
Bill to ban bots impersonating people for telemarketing and influencing election - anonymfus
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1001
======
darawk
I'm all for this...but can we just ban telemarketing entirely? Why is that
even allowed? I've always thought that the law should be written such that
telemarketing is legal, but if you engage in it, it is no longer illegal to
murder you. You can do it, but you lose your murder protection.

~~~
earbrazier
I've heard that robocalls are illegal in Germany. It would be difficult to
pass a law banning them in the United States because the people writing the
laws are themselves heavy users of robocalls as a part of their election
campaigns.

~~~
petepete
They are illegal in the UK too, but the law doesn't stop calls coming in from
abroad or from marketing companies routing through throwaway UK SIP providers.

I'd just like to see phone companies made to have a free option where
customers can turn off all calls from unidentifiable/withheld numbers. That
would be easy to implement and stop a lot of the problem.

~~~
giancarlostoro
I never answer a call if the number is not saved on my phone. If it's truly
important leave a voicemail, I will get back to you if I have to.

~~~
petepete
I was referring to landlines but yes, on mobile, I agree entirely. The more
recent Android dialer correctly identifies spam most times.

~~~
giancarlostoro
We ditched our land line about 10 years ago so I totally forgot about that.
Although I remember having one of those phones that had the digital address
book on it, maybe you have a different model. Also I have T-Mobile and it
tells me when a caller is "likely a scammer" and they even let me outright
block those callers.

------
linuxftw
The only practical way to enforce this is to fine the telecom carriers that
let the overseas junk calls onto their networks in the first place.

Speaking of which, it would be great to have a 'no foreign origination'
inbound policy. That would require VOIP providers to step up, and that seems
like a very complex problem.

At this point, I consider telephone communication to be almost a complete
loss. We need an entirely new system.

~~~
tomjen3
Wouldn't that mean nobody can call into the US?

------
sprokolopolis
I like the idea of this, but I wonder if it will have much impact on the worst
offenders. The most frequent and annoying calls are almost always using
spoofed numbers and many times originating from outside the country, like
India. Is there any way that this law could be enforced...

1)on calls originating outside the state or country?

2) on calls over spoofed numbers?

~~~
downandout
This bill isn’t limited to phone calls. It also applies to any bot on any
social media site that receives more than 10mm visitors per month that exists
to _“incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial
transaction”_. In other words, a Facebook Messenger bot answering pre-sale
questions is violating this law unless it has a massive disclosure about it
being a bot. At first glance it also appears that this law would make chats in
which a bot handles _most_ but not all of the interaction illegal. For
example, an online chat with a support tech that begins with an automated
_“this is Larry, how can I help you?”_ seems to be illegal under this law.
Larry exists, but the bot is “impersonating” Larry during the automated
portions of the conversation. This is a poorly thought out, overly broad law.

One sidenote...HN really needs a way to just “save” articles. I didn’t want to
upvote this article, because that sends the wrong signal - that I am somehow
in favor of unworkable regulations. I didn’t want to “favorite” it either,
because this certainly doesn’t fall into the category of my favorite articles
that I’d like to keep around on that list for a long time. But I do want to
keep track of the discussion today, because I find it fascinating just how
many technologists are in favor of onerous regulations governing their own
industry. Currently, there is no way to simply save an article on HN without
upvoting or favoriting it.

~~~
dTal
I don't think upvoting is meant to be a signal that you agree with the article
- only that you think the article should be seen and discussed by the HN
community. You clearly do think this, so an upvote is appropriate. After all,
upvoting an 'X has died' post doesn't mean that you're glad they're gone!

You could also simply bookmark the page.

~~~
downandout
Re:bookmarking, I always forget to delete it. I guess I should create a Chrome
extension that lets me create a temporary bookmark that will automatically be
deleted after X period of time. With regard to upvoting, I'd say articles like
this fall in a different category than the death announcements. If you upvote
this one, especially given the overwhelmingly positive response to it in the
comments, you're at least tacitly endorsing it. Lawmakers that might have
rejected this bill because it outlaws many legitimate tasks performed by chat
bots might look at the number of upvotes and say "a community of tech people
on the web really like it!" and vote for it. I certainly wouldn't want to play
even a minor role in the passage of a bill such as this one. I'm not sure that
the nuances of upvoting are going to be clear to everyone that visits HN.

------
josefresco
HN is funny. Most of the time we fight for anonymity, security and privacy yet
here were are, demanding spoof-proof caller ID.

~~~
dwc
Spoofed Caller ID is a lie, not anonymity.

Here's a proposal: 1) Caller may choose to hide/suppress their Caller ID, 2)
mandatory option for phone carriers to allow Callee to completely block calls
(no ring, no voicemail) that don't carry Caller ID, 3) When present Caller ID
must be accurate.

The above allows anonymity but disallows deceit. It also provides opt-out for
people not to receive anonymous calls. (Anonymity does not give you the right
to have any given individual listen to you)

We could have had this for ages, as there are no great technical hurdles.

~~~
dwc
Note on above: there are legitimate reasons for businesses to set Caller ID to
something other than the call origin. But the "something other" should be
selected from a set under the control of the business, not a free for all.
I.e., a desk phone with DID may show as the main company number, etc.

This takes a little more work to account for, but it shouldn't be a roadblock.

~~~
tomjen3
No, a phone should give the exact number for that exact phone, since that is
whom I want to call back, should I need to. That phone may be manned by more
than one individual (in case of shift work), but nobody should have to go
through a phone tree.

~~~
softawre
This won't work, contact centres are more complicated that you'd imagine.

------
pteredactyl
I'm for this, but how is it enforceable?

Companies have teams dedicated to this and are still thwarted. I don't see
California Government as leader in technology. But maybe I'm wrong.

I do see them as a leader in overbudget, late, and often failing projects. So
while this sounds good, I don't see it being good.

~~~
dpwm
Attempts so far to ban bot accounts have resulted in a purge of real people
who are critical of western governments.

When Facebook decided to ban the accounts as identified by Ben Nimmo's team at
the Atlantic Council, it also purged people critical of western governments'
foreign policies. When this is government mandated I think you see the threat
to "free speech."

I'm sure this is a bonus to those pushing the react-to-bots-at-all-costs
agenda, but they also seem to be the first to complain about the silencing of
dissident voices they happen to agree with.

~~~
charonn0
How do you know they're real?

~~~
dpwm
Having spoken to one of them in person about all their posts being disappeared
from Facebook.

The only action that they can think of for "violation of their terms of
service" they know of is having posts critical of government claims regarding
foreign policy, and it's pretty much the same time Facebook announced they
were getting tough on bots and blocking bot accounts.

They're better connected than me and know others who have had this happen to
them at the same time too.

------
bdcravens
"A person using a bot shall not be liable under this section if the person
discloses that it is a bot."

The bill doesn't dictate how that disclosure should take place. Would using a
robot emoji suffice?

------
qwerty456127
I hate telemarketing, election influencing and political social network bots
impersonating people altogether so it sounds great but doesn't this probably
mean it is going to become illegal to build a chatbot, give it a human name
and a [legally acquired] human face avatar? Will it actually affect
telemarketing/political bots only?

~~~
provolone
The goal is not to make it illegal, just inaccessible for entities without an
army of lawyers. AKA regulatory capture.

------
carbocation
I'm looking forward to the day when it's socially acceptable to simply not
have a phone number. I think we're close.

------
qwerty456127
BTW I have always wondered why do only the major political parties and their
allies ever use bots for political influence. Obviously, real geeks could do
much better at this if they would want and there probably are many gray/black
hat hackers that would probably not hesitate for just moral/legal reasons but
there still seems to be no bots that would try to influence something like the
votes on net neutrality, ACTA/SOPA, the European Internet copyright law etc.

~~~
maxerickson
Why do you think that "real geeks" aren't involved in existing influence
campaigns?

~~~
qwerty456127
Because of the low quality. All the bots I've encountered were ridiculous.
Like different "people" starting to follow me on Google+ (obviously intending
to attract my attention so I would follow back) at the same moment and posting
exactly the same (equal as string values) "thoughts" simultaneously. You can
also find crowds of human-impersonating political bots posting exactly the
same things on Twitter and in comments many times.

~~~
greeneggs
Perhaps this is for the same reason that Nigerian spammers can't spell? They
are selecting for gullible targets.

"Why Do Nigerian Scammers Say They are From Nigeria?" by Cormac Herley (WEIS,
2012) [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-
do-...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/why-do-nigerian-
scammers-say-they-are-from-nigeria/)

------
kmlx
I've been wanting to build an online-only bot of myself for some time. This
bot would impersonate me and interact with any service provided over the
internet, such as banks, government, even ordering a cab. It could both write
and speak just as well as I do and would act on my behalf. I can handle
potential issues personally.

Would this scenario fall under this law?

~~~
travmatt
The bill states that if you specificy that it’s a bot then it’s fine.

~~~
kmlx
the whole reason behind such a system would be so that the other parties don't
know that they're conversing with an ai representation of myself. otherwise
they'll just ask for me instead.

------
tonyquart
I have just read an article about someone who won a lawsuit against
telemarketers at [http://www.whycall.me/news/my-4500-payday-from-a-
telemarkete...](http://www.whycall.me/news/my-4500-payday-from-a-
telemarketer/). I think people could try this way to make some of them think
twice before they harass us with their unwanted calls.

------
riffic
The EFF has written about this specific bill, and is concerned this was poorly
scoped and may infringe protected speech. I would expect litigation to follow.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/should-ai-always-
ident...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/should-ai-always-identify-
itself-its-more-complicated-you-might-think)

------
sirsuki
How are we able to have discussions on this article when it links me to a page
that says: "503 Service Unavailable":

>The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance
downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

I mean it's just text right? How hard can that be to serve in high volume? Oh
did they get politically DDoS'ed?

------
vectorEQ
bill to ban bots xD... and then suddenly the ability to identify them
consistently and correctly apears out of the blue <3

~~~
hannasanarion
You're telling me you can't tell the difference between a person and a
recording over the phone?

~~~
komali2
The article is more about Twitter bots and the like.

I'm assuming this gives enough teeth to law enforcement for, say, Twitter to
turn over records I sure hope it has on who is botting on their website.

------
paulie_a
Ban all bots for telemarketing. And excessively fine them for violation.
Abusively fine the developer that created it.

------
daveFNbuck
The title here says the bill is about telemarketing, but the bill is pretty
short and I didn't see anything about telemarketing. This is just about
limiting bots on "any Internet Web site, Web application, or digital
application"

~~~
anonymfus
Sorry, I am not a native English speaker. I made the title by rewriting this
sentence to fit into 80 characters limit:

"This bill would, with certain exceptions, make it unlawful for any person to
use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online
with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for
the purpose of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the
communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services
in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election."

Specifically telemarketing was the only English term for "in order to
incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial
transaction" part that I recalled. Sorry if it was misleading.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Telemarketing is specifically about marketing via phone calls. The phrase you
want is "online marketing", although that is a bit longer. Almost all of the
discussion in the comments thread here is about phone calls.

~~~
anonymfus
So is Wikipedia's definition "Telemarketing is defined as contacting,
qualifying, and canvassing prospective customers using telecommunications
devices such as telephone, fax, and internet" wrong? Or is it just
misleadingly general?

~~~
daveFNbuck
Yeah, that definition is wrong, as evidenced by the confusion in this comment
thread. I can't find a dictionary definition that matches what Wikipedia says.
Every dictionary I checked [1] [2] [3] [4] specifies that telemarketing is
marketing via the phone. Telemarketing is telephone marketing.

[1] [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/telemarketing](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/telemarketing)

[2]
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/telemark...](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/telemarketing)

[3]
[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/telemarketing](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/telemarketing)

[4]
[https://www.wordnik.com/words/telemarketing](https://www.wordnik.com/words/telemarketing)

------
janj
Is this about telemarketing? Everything in it seems to refer only to online
communication over a social platform "that has 10,000,000 or more unique
monthly United States visitors". Am I missing where it applies to
telemarketing?

------
stuaxo
This is a great start.

Election Silence just before an polling is an interesting idea too.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence)

~~~
BonesJustice
Bit of a constitutional non-starter in the United States, though.

------
petercooper
I wonder if, conversely, this could lead to the development of better "bots"
where you'd be unable to tell the difference. The motive is certainly there
now.

------
afo
How would you treat calls where it's a sound board controlled by a human?
Human or bot?

If there's a way to get around the system, these guys will figure it out.

------
macawfish
Call me crazy, but I have this weird theory that maybe some of these spam
calls could be a form of subtle psi-ops, in the vein of "hypernormalization",
designed to exacerbate political prejudices.

Think of "stochastic resonance".

Its one of the few reasons I could think of for "blank" robo calls. They seem
almost intentionally annoying, so my thought is that they could be designed to
activate and prime irrational regional biases.

For example, someone has been spoofing my number to call people in Alabama. I
get about 5 calls back per day from 251 numbers!

~~~
Khoth
> Its one of the few reasons I could think of for "blank" robo calls.

Telephone spammer software dials a load of numbers, and when someone picks up,
only then do they connect the call to a human on their end. It's why you often
get a weird pause before they actually say anything, and if there happens not
to be a human available you get a "blank" call.

~~~
code_duck
It’s called ‘predictive dialing’.

------
YayamiOmate
Won't it be dead? Isn't it super easy to pull the caller's location out of
jurisdiction of this law?

------
teilo
This will be just as enforceable as the Do Not Call Registry.

------
provolone
If people are so easily swayed then perhaps they are just idiots?

There are some cold & hard facts advocates of democracy need to look at. These
problems can't be legislatively swept under the rug.

~~~
puranjay
The people who developed democracy never accounted for the weapons grade
marketing and persuasion we are capable of today.

~~~
ekianjo
What do you mean? Eloquence and persuasive methods have existed at least since
Antiquity (just look at the records of Plato in Greece). What it takes to
believe any kind of BS is just the absence of critical thinking. This is the
real root cause.

~~~
puranjay
I really doubt that pure eloquence can compete with the visual smorgasbord
that modern marketers can create, all learned after spending billions on mass
market advertising over decades.

Plato couldn't laser-target his message to 5,000 different segments carefully
curated with an extensive re-marketing campaign.

------
mahasvin
So, robots have no rights to convey messages to humans? Is that so? It might
be a wiser option to enhance control over ownership of robots instead.

~~~
mythrowaway1124
Why should robots have any rights at all?

~~~
komali2
Presumably we would want actual artificial intelligence to have rights, right?
I'm no fan of slavery over a conscious being.

~~~
mythrowaway1124
I agree on that point! But I think robot consciousness is a really long way
off.

------
genericacct
Step in the right direction, Calfornia

~~~
riffic
The Electronic Frontier Foundation didn't think so:

[https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-opposing-
california-...](https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-opposing-california-
bot-disclosure-bill-sb-1001-first-amendment-concerns)

------
saudioger
Don't answer your phone.

------
creaghpatr
Sounds like a bipartisan victory waiting to happen.

------
brownbat
We might jokingly call this the first bill against robot rights.

To play robot devil's advocate... the future dystopia probably isn't a
campaign driven by a fear of AI, but driven by a fear of programming in
general, and skepticism towards anyone who is able to automate tasks and do
things more efficiently.

We all know the early history of the loom that birthed programmable machines,
and how the community fought to destroy the machines.

People were displaced from jobs, and that drove them in part. But people also
get angry when anyone points out to them that there is an easier way to do
something they've been doing the hard way. It's a well known psychological
phenomenon known as "effort justification."

Look at the post from yesterday full of stories of people being able to
automate their job. When middle management found out, sometimes there was
gratitude, but most often the reaction was fear or anger, firing them for
insubordination despite showing how the company could save money.

There's an 80s movie where Kevin Bacon is teaching a group of kids how to camp
in the mountains. Sean Astin builds a fish trap after no one else can catch
fish, comes back with plenty for everyone. Bacon throws the dozen fish away,
saying he didn't deserve them and everyone should just go hungry.

It's dramatized, but we see that in real life. The idea that someone hired for
data entry can have a more measurable impact on the company's bottom line
after a week at the company than a manager can who has spent years climbing
the rungs can be seen as a personal affront.

Why is there this gap in thinking about the world between people who look for
clever shortcuts and people who support labor for labor's sake?

There's a famous intro to CS lecture that has been reposted here a few times
here. In it, the professor talks about the process of computer science as a
step beyond algebra, it's about thinking of forumlas of processes. Thinking
about processes like variables that can be modified, or as having components
and properties.

People who have tried programming a while often understand this intuitively,
and people who haven't, don't.

If you understand that, you can see how trivial it is to replicate simple
processes. You can see there's no functional difference between a society that
makes these calls using silicon and a society that makes these calls using
meat. Mechanical turk is just another black box. It seems obviously strange to
make numbers illegal or place export controls on a dozen or so lines of easily
memorized code. And it's really hard or impossible to explain these positions
to people who don't see the world that way.

You may realize all that, but still find yourself upset at these robocalls. If
that's the case, ask yourself what you're really upset about. Is it the method
of the calls, or is it the calls themselves? Are you better off somehow if you
are manually called at exactly the same rate with exactly the same scripts?

Banning the method mainly just reserves the technique for people who own a
call center.

I see no reason to give that class of people additional power over everyone
else.

I see no reason to scapegoat automation here and tell people it's acceptable
to continue to fear programs.

