[HN Gopher] Supreme Court sides with Facebook in narrowing the f... ___________________________________________________________________ Supreme Court sides with Facebook in narrowing the federal robocall ban Author : protomyth Score : 76 points Date : 2021-04-02 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.scotusblog.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.scotusblog.com) | ErikVandeWater wrote: | 2 Questions: | | 1. What would a device having "the capacity to store a telephone | number using a random or sequential number generator" look like? | That seems self-contradictory. | | 2. Does this now mean any company can open up a phone book (or | even more exhaustive source) and automatically dial every number | and get away scot-free? | anothernewdude wrote: | > the justices made clear that it's the job of Congress, not the | court, to update statutes in the face of technological change. | | Uh oh, lobbyists just came in their pants. | sxp wrote: | How did this even get to the Supreme Court? This was a 9-0 | decision because it was such a clear cut case. | | > Noah Duguid sued Facebook under the act because he received | several text messages from the company, alerting him that someone | had attempted to access his Facebook account from an unknown | browser -- even though Duguid never had a Facebook account or | gave the company his number. Those messages were sent to him | using a form of automated technology, but one that did not use a | random or sequential number generator. | | It's obvious that companies should be allowed to contact you for | a good reason if your number was entered into the system by | someone else. Whether it was done by a robot or a human doesn't | matter. The offender here was whoever put Duguid's phone number | into FB's database. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I agree entirely; this is a dumb case. If decided for Duguid, | here's a list of things that would probably have become illegal | for businesses to do under TCPA: | | 1) using caller ID to return a missed call unless you were sure | you were calling an existing customer | | 2) sending a one-time password over SMS, unless you had already | validated that the telephone number belonged to your customer | | 3) using call-center software that automatically connects an | operator to the customer's on-file telephone number in order to | validate that the number was correct! | Der_Einzige wrote: | Two factor auth is so bad over SMS for security that id love | to see it banned (even for the wrong reasons). | | The other two are fine casualties for a world with far less | autodialing. Call centers probably ought not exist. | toast0 wrote: | > 2) sending a one-time password over SMS, unless you had | already validated that the telephone number belonged to your | customer | | Note that it's pretty hard to validate a phone number belongs | to someone. You could ask their telephone company, but their | telephone company shouldn't disclose subscriber information, | and even if they did, maybe you get a name, but lots of | people have the same name as me, so what does that show? | | Commonly, people send a text message with a code or a phone | call with a code to demonstrate control (not belonging), but | that's almost always automated, and you would need the number | to be validated before you could validate it. | connorproctor wrote: | Rather than texting the consumer a security code and having | them enter it in the browser, you could display a security | code in the browser and have them text it to your automated | system. | | But there's still no way to know if that number later gets | released to another person. | toast0 wrote: | As the sibling comment says, spoofing sender ID or caller | ID is relatively easy. You can't trust it, outside of | some very narrow cases (although, shaken/stir may change | that). | | Some carriers do make available lists of recycled | numbers, and some telephone information companies | aggregate these lists, when I was looking, coverage was | sparse though, and questions about reliability and | privacy were too big relative to the limited coverage. | Sharing of confidential information was an issue too: | carriers wanted to provide events only for numbers of | interest to a 3rd party service, so the carrier didn't | divulge the number of customers leaving their service; | the 3rd party service didn't want to provide numbers of | interest because it would divulge user count. I may be | biased (I was working for a service), but the recycled | number list feels less privacy invasive than providing | numbers of intetest. The numbering space is small, so you | can't meaningfully obscure the numbers, etc. Determining | which carrier is responsible for a number is also tricky, | of course. | DangitBobby wrote: | If they prompoted to receive a code during sign-up it | would make the system immune to a person accidentally | entering the wrong number. Only malicious entry would | remain, which I suspect the company would ultimately not | be liable for. So I believe it would actually be a better | solution if the goal is to prevent robotexting people who | didn't consent to it. | toast0 wrote: | So I think you're proposing, enter your number, get a | code, send a text to a special number with that code, get | a text reply and enter that. Then the service has done | their best job of validating the number before they | validated it. | | Of course, getting a working incoming number for all | countries worldwide that doesn't cost users an arm and a | leg to message is not exactly easy. | anticristi wrote: | AFAIU, caller ID can be faked. Getting an SMS from a | phone number does not demonstrate anything. Probably this | is why the send factor is received, not sent. | privacylawthrow wrote: | These were already violations of the TCPA in the 9th Circuit | under the 9th Circuit's previous ruling in _Marks_ where the | court found that an autodialer is any equipment that dials a | number from a stored list. | | _Marks_ was used as precedent for this lawsuit. Facebook | argued that this case was different from _Marks_. The Ninth | Circuit found otherwise. SCOTUS appears to have shot down the | ruling from _Marks_. | | _Marks_ was widely regarded as a terrible decision because | it made no sense at the time. It 's nice to see SCOTUS return | some common sense to the law. | | Note also that the TCPA allows for statutory damages of up to | $1500 per violation, so it takes less than 675 calls/texts to | rack up $1M in liability. Class action attorneys love it | because they don't have to show damages. They only have to | show that the call or text was sent using an autodialer. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Having now read _Marks_ it now makes a whole lot more sense | why this is in the Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit seems | to have gone off the deep end with that decision. | andjd wrote: | >Marks was widely regarded as a terrible decision because | it made no sense at the time. | | Citation? I've looked over _Marks_, and it doesn't seem | unreasonable, and the 9th circuit was not the only court to | adopt the same interpretation of the statute. I can see why | certain industries would lothe that rule, but it doesn't | seem to me that the Court's opinion is a fine, if not | exemplary, example of legal interpretation. Similarly, it's | far from clear that Congress intended that such behavior be | permissible when they passed the law. | | Honestly, _Marks_ makes more sense to me than the Supreme | Court's interpretation does. Reading a law's text in the | narrow and formal way that they did causes the law to be | nonsensical. | kmonsen wrote: | 2) and 3) would probably always be illegal since phone | numbers are recycled and you can never know when that | happens. I guess it's fairly likely that is what happened in | this case? | | So even if you are sure it is the number of a customer, it is | verified and used for correspondence it can still be sometime | else number a year (I don't know how long the recycling | waiting time is) later. | nulbyte wrote: | Regarding the first two, it's not just a matter of an | existing relationship, but also consent. As to the latter, | this was the effect, and likely will continue to be, until | companies decide to implement changes in response to this | ruling. Especially larger corporations have been capturing | consent and even relying on third-parties to manually dial | numbers, because this was the prevailing interpretation until | the Supreme Court reintroduced common sense. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I don't see the relevance of consent: you can't consent on | behalf of a third party. | | The evidentiary question of whether a customer had actually | consented to receive calls/texts from a service to which | they had subscribed is separate from the question of | liability for using automation to call/text a number that | turns out not to belong to a customer. | Traster wrote: | Reminds me of a kafkaesque situation I had a few years back. I | was getting text messages from Barclays about my account (I | don't have an account). I contacted them telling them to desist | but because I'm not a customer I can't actually tell them to | change details on an account that isn't mine. | an_ko wrote: | I keep getting email from PayPal about their terms and | conditions changing. I have a PayPal account, which I can't | delete, because to delete it, I'd have to log in, but when I | enter my details (which I know are correct; I use a password | manager), I get a generic error message. Trying the password | recovery procedure with my username gives me the same generic | error message. I've emailed customer support twice, but they | don't seem to be staffed by humans, because both times I got | the same "you should use the password recovery procedure" | template response, even though I explained it doesn't work. | | I've created a filter to send them to trash, but it just | feels so very sad. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Perhaps. But when a phone # gets entered then FB should | authenticate it on the spot. Then someone else can't use your | number nefariously. | | As it is, couldn't this be FB more or less phishing? That is, | baiting non-users to register? Certainly, such tactics have | been used with email. Why not SMS? | flyingfences wrote: | > The offender here was whoever put Duguid's phone number into | FB's database. | | Without reading further into the details of this case than | what's given in TFA, I would go so far as to say that there | probably wasn't an "offender" in any strict sense. Most likely | what happened is that someone entered their own number in | connection to their own account, then they got a new number and | never bothered updating Facebook, then the number got recycled | and assigned to Duguid so he got the alert. That's what | happened to me when I first got the number that I have now -- | it had, from what I could piece together, belonged to a young | woman from a couple towns over who had apparently up and moved | halfway across the country and gotten a new number without | bothering to tell anybody at all. It was an annoyance to be | sure but never once did I think of blaming the callers/texters. | whoopdedo wrote: | > Most likely what happened is that someone entered their own | number in connection to their own account, then they got a | new number and never bothered updating Facebook, then the | number got recycled and assigned to Duguid so he got the | alert. | | I've had this happen to me and really wish phone companies | would wait at least 90 days before putting a disconnected | number back in service. The worst part of it is I was given | the option to "disable" SMS. But it turns out that doesn't | actually prevent shortcode messages from going through. | nonameiguess wrote: | I once had an internal number on a corporate system that, for | some reason, was assigned to multiple desks at the same time. | It took a while for us to figure out that anyone who called | the number just called both of us simultaneously and only got | to talk to whoever happened to answer first. | throwawaysea wrote: | I might not understand the terminology or process here, but | doesn't SCOTUS often refuse to hear cases that aren't worth | their time? Last year they chose not to hear a number of second | amendment cases where it seemed like there was much more on the | line and they would have overturned lower court rulings, so I'm | surprised they chose to spend time on this one, which seems | uncontroversial given the 9-0 vote. | nulbyte wrote: | The effect of declining a case is to leave the lower court's | decision in place. However, the lower court sided with | Duguid, not Facebook. Here, the Supreme Court overturned that | decision. | xxpor wrote: | Were they resolving a circuit split? That's usually the way | "silly" cases get up there. | my_username_is_ wrote: | That does seem to be the case here. | | >the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal | require number generation in order for technology to qualify | as an ATDS. [...] The Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of | Appeal, in contrast, have liberally construed the statutory | text and do not require number generation. | | https://www.mintz.com/insights- | center/viewpoints/2301/2020-0... | | This was an appeal from the 9th Circuit, so provided an | opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn the lower | Court's ruling. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | It came to them from a weird Ninth Circuit ruling. The Ninth | Circuit is pretty much the poster child for weird ruling and | judicial overreach. I wish there was more repercussions for | it's behavior maybe for some of these cases where it is such a | clear 9-0 kind of case the Supreme Court should look into if | the lower justices are fulfilling there duty. | Feneric wrote: | I can understand the ruling, but it sounds like it also means | it's now pretty trivial to bypass restrictions by getting a | massive list of numbers to dial from a third party. | Causality1 wrote: | Consider the difference between the way the law and the platform | treats transmission of spam calls over the telephone and pirated | content over YouTube. You can tell which one is the concern of | moneyed interests. | BitwiseFool wrote: | Sounds like a straightforward case of congress not realizing how | software would change the nature of robocalls 30 years after the | law was passed. Looks like Congress will have to amend the law | and this decision should not be seen as some sort of | constitutional right to spam people. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Based on my reading of the decision, this doesn't change anything | to do with robocalls, as I understand the term: i.e. an | unsolicited, automated call where you hear a recording when you | pick up. | | Those would still be illegal under TCPA, because _either_ the use | of "an artificial or prerecorded voice" _or_ "automated dialing | system" establishes the illegal action. | | This case only deals with the definition of "automated dialing | system". | sparker72678 wrote: | The practical consequences sorta suck, but the concept of a | narrow reading of the law, leaning on the legislature to | actually, you know, _legislate_ -- we could use more of that. | jfengel wrote: | I'd have more sympathy for that if the legislature hadn't been | designed to not legislate. | | Passing legislation requires the approval of three bodies: the | Senate, the House, and the President. That's before you add in | the filibuster in the Senate, which sets a very high bar on its | approval. For the Supreme Court to add a _fourth_ check-and- | balance means that legislation is practically impossible. | | There is an enormous pressure to not do anything. That feature | is well-intended, to ensure the legislation is passed with due | deliberation and protect minority interests. But it means that | any sizeable minority can throw a wrench into it. Legislation | simply does not get passed. | | It would almost certainly be possible to construct a rewrite of | the robocall rules that would be broadly agreed on and suit the | Supreme Court's concerns. But it will also be in somebody's | interest to see that not happen, and they'll have allies who | want to leverage that interest: "I'll vote to suppress this law | if you'll vote for my thing." | | I'm not calling on the Supreme Court to legislate from the | bench, but rather to point out that the widely-praised system | of checks and balances is far from perfect. It gets in its own | way a lot, and it's very easy for everybody to point fingers at | everybody else and claim it's their fault. It practically begs | people to do that. | | Increased partisanship has certainly made that worse. And I'm | not so much interested in pointing fingers here, either, but | rather to note that it's the system of checks and balances that | encourages that partisanship. It sets such a high bar on | passing laws that only dedicated allies are capable of passing | anything -- and to ensure that dedicated allies can stop | anything. With a huge thumb on the scale towards the latter, so | that no amount of "surely we can all agree to be agreeable..." | can compensate. | aksss wrote: | > legislation is practically impossible | | To add some color, federal legislation affecting fifty states | equally is hard to pass without broad consensus. I agree that | was designed in as a feature, not a bug. It means when the | nation doesn't feel in the mood to compromise, the status quo | holds more weight. The federal legislature has certainly had | no issue passing laws in its time and certainly will continue | to do. I think we're still wrestling with the impacts of | social media on politics though, trying to incorporate that | dynamic for good or ill. | jfengel wrote: | Unfortunately, the nation hasn't been in a mood to | compromise since before social media. When was the last | time that a President wasn't actively hated by the | opposition? Not merely disliked or opposed, but actively | considered incompetent and detrimental to the nation? The | last time people talked about a "honeymoon period"? | | The last one I can remember is George HW Bush -- unless you | want to count the brief honeymoon his son was given in the | immediate aftermath of 9/11. Not that people liked George | HW Bush (he didn't win reelection), but he was opposed | rather than actively harassed. Arguably Bill Clinton got | such a "honeymoon" period, but after that he was opposed | with a literal vengeance. | | Presidents are a very particular lens to look at this with, | but I think it's illuminating. I believe it reflects the | nation not being interested in compromise. (There are other | interpretations, but I think it's indicative.) | | If there was a time that the federal legislature had no | issue passing laws, it's at least 30 years ago. That's | before a lot of HN users were even born. And it shows no | time of abating any time soon. Indeed, it only seems to be | growing. | Spooky23 wrote: | Nixon broke a lot of stuff | aksss wrote: | Yeah, never in my lifetime. I remember a college prof in | the late nineties telling me she though Reagan was the | worst president in the country's history. I remember | thinking at the time, "jeez, that's a bit much for a | variety of reasons". At the time though there was as much | vitriol against Clinton. | | I guess a difference may have been that _legislators_ | weren't as accountable in the same way as they are today, | and had more room to negotiate and engage in generalized | reciprocity. | | Today, politics has a very distasteful air of religious | zealotry, where "sinning" against the orthodoxy of the | true believers on both sides is shamed, purity idolized. | So everyone is fighting tooth and nail for the barest | majorities and procedural tricks to let them manifest | their will with nothing more than that. | | On one hand I find the accountability good, but on the | other I wish as a nation we cared less about "national | conversations" and thought/acted more locally. National | solutions are rarely a well-suited or efficient fit, so | in a way, the harder it is for party zealots of either | side to enforce their will across fifty different states, | the better, IMO. The threat that either side will be | successful is what keeps everyone overly-anxious and | hyper-engaged/enraged. In a way, having confidence in the | inefficiency is good medicine. | jfengel wrote: | I definitely wish people thought more locally -- really | locally, like their towns. I don't think it's a | coincidence that the time frame I outlined above is the | same as the emergence of 24 hour news, which rapidly | became 24 hour infotainment -- the news as a big | Manichean football match. I believe that pushed people | into thinking about Big Issues and lost any focus on | things that actually matter in their daily lives. | | If there was a "golden age" of national collegiality, it | was the postwar era -- exactly the time we were busily | building infrastructure that made interstate commerce and | travel much easier. That ended when genuinely national | and world issues came to the fore -- a push to end | minority abuse in some states, and a war that forced | young men to participate. I believe that the lines were | set then and we continue to re-fight that same fight. | | The issue in TFA is exactly the kind of thing that needs | a national-level response: the only thing more | distasteful than a national rule about robocalls is going | to be 50 state rules about robocalls that would require | federal court litigation anyway. Past interstates and | airplanes, the Internet has replaced ordinary | telecommunications, and blurred state lines almost to | invisibility. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | The real problem with this is federal preemption. What | happens at the federal level isn't just that they don't | do anything good, it's that they actively do something | bad or ineffective, but in so doing wade into the swamp | and throw out the ability of the states to do anything | better because of preemption. | | Which implies that the problem is still that it's too | easy to do things at the federal level. Let them actually | do nothing so the states can do something. | clairity wrote: | > "...but rather to note that it's the system of checks and | balances that encourages that partisanship." | | i'd argue 'encourage' too strongly leans into intent here, | and that 'permit' seems closer to what's going on. any multi- | party, adversarial system is prone to partisanship. 'checks | and balances' may be more explicitly adversarial, but making | that explicit isn't necessary for people to line up against | each other in a political context and create gridlock. plus, | 4 factions aren't really better than 2 at creating gridlock | (because they often devolve into 2 opposing factions anyway). | jfengel wrote: | Absolutely. | | I just have a slightly hard time believing the Supreme | Court when it throws up its tidy hands and says, "Well, | this is a problem for the legislature", knowing full well | that the legislature won't. | | Especially what it's done along partisan lines, though it | isn't the case with this one. The Supreme Court is | dominated by fans of the status quo, who then set the rules | to further encourage the status quo. | | It's very hard not to read it as "Everything is fine with | me, and if it's not fine with you, go get the House and the | Senate and the President to agree with you (snicker). Then | come back and I'll have a look at it." | linuxftw wrote: | IMO, still too easily to legislate. I would require at least | 3/4ths of both houses for all bills and give governors a 51% | veto power. | | The US constitution was supposed to limit the power of the | federal government. It has failed to do that in a meaningful | way. | clairity wrote: | > "...give governors a 51% veto power." | | the senate was the selected compromise in this regard. give | each state 2 senators that collectively have the power to | represent state interests with majority vote, while being | less prone to the corruption of single individuals | (governors). | zacharycohn wrote: | The Articles of Confederation were designed to give limited | power to a weak federal government and more power to | stronger state governments. It was a disaster, then we | tried again - the other way - with the Constitution. | | The Constitution _puts limits_ on the power of government, | the goal isn 't _a limited_ federal government. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > The Articles of Confederation were designed to give | limited power to a weak federal government and more power | to stronger state governments. It was a disaster, then we | tried again - the other way - with the Constitution. | | The country thrived under the Constitution with a narrow | interpretation of the commerce clause and a federal | government that spent 3% of GDP instead of 20% for more | than a hundred years. | | The expansive "reinterpretation" of federal power in the | 20th century was the source of all the existing trouble. | zacharycohn wrote: | And average education, health, and quality of life | outcomes are significantly higher now. | willcipriano wrote: | Limited government was certainly Jeffersons aim: | | "The course of history shows that as a government grows, | liberty decreases." | | Washington seems to agree, for example this quote from | his farewell address: | | "It is important that the habits of thinking in a free | country should inspire caution in those entrusted with | its administration, to confine themselves within their | respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the | exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon | another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate | the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to | create, whatever the form of government, a real | despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and | proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human | heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this | position." | jfengel wrote: | We should have gone to Jefferson and Washington's farms | and taken a vote on what kinds of changes were necessary. | willcipriano wrote: | If you think about that a bit more deeply, if Washington | and Jefferson had been fans of a strong federal | government slavery would've been a federal policy as | opposed to a per state policy and likely would've been | much more difficult to end as the northern states | would've contained slave owners as opposed to only the | southern states. | lukeschlather wrote: | > Of most import, it means that the act does not ban the use of | now-dominant predictive dialing technology that can call or text | targeted customers | | This seems incorrect. "Predictive dialing" sounds like it should | meet the definition of a sequential dialer. | | This ruling seems a little odd but also I understand why the | court ruled the way it did, even if the grounds seem like an | excessively tortured reading of the statute. (Like, there was | probably an easier way to get this ruling.) | nulbyte wrote: | Predictive dialing refers to a system capable of placing calls | that are likely to be answered by the called party at a time | when the calling party is available. Under this ruling, such a | system may or may not be an ATDS; the predictive capability is | irrelevant. | | The key distinction is not whether the system can dial numbers | from a list randomly or sequentially, but whether it can | generate numbers randomly or sequentially (as opposed to being | provided by another party). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-02 23:00 UTC)