• AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 days ago

    People and organizations that:

    • Are known to use a variety of numbers (e.g. her bank uses different numbers for fraud alerts, customer service, specific front helpdesk phones, etc, and her medical providers all use different numbers and platforms to send out information)
    • She doesn’t know how to add manually even if she’s told the details for

    That’s why I’m saying it isn’t for everyone. Sure, maybe you can find someone that does have a bank, medical providers, insurance providers, etc, that uses only one number for all phone-based communication and uses no third-parties, but that’s not the norm, so for her, that would result in constantly missing bills, follow-up texts, fraud alerts, customer service callbacks, etc.

    • BillyClark@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Again, my suggestion was that we rethink the system, not that we keep the current system exactly as it is except that everybody locks down their cell phones. If we rethink the system, then those examples you thought of would be use cases for contacting people under the new system.

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s why the STIR/SHAKEN attestation was setup for VOIP.

      It basically adds a layer of trust and verification that the person placing the call owns the number that is being used in the caller ID. It helps prevent random calls from being transmitted from random numbers, one of the reasons it’s almost impossible to prevent scam calls right now.

      But it’s not enforced system wide, and we don’t have legislature that is making a point to deal with these scam and junk calls.