我們很多人都有過這樣的經(jīng)歷:在某個(gè)周一的早上,你接到了一通電話,電話里明顯是一段提前錄制好的聲音,向你提供關(guān)于汽車保修或者關(guān)于信用卡的“重要信息”(當(dāng)然,通常所謂的保修政策和信用卡全然是虛構(gòu)的)。這些自動(dòng)呼叫電話已經(jīng)成了現(xiàn)代生活的一種“瘟疫”。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)(Federal Communications Commission)和聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)(Federal Trade Commission)等政府機(jī)構(gòu),都將這些騷擾電話列為2020年的頭號(hào)投訴事由。而且這個(gè)問題還愈演愈烈,根據(jù)根據(jù)通訊公司YouMail的數(shù)據(jù),今年1月,美國(guó)的自動(dòng)呼叫電話數(shù)量增長(zhǎng)了近4%,而且全年有望達(dá)到480億次。
值得注意的是,一年多以前,美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)剛剛通過了一項(xiàng)法律,試圖通過一系列技術(shù)和法律手段,遏制自動(dòng)呼叫電話高發(fā)態(tài)勢(shì)。然而自動(dòng)呼叫電話為什么不減反增?以至于大多數(shù)美國(guó)人除非認(rèn)出號(hào)碼,否則絕不再接陌生電話?
簡(jiǎn)而言之,每天數(shù)以億計(jì)的自動(dòng)呼叫電話背后,隱藏著一個(gè)大賺其財(cái)?shù)暮诨耶a(chǎn)業(yè),執(zhí)法的速度始終沒有跟上它的發(fā)展速度。另外,一些大企業(yè)對(duì)自動(dòng)呼叫電話的縱容綏靖也難辭其咎。還有就是一些聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)的緩慢拖沓,他們本可以在執(zhí)法方面做得更多。
這些電話是誰打來的?
曾幾何時(shí),如果你想搞電話營(yíng)銷業(yè)務(wù),你就得租一個(gè)大倉(cāng)庫(kù),在里面搞一堆小隔間,裝上幾公里長(zhǎng)的電話線。而現(xiàn)在,你在自家的客廳里就能夠達(dá)到同樣的效果。
亞利桑那州的尼克·帕倫博就是做這項(xiàng)工作的,他注冊(cè)了好幾家公司,在自己家中運(yùn)營(yíng)著幾千條基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的電話線路,然后向需要購(gòu)買自動(dòng)呼叫電話服務(wù)的客戶收費(fèi)——這些客戶有不少都在海外。據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》(Wall Street Journal)報(bào)道,光是帕倫博的幾家公司就給美國(guó)的消費(fèi)者打過好幾億個(gè)電話,其中很多電話都冒充了社保公司。
2019年,帕倫博因?yàn)樯嫦釉p騙相關(guān)指控而被聯(lián)邦警方逮捕。去年夏天,他與美國(guó)司法部(Justice Department)達(dá)成協(xié)議,他和他的妻子從此將被禁止從事自動(dòng)呼叫電話業(yè)務(wù)。然而時(shí)至今日,自動(dòng)詐騙電話仍然不斷轟炸著每個(gè)美國(guó)人的神經(jīng),充分說明了帕倫博遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不是唯一一個(gè)縱容騙子的公司老板。
像帕倫博這種“中間商”并非電詐騙局的發(fā)起者,那些發(fā)起者往往是位于印度、菲律賓、墨西哥等國(guó)的電詐窩點(diǎn),其目的就是繞過美國(guó)監(jiān)管部門視線,竊取公民個(gè)人信息和信用卡信息。
但是要把電話打到你的手機(jī)上,他們就需要美國(guó)的接線商來轉(zhuǎn)接他們的電話。這些企業(yè)通常也為美國(guó)境內(nèi)有關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)、企業(yè)提供超低成本的電話服務(wù)——比如競(jìng)選拉票電話,不過在利益面前,他們很可能會(huì)對(duì)搞電信詐騙的客戶睜一只眼閉一只眼。
當(dāng)然,為了確保讓你接到詐騙電話,你的電信服務(wù)提供商必須也得配合才行。在美國(guó),這些電信運(yùn)營(yíng)商包括威瑞森(Verizon)、AT&T和T-Mobile等等。那么,這些運(yùn)營(yíng)商為什么不打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話呢?
公允地說,他們也并非沒有努力。據(jù)電信專家、律師格雷格·古伊斯介紹,這些運(yùn)營(yíng)商是有動(dòng)機(jī)打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話的——這一定程度上也是因?yàn)槔习傩諏?duì)電信詐騙深惡痛絕,但同時(shí)也是因?yàn)楹芏嘞M(fèi)者不堪其擾,選擇停掉了固定電話服務(wù),而固話業(yè)務(wù)對(duì)于AT&T和威瑞森來說仍然是一個(gè)重要收入來源(對(duì)T-Mobile則沒有那么重要)。
另外,運(yùn)營(yíng)商們一向不大敢切斷自動(dòng)呼叫電話。首先是因?yàn)殡娦判袠I(yè)的職責(zé)使命是保障每一通電話的完整,同時(shí),他們也擔(dān)心自己會(huì)因?yàn)槠帘坞娫挾黄鹪V。不過最新的聯(lián)邦自動(dòng)呼叫電話法已經(jīng)降低了運(yùn)營(yíng)商的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn),并且鼓勵(lì)他們采用通話識(shí)別技術(shù)——這就是為什么越來越多的消費(fèi)者會(huì)在手機(jī)上接到“疑似詐騙電話”的提醒信息。
瑪格特·桑德斯是全美消費(fèi)者法律中心(National Consumer Law Center)的一名律師,她認(rèn)為,運(yùn)營(yíng)商在屏蔽自動(dòng)呼叫電話上已經(jīng)有所進(jìn)步了。她尤其表?yè)P(yáng)了威瑞森,不過她也表示,運(yùn)營(yíng)商們可以做的還有很多。
桑德斯認(rèn)為,如果運(yùn)營(yíng)商需要對(duì)詐騙電話承擔(dān)連帶法律責(zé)任,那么當(dāng)前的電詐形勢(shì)或?qū)@著改善,因?yàn)檫\(yùn)營(yíng)商將有巨大動(dòng)力去遏止電詐。不過鑒于電信行業(yè)擁有巨大政治影響力,這個(gè)方案可能在國(guó)會(huì)根本就通不過。
桑德斯同時(shí)認(rèn)為,利用技術(shù)手段阻斷自動(dòng)呼叫電話,并非是一件很難做到的事情。
“我不想說具體應(yīng)該采用哪些技術(shù),但現(xiàn)在我們甚至有了登陸火星和給心臟做手術(shù)的能力,所以我們也能夠有足夠的技術(shù)去做這件事情?!?/p>
新法案的大漏洞
2019年,美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)通過了《反自動(dòng)呼叫電話濫用法》(Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence),該法案獲得了兩黨的共同支持,共和黨和民主黨都表示要堅(jiān)決打擊電詐行為。雖然該法案旨在識(shí)別和打擊電信詐騙從業(yè)者,但它卻并未堵住一些重要漏洞。
這些漏洞為哪些自動(dòng)呼叫電話可以被豁免提供了回旋余地。比如,很多自動(dòng)催收債務(wù)的電話仍然被定義為合法(這是金融服務(wù)業(yè)常用的催收手段),各種被歸為與選舉或政治相關(guān)的電話也是如此。
另外,自動(dòng)呼叫電話的撥打者還能夠聲稱,顧客是同意接到這些電話的,以來此來規(guī)避法律。對(duì)消費(fèi)者來說,他們可能無意間真的表示了同意——比如他們?cè)诰W(wǎng)上勾選了一個(gè)方框,允許一家公司聯(lián)系他們。而在許多情況下,這種許可也賦予了一家公司向第三方出售該“許可”的權(quán)利,包括將數(shù)據(jù)賣給所謂的“數(shù)據(jù)掮客”行業(yè)。結(jié)果是,一旦消費(fèi)者給予了這樣的許可,它就讓各路推廣人員擁有了持續(xù)糾纏消費(fèi)者的法律“護(hù)身符”。
此外還有企業(yè)的律師,他們會(huì)不遺余力地在法庭上鉆任何法律的空子。最近的一個(gè)例子是皇家海洋郵輪公司(Royal Seas Cruises),今年,該公司有驚無險(xiǎn)地逃過了一起1.23億美元的集體訴訟案。消費(fèi)者指控該公司給他們撥打了幾百萬個(gè)電話,推銷他們的度假產(chǎn)品。為了洗脫自己,該公司稱這些電話不是它自己打的,而是由第三方機(jī)構(gòu)打的。從常識(shí)來看,這種區(qū)別可能并不重要——哪個(gè)第三方機(jī)構(gòu)會(huì)在客戶企業(yè)不知情或者不同意的情況下,開展大規(guī)模的自動(dòng)呼叫電話推廣活動(dòng)呢?這個(gè)借口無疑很荒謬。但從法律角度,它卻說服了一位聯(lián)邦法官。
桑德斯等人認(rèn)為,美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)需要收緊這些漏洞,使相關(guān)企業(yè)不至于太過恣意妄為。同時(shí)她指出,一些大型行業(yè)背地里反對(duì)真正的改革,因?yàn)閷?duì)它們來說,自動(dòng)呼叫電話正是一種廉價(jià)且有效的營(yíng)銷手段。
最后還有一個(gè)問題:有關(guān)政府部門是否已經(jīng)在竭盡所能地遏止和打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)確實(shí)已經(jīng)對(duì)相關(guān)責(zé)任企業(yè)處以一系列巨額罰款,但在古伊斯看來,這些罰款無異于杯水車薪。他認(rèn)為,這主要是由于美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)與負(fù)責(zé)起訴和執(zhí)行判決的美國(guó)司法部之間缺乏協(xié)調(diào)導(dǎo)致的。
隨著拜登政府上臺(tái),美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)也迎來了一位新主席,這種情況可能會(huì)有所改變。在特朗普時(shí)期,特朗普任命的美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)主席阿吉特·帕伊雖然也開展了相關(guān)工作,但很多人都認(rèn)為,他的工作方向更有利于企業(yè),而非日常消費(fèi)者關(guān)注的問題。雖然一些公共利益組織宣稱,帕伊已經(jīng)采取了一些措施打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話濫用問題,但還是有一些人質(zhì)疑他的步子邁得太小。
一位要求匿名的律師在談及帕伊?xí)r說:“他相對(duì)比較年輕,他希望在公共服務(wù)行業(yè)有比較長(zhǎng)的職業(yè)生涯,但他(在打擊自動(dòng)呼叫電話上)的激進(jìn)做法,可能已經(jīng)阻礙了他的事業(yè)發(fā)展。他害怕激怒美國(guó)商會(huì)(Chamber of Commerce)?!保ㄅ烈帘救瞬⑽椿貞?yīng)我們通過社交媒體發(fā)出的置評(píng)請(qǐng)求。)
對(duì)拜登選擇杰西卡·羅森沃塞爾擔(dān)任美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)人的決定,不少消費(fèi)者團(tuán)體都感到了振奮。他們認(rèn)為,羅森沃塞爾應(yīng)該更有決心整治那些有可能阻礙對(duì)自動(dòng)呼叫電話采取更嚴(yán)格措施的腐敗利益問題。
不過,這些消費(fèi)者權(quán)益人士也表示,羅森沃塞爾可能會(huì)更關(guān)心其他事情,比如在疫情期間為低收入兒童提供可靠的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)。雖然在羅森沃塞爾上任后的首次會(huì)議上,她并未提到自動(dòng)呼叫電話的問題,但美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)的一位發(fā)言人表示,該問題仍然是羅森沃塞爾將要解決的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)。
該發(fā)言人稱:“自動(dòng)呼叫電話已經(jīng)失控了,而且近年來持續(xù)呈上升趨勢(shì)……保護(hù)消費(fèi)者是主席的首要任務(wù)之一。”該發(fā)言人還表示,美國(guó)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)正在就當(dāng)前和將來的打擊政策進(jìn)行研究。
不過在美國(guó),自動(dòng)呼叫電話問題涉及多股經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治力量博弈,因此,自動(dòng)呼叫電話亂象并不會(huì)很快消失。對(duì)少數(shù)確實(shí)想收到汽車保修推廣信息的美國(guó)人來說,這或許不是什么大問題。但是在可見的將來,大多數(shù)美國(guó)人仍將不得不忍受這些麻煩。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
For many of us, every week begins the same way: a Monday morning phone call with a recorded voice offering “important information” about car warranties or credit cards (often, warranties or credit cards that are entirely fictional). These robocalls are a plague of modern life—consumer agencies including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission identified them as the No. 1 complaint in 2020—and they’re getting worse. According to communications firm YouMail, robocalls were up nearly 4% in January and are on pace to number 48 billion for the year.
Remarkably, all of this is occurring after Congress passed a law, just over a year ago, intended to stamp out the problem with a series of new technical and legal remedies. So what happened? Why have robocalls become so bad that most Americans no longer pick up the phone unless they recognize the number?
The short answer is that a shadowy auto-dialing industry, which makes good money by unleashing millions of calls a day, has proved adept at staying ahead of the law. A longer answer would also point the finger at tacit support for robocalling from big businesses (some more legitimate than others) and foot-dragging by federal agencies who could do more to enforce the law.
Who is making all those robocalls?
Once upon a time, running a telemarketing operation meant renting out a big warehouse and filling it with cubicles and miles of telephone wire. Now you can do it from your living room.
That’s what Nick Palumbo did. The Arizona man ran several companies that charged robocallers, many of them based overseas, to relay the calls they initiate via thousands of Internet-based phone lines he runs from his home. According to the Wall Street Journal, Palumbo’s businesses alone have routed hundreds of millions of calls to U.S. consumers, including many from Social Security impostors.
Palumbo was arrested by federal agents in 2019 on fraud-related charges, and last summer he entered an agreement with the Justice Department barring him and his wife from running robocalling operations. But as the ongoing flood of robocalls attest, Palumbo is far from alone in enabling the scammers.
These middlemen are not the original source of the Social Security or auto warranty calls, which typically originate from scam shops in India, the Philippines, Mexico, and other overseas countries—fraudulent operations that aim to harvest personal data and credit card info while remaining effectively beyond the reach of U.S. regulators.
But to reach your cell phone, they need a U.S.-based operator to relay their calls. Such companies provide a hyper–low-cost service for organizations, including legitimate ones such as political campaigns, to run phone campaigns—but may turn a blind eye to clients who are running scams.
For the call to reach your cell phone, of course, it has to be completed by your service provider, which for most of us is Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile. Why don’t these giants put a stop to the robocalls?
By all accounts, they’re trying. According to Greg Guice, a lawyer and telecom expert with Public Knowledge, the big phone companies have an incentive to kneecap the robocallers—in part because of the public outrage, but also because robocalls spur consumers to terminate landline service, which is still a big source of revenue for AT&T and Verizon (and a minor one for T-Mobile).
Meanwhile, the phone giants are learning to overcome a traditional aversion to cutting off calls. That aversion stems in part from the industry’s longtime mission to complete every call, and also from fears they will be sued for blocking calls. The new federal robocall law, however, reduces phone carriers’ legal exposure and also encourages the use of call authentication technology—which is why more consumers are seeing messages like “Scam likely” on their phone displays.
Margot Saunders, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, says phone carriers are getting better at choking off robocalls—she praised Verizon in particular—but says they could be doing a lot more.
Saunders suggests that the robocall situation would dramatically improve if phone carriers were legally responsible for the nuisance calls. If this were the case, the carriers would have an enormous incentive to put an end to them. But the industry’s political clout means this has been a nonstarter in Congress.
Saunders also rejects the idea that a technological solution to block robocalls is too difficult.
“I’m not going to say what the technology should be. But we have the capacity to go to Mars and perform open heart surgery, so we could come up with tech to do this,” she says.
A new law’s big loopholes
In 2019, Congress passed the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (or TRACED) Act. The law passed with broad bipartisan support: Both Republicans and Democrats are eager to claim they’re fighting robocalls. But while the law is supposed to make it easier to identify and penalize robocallers, it also failed to close some major loopholes.
These loopholes provide wiggle room when it comes to defining what activities can be exempt from robocalling prohibitions. For instance, many automated debt collection calls remain legal (a sop to the financial services industry), and so are various calls classified as election- or politics-related.
Meanwhile, robocallers can get around the law by claiming a customer has given consent to receive them. Unfortunately for consumers, such consent can arise inadvertently—for instance, if they’ve ticked a box on the Internet giving a company permission to contact them. In many cases, that permission also gives the company the right to sell that “consent” to third parties, including the data broker industry. The upshot is, once such a permission has been granted, it can serve as a legal backstop for marketers to pester consumers for years.
Then there are the corporate lawyers, who are quick to push any potential loophole in court. One recent example is Royal Seas Cruises, which this year wriggled out of a $123 million class action lawsuit that accused the company of making millions of robocalls flogging vacations. In order to beat the rap, the company claimed it had not made the calls, but that a third-party agency had done so. As a matter of common sense, the distinction may not matter—it seems absurd to think an agency would embark on a massive robocalling campaign without the company’s knowledge or permission—but, from a legal perspective, the argument persuaded a federal judge.
Saunders and others claim Congress needs to tighten all these loopholes so that companies are less tempted to push the boundaries. Meanwhile, she suggests that other big industries are quietly opposed to serious reform, since robocalls can be a cheap and effective form of marketing.
Finally, there is the question of whether government agencies are doing all they can to punish and deter robocallers. While the FCC has imposed a series of whopping fines on companies behind the robocall epidemic, Guice of Public Knowledge says the government has collected only a pittance—less than 2¢ on the dollar. He attributes this to a lack of coordination between the FCC and the Justice Department, which is tasked with enforcing judgments and prosecuting scofflaws.
This may change as a new chair takes the helm of the FCC under the Biden administration. Previously, President Trump’s appointee to the agency, Ajit Pai, pursued an agenda many perceived as favoring business over everyday consumer concerns. Though public interest groups say Pai took steps to address the robocalling nuisance, some question whether he was too timid.
“This was a relatively young man who wanted a long career in public service, and that career might have been hampered by an aggressive approach [to robocalling]. He was afraid to piss off the Chamber of Commerce,” said a Washington, D.C., lawyer who asked for anonymity in order to discuss Pai. (Pai did not respond to a request for comment sent via social media.)
Consumer groups are heartened by President Biden’s choice of FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to serve as acting head of the agency. They described her as more willing to confront the corrupt interests that may be impeding stricter measures against robocalls.
Nonetheless, consumer advocates also cautioned that Rosenworcel will likely be preoccupied with other matters, including the struggle to provide low-income children with reliable Internet access during the pandemic. While robocalls were not on the agenda during her inaugural meeting as chair, an FCC spokesperson says they are a priority for Rosenworcel.
“Robocalls are out of control and have been on the rise in recent years…Consumer protection is a top priority for the acting chairwoman,” said the spokesperson, adding that the agency is in the midst of a review about its past and future policies for fighting robocalls.
The bottom line is that a wide variety of economic and political forces suggest that robocalls are not going away soon. This may not pose a problem for the handful of Americans eager to hear automated warranty pitches. But everyone else will have to put up with the nuisance for the foreseeable future.