PSTN Authentication

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:13:15 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

[snip]

That is America? No. That is Greedifornia gone wild.

It is gonna fuck us, people. And the pigs are not gonna be here to
protect us when it does.

Orwell was just off by a few decades.

Here's a trick I use with my cellphone...

Verizon only allows for 5 blocked numbers, and must be "renewed" every
90 days.

So I add the cretins to my contact list... all named beginning Zpam so
they're all at the end of the contact list and out-of-sight ;-)

Then I set their "personal ring" to no-ring/no-vibrate >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/14/2014 9:25 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:13:15 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Here's a trick I use with my cellphone...

Verizon only allows for 5 blocked numbers, and must be "renewed" every
90 days.

TPC has no interest in "serving" their customers -- especially if
that "service" reduces their income!

An approach they would *welcome* (if they could get over the shame
of doing so) would be to allow a callee to elect to "punish" a
caller (press *23 or whatever in the first few seconds -- so YOU
can positively ID the caller regardless of CID!) and the caller is
automatically billed some small amount (e.g., $1).

Craft the legislation so the caller need not pay it -- but, the
originating "service" is billed, instead (e.g., if the call comes
from a Sprint subscriber, Sprint is responsible for the payment).
Then, the service provider has an incentive to KNOW onto whom to
pass the charges; the "incoming" service provider has an incentive
(it gets a "cut" of that $1) and the "harmed" callee gets
reimbursed.

So I add the cretins to my contact list... all named beginning Zpam so
they're all at the end of the contact list and out-of-sight ;-)

Then I set their "personal ring" to no-ring/no-vibrate>:-}

How do you deal with the folks whose CID is "blocked"?

Or, who spoof their CID? (i.e., first such number on any list would
have to be your *own* -- to "obvious" to spoof!)

 

[Don Y]

On 9/14/2014 9:12 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:

As long as we have politicians whose only concern is re-election,
nothing will be done.

The do-not-call "law", as written, exempts politicians.

Perhaps a blacklist (which I already have via Ooma) plus a whitelist
of allowed callers, with all others going to voicemail?

It is already "illegal" to do what they are doing. So, chances are,
they won't legitimately identify themselves. Anything that relies
on an identification service that can be spoofed (e.g., CID)
is therefore unreliable.

Our current approach is to simply let *everything* go to voice mail.
We use email for most of our communications (it fits *our* schedule
instead of The Caller's) so our phone strategy doesn't inconvenience
others. And, it allows us to "skip" the junk calls by leaning on
the ERASE key after hearing the first 2 seconds of their "important
message" when we are reviewing our "mail".

Email gives you (The Caller) no guarantee of a response time (e.g.,
I may answer in a few minutes -- or a few DAYS). So, reviewing
voicemails every few days has a comparable outcome -- you've
told us you would like to talk to us but we were *effectively*
"out"... and are returning your call when it is convenient for
us to do so.

[Of course, this strategy works because so many OTHER people
carry their phones around like "favored pets" -- so we are
reasonably sure they wont be "out" when WE call!]

 

[rickman]

On 9/14/2014 2:50 AM, Don Y wrote:

On 9/13/2014 10:20 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/14/2014 12:38 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/13/2014 6:59 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/13/2014 2:57 PM, Don Y wrote:
Hi,

I'm looking for ideas on how to provide (reasonable) authentication
over the PSTN. CID is too readily spoofed (usually by the very folks
that you want to "avoid"!).

My goal, here, is to provide an "automated attendant" function -- sort
of an "electronic secretary" that can screen calls intelligently:
- route all calls from political parties to /dev/null
- don't even let the phone *ring* if it's a telemarketer
- when I am asleep, take a message from any of these callers
- whenever <someone> calls, *find* me!
- if Bob calls, tell him I am on my way
- if *I* call, give me access to <whatever
etc.

Obviously, the cost (inconvenience?) to the caller can vary as the
"value" of the service he/she is expecting.

I've considered doing this in a way that would not be rude or even
obvious. Being a business line, my answering machine should appear
to be
a business. Your suggestions above are basically what I came up with. A
short intro saying "Hello, you have reached Arius, Inc. Please press xy
to speak with a representative."

"xy" has to be more than a single digit as a robocaller could
"press" 1234567890.

Duh! That is why I wrote xy and not x. I have received robocalls that
automatically send one or even two DTMF tones. I think they are shooting
for the most common single button press codes.

If "xy" was canned (or even The Default) for The Device, then there
would be a high probability of a robocaller "guessing" it.

No, there is a *low* probability of it being guessed. 1 in 100 to be
exact.

Read what I wrote:
"If "xy" was canned (or even The Default) for The Device..."
i.e., if EVERY instance of The Device had "xy" HARDCODED to be "21",
then all a robocaller needs to do is *try* "21" when it encounters
a device that it SUSPECTS may be this type.

Similarly, if "xy" is The (Factory) Default, then it is highly likely
that many such instances will be encountered that will still have the
code set to the factory default.

You also have to allow for it to be spoken in case the caller can't
emit DTMF during the call.

I don't. I can't remember the last time I couldn't send a DTMF tone.

My parents have a *dial* telephone.

Why can't your system count dial pulses? Got to be easier than voice
recognition.

Do all VoIP systems alow tones to be generated by the station set?
Even after the call has been placed?

If you "borrow" the phone at your MD/Dentist/Retail/etc. location,
do they *hand* you the phone? Or, dial for you and hand you the
*receiver* (because the phone is located someplace convenient for
*them* to access, not "guests"/visiors)?

If you are driving, do you want to again bring your eyes to the
phone to type in a code number?

[And, why are so many VRT systems replacing the old DTMF interaction
with voice response?]

DTMF is for the convenience of the DEVICE implementer, not the user.

Great, how well does voice work in the presence of noise? I don't use a
cell phone while driving, it's too dangerous.

This will stop the robo calls.

It will stop the calls whereby a robot dialer AND TALKER deliver the
message. But, if the dialer is automated and hands off the call
to a human once the circuit is complete (answered), then the human
can listen to your message and comply.

I find very few of those. They usually listen for someone answering the
phone and many start their own blurb before asking you to wait for the
handoff. Do you really need to stop all the annoying calls or just get
the 98th percentile?

Most robocalls, here, wait for the callee to answer. Then, within a
second -- perhaps two -- you can hear a human come on the line.They have
obviously designed their systems for this handoff to be very
quick -- much longer than two seconds and I suspect folks would be in
the process of hanging up ("crank call") before they got on the line.

How many calls do you expect your secretary to let "slip through"?

I can't afford a secretary just to screen my calls. Will your device
also make coffee when you ask? Will it find your missing umbrella when
it raining? There are lots of things a machine just won't ever be able
to do effectively.

As you
suggest only then will the phone actually ring, not the phone really as
that requires more expensive circuitry to generate a ring voltage.
Rather this unit would sound its own ringer. That might not be so great
with my cordless phone, but the unit's ringer can sound in multiple
location so I won't miss it.

I've never received a political call that wasn't robo so that is dealt
with. I'm not sure how the unit will know you are asleep... If the
phone
is not answered it will pass the call to the regular answering
machine... which will require the ringer circuit, darn!

If I'm in my bedroom and haven't moved from there for 10 minutes, the
chances are: I'm asleep!

Similarly, if I am in the bathroom, I *probably* don't want to take the
call.

If I'm in the back yard, I probably don't want to be disturbed for
"just anyone".

And, I sure as hell don't want *every* phone ringing if it knows
I'm "at" a particular phone!

I think you are designing a secretary. How does your phone know where
you are?

Not germane to the question at hand. Rather, an example of how you can
*use* authentication in a larger context.

How does *your* secretary know where you are? Is she seated outside
your office door so she can watch you come and go? Do you regularly
tell her where you will be when leaving? Do you work in an "open"
floorplan so she can see clear across the building and notice you
chatting with the VP 60 ft away? Do you maintain a "pegboard" (or
other notification system) to indicate that you are out of the office?
Does she know about the 12:30 staff meeting (and naturally *assume*
you are there)? Does she know your habits well enough to predict
where you are *likely* to be?

[Assume a client had charged you with designing a system that could
track and report your "location". Could you do it?]

Only with GPS but then that is useless info. Your system needs to know
*why* you are where you are.

I am the secretary. If I had one she would be very pretty and I won't
mention her other duties... Not looking for a machine to replace that
function... lol

Find you? lol I guess you can train the dog to come get you when the
ultrasonic ringer sounds. Won't work so well if you are out in the car
somewhere...

If I am not "in the house", it can deduce if I'm in the back yard
or "somewhere out front" (based on the manner by which I left the
building. If it suspects I am nearby, it can attempt to alert me
"page"). If it sees the cordless phone has been taken from its
base, it an assume I am "within the neighborhood" and ring that
"extension". If/when I pick up, it can *announce* the caller to
me thereby giving me an opportunity to instruct it to "take a
message" (or, record a voice message to dispatch AS IF it had
been left or that caller).

[Think: good secretary!]

If I left the house via the garage, the garage door opened AND closed
and the car is not within, then it can assume I have driven off.
(of course, if I took the cordless phone with me, then I am implicitly
telling "it" that I expect to be reachable ON that phone -- give it
a try, I may just have driven to another residence in the subdvision)

You do this a lot in your posts. You start going off on what appear to
be tangents because you have not explained most of what is going on. So
you are going to wire all your doors (and windows so the system knows if
you have used a fire escape and call 911)? What else will this system
monitor that you haven't mentioned? I think this is going to be a
multi-thousand dollar system by the time it is done.

If you've watched my posts over the past year or so, I've discussed
other aspects of this "system".

If you haven't -- or haven't paid attention -- then there is nothing
*missing* from my original post that affects "PSTN Authentication".
Do I have to describe how I intend to use a particular capability
before it can be considered or designed? Haven't I clearly stated
my goal in describing an "automated attendant" and the parallels to
a "good secretary"?

LOL, that is rich, I'm supposed to trace your posts over the years!!!

Your post said it would do different things based on where you were
without saying anything about how it would know. Let's face it, using a
door is a poor indicator of where you are. You go to the garage for any
number of things and the unit will think you are away. But it is your
system, you can make it do what you want. I just don't see how it would
be of value to anyone else.

If Bob calls answer the phone and tell him you are on the way yourself!

I'm not *at* the phone that Bob has called! Or, I *may* be yet don't
want to get drawn into a conversation with Bob which will delay
everything *else* I may have planned.

[Again, think: good secretary!]

You mean mind reader?

If the device has been TOLD to "give Bob the following message", how
is that reading minds?

That is totally different from "I may be...". Just say I want the
system to recognize a caller and give him a selected message. Isn't
that simple?

A "good secretary" would know -- from empirical observation ("Sheesh!
Every time I get Bob on the phone, I've got to hear about his *kids*
for 20 minutes!") -- that calls from Bob shouldn't be passed through
when there is a schedule to be met.

More mind reading... how does the system know you have a schedule to meet.

I have thought of all these things just in my cell phone ringer setting.
I've yet to figure out an approach that would let it select a setting
even remotely automatically. I find there are far too many exceptions
and I can't remember to manually adjust it every time, so invariably I
end up missing calls or being disturbed when I don't want to be.

E.g., if we receive calls while preparing a meal (or, ABOUT to do so),
we don't bother to answer -- because we are BUSY with something "time
sensitive" (the food will spoil or our stomachs will complain). The
caller can try back later... instead of us answering, engaging in
pleasantries for some number of minutes, then begging off so we can get
back to a meal that HOPEFULLY hasn't gone cold during the interruption.

Exactly, you don't have to answer. YOU are the best filter. Once you
eliminate the ones who can't, or won't press "xy" you are down to a very
few who will ring the phone. The rest I can decide whether to answer or
not.

Ok, I see three classes of callers.

1) Spammers - don't ring the phone and don't take a message.
2) Low priority calls - go to answering machine without ringing.
3) High priority calls - ring phone, go to machine on no answer

The members of 2 and 3 varies bases on my privacy setting. Caller ID
can be used for all three selections since any ID I don't recognize is
in group 1. Group 1 callers get a message telling them they are not
recognized and to contact me another way.

Here is a problem. Someone I know calls me for help and uses a
different phone, the system rejects their call. Even if voice
recognition is used, noise in the environment may prevent that from
working. How do they get past the system and reach me? The prompt
needs to give a code for even class 1 callers to bypass the system and
ring the phone. Perhaps with a different ring pattern which will tell
me this is a class 1 caller.

If you are calling you know to press "abcd" before the machine prompts
you for "xy".

Too easy for someone to notice. I much prefer spending extra effort
"training" it to my voice and then engaging in an authentication dialog
(even the number of words required for me to command it to perform a
specific action increases the chance of it verifying *my* speech
characteristics)

Good luck. I think this will be some time showing up.

I have no goal of it EVER "showing up" -- for anyone OTHER than me! :
Thankfully, I have the money, resources and skills to pull it off
without having to wait for a vendor to do a (poor) job of it --- with a
"limited imagination"!

Yes, well they are trying to actually provide something that does the
job as opposed to thinking about it forever.

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 9/14/2014 2:23 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 9/14/2014 9:25 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:13:15 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Here's a trick I use with my cellphone...

Verizon only allows for 5 blocked numbers, and must be "renewed" every
90 days.

TPC has no interest in "serving" their customers -- especially if
that "service" reduces their income!

An approach they would *welcome* (if they could get over the shame
of doing so) would be to allow a callee to elect to "punish" a
caller (press *23 or whatever in the first few seconds -- so YOU
can positively ID the caller regardless of CID!) and the caller is
automatically billed some small amount (e.g., $1).

Craft the legislation so the caller need not pay it -- but, the
originating "service" is billed, instead (e.g., if the call comes
from a Sprint subscriber, Sprint is responsible for the payment).
Then, the service provider has an incentive to KNOW onto whom to
pass the charges; the "incoming" service provider has an incentive
(it gets a "cut" of that $1) and the "harmed" callee gets
reimbursed.

$1 is far too much, but a penny would do the job well I think. It would
end the robocalls I think.

So I add the cretins to my contact list... all named beginning Zpam so
they're all at the end of the contact list and out-of-sight ;-)

Then I set their "personal ring" to no-ring/no-vibrate>:-}

How do you deal with the folks whose CID is "blocked"?

Or, who spoof their CID? (i.e., first such number on any list would
have to be your *own* -- to "obvious" to spoof!)

Of course you just don't take CID blocked calls. I think they have that
already as part of the phone service.

--

Rick

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:23:35 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

On 9/14/2014 9:25 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:13:15 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Here's a trick I use with my cellphone...

Verizon only allows for 5 blocked numbers, and must be "renewed" every
90 days.

TPC has no interest in "serving" their customers -- especially if
that "service" reduces their income!

An approach they would *welcome* (if they could get over the shame
of doing so) would be to allow a callee to elect to "punish" a
caller (press *23 or whatever in the first few seconds -- so YOU
can positively ID the caller regardless of CID!) and the caller is
automatically billed some small amount (e.g., $1).

Craft the legislation so the caller need not pay it -- but, the
originating "service" is billed, instead (e.g., if the call comes
from a Sprint subscriber, Sprint is responsible for the payment).
Then, the service provider has an incentive to KNOW onto whom to
pass the charges; the "incoming" service provider has an incentive
(it gets a "cut" of that $1) and the "harmed" callee gets
reimbursed.

So I add the cretins to my contact list... all named beginning Zpam so
they're all at the end of the contact list and out-of-sight ;-)

Then I set their "personal ring" to no-ring/no-vibrate>:-}

How do you deal with the folks whose CID is "blocked"?

For some reason I've not seen that on the cellphone, just the
landline.

Or, who spoof their CID? (i.e., first such number on any list would
have to be your *own* -- to "obvious" to spoof!)

I actually got a spoofed CID call the other day that was MY OWN number
>:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:59 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

I'm looking for ideas on how to provide (reasonable) authentication
over the PSTN. CID is too readily spoofed (usually by the very folks
that you want to "avoid"!).

Nope. What you're really trying to accomplish is block junk calls.
Some kind of authentication system is just one of many possible
solutions.

Reading between the lines, it looks like you're heading for a computer
based automatic attendent or possibly and IVR (interactive voice
response) system. You could probably purchase an IVR system and do
most of what you're proposing. I've setup three for various
businesses in the past. They work reasonably well and will block most
attempts to circumvent the system. Basically, disarm the default
"Punch zero for operator" function and you'll be fine. Please don't
get clever and have the caller do a math problem and punch in the
result on the touch tone pad. That has already been proven to be a
bad idea because of the condition of the American educational system.
Such IVR systems are boring and offer little in the way of
entertainment value for the product designer. They also require some
equally boring programming and configuration in order to operate
properly.

Instead, I propose detecting the callers accent, and route the call to
either the desired party, or to a black hole depending on the their
accent. There's plenty of research on the speech recognition and
accents. For example:
<http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/accent/>

I suspect such accent filters might already be available. I've
received telemarketing calls from what I presume is India, that
started out with a pre-recorded message in perfect English, but when I
started speaking, was taken over by someone with a very thick and
unintelligible accent. The only reason I could think of doing that is
to bypass an accent filter. Therefore, some IVR style filtering will
be required, such as asking "Who is the president of the US of A"? or
"What time is it"?

Yet another idea. Many years ago, I had a problem on the local ham on
our radio club VHF repeater system. We had a legally licensed user
that was becoming a nusance. He was asked to not use the radio club
repeater, but refused. I decided to build a filter, set to detect
this operator, and have the repeater turn itself off when he appeared.
I tried using various radio signature identification schemes, which
proved not sufficiently reliable. Next, I devised a speech
recognition system that compared a recording of him identifying with
his call sign, with the current digitized receiver audio stream. If
it detected a match, the repeater would turn off for a few minutes. It
worked amazingly well, until he found out what was happening and
changed his manner of identification.

It might be possible to arrange for a recording of anyone that has an
excuse to call your phone and compare the recordings with the same
phrase spoken by the caller. In other words, an audio password.
Saying their own name should be sufficient to identify and
authenticate the caller. This has the advantage of not requiring
someone on a smartphone to punch buttons while driving and using a
hands free system, where the keypad is not easily accessible.

Good luck with your project.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:59:04 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm not sure how the unit will know you are asleep...

I had an IR motion detector wired to my computer and media player.
When I woke up in the morning, it would turn on these devices. When I
left for the office or went to sleep, they would turn off after a 15
min delay. I had some falsing problems cause by reflections from
passing cars, neighbors borrowing tools, post-midnight fridge raids,
and my time share cat, but in general it worked well enough to
determine if I was home. An IR motion detector room occupancy sensor
could be built into the authentication system to detect when one is
asleep.
<http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Products/Pages/Sensors/Occupancy-Vacancy/Occupancy.aspx>

If the
phone is not answered it will pass the call to the regular answering
machine... which will require the ringer circuit, darn!

If this ultimate telemarketing call filter just happens to be a
computah, the answering machine function could be built in. A common
8GB SDHC card should be sufficient for recording messages and storing
a call record. The rest is software.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:37:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:59 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

I'm looking for ideas on how to provide (reasonable) authentication
over the PSTN. CID is too readily spoofed (usually by the very folks
that you want to "avoid"!).

Nope. What you're really trying to accomplish is block junk calls.
Some kind of authentication system is just one of many possible
solutions.

Reading between the lines, it looks like you're heading for a computer
based automatic attendent or possibly and IVR (interactive voice
response) system. You could probably purchase an IVR system and do
most of what you're proposing. I've setup three for various
businesses in the past. They work reasonably well and will block most
attempts to circumvent the system. Basically, disarm the default
"Punch zero for operator" function and you'll be fine. Please don't
get clever and have the caller do a math problem and punch in the
result on the touch tone pad. That has already been proven to be a
bad idea because of the condition of the American educational system.
Such IVR systems are boring and offer little in the way of
entertainment value for the product designer. They also require some
equally boring programming and configuration in order to operate
properly.

Instead, I propose detecting the callers accent, and route the call to
either the desired party, or to a black hole depending on the their
accent. There's plenty of research on the speech recognition and
accents. For example:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/accent/

There ya go... you're racist... you will be visited shortly by the
thought control police ;-)

Seriously, that's an excellent idea!

[snip]

Those Indian call centers drive me nuts.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John S]

On 9/14/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

If this ultimate telemarketing call filter just happens to be a
computah, the answering machine function could be built in. A common
8GB SDHC card should be sufficient for recording messages and storing
a call record. The rest is software.

Practice typing "computer". Your use of computah is somewhat annoying.
Or, is that your goal?

 

[Don Y]

On 9/14/2014 12:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:59 -0700, Don Y<this@isnotme.com> wrote:

I'm looking for ideas on how to provide (reasonable) authentication
over the PSTN. CID is too readily spoofed (usually by the very folks
that you want to "avoid"!).

Nope. What you're really trying to accomplish is block junk calls.
Some kind of authentication system is just one of many possible
solutions.

No. What I really want is an "electronic secretary".

"I'm expecting a call from Tom. Please find me when he calls!"

"If Bob calls, tell him I'm on my way!" (as I head out the door)

If a client calls while I am asleep (I have a wacky sleep-wake cycle),
take a message.

If SWMBO calls, UNCONDITIONALLY find me (it may be important)

If <friend> calls "too early" or "too late", tell him/her: "Is this
*really* important enough for me to disturb him?? Or, would you rather
I just tell him that you called??"

The "secretary" analogy/model is a good one, I feel. A "good"
secretary knows your habits, preferences, priorities, etc. and
can make decisions based on those.

E.g., if you are "in the conference room", chances are, you
won't want to take a call from a friend/acquaintance/sales rep.
If you're in "the corner office" -- along with several other
executives -- an incoming call from your SO should probably have
a higher threshold set for interruption: "Should I interrupt
his meeting with the execs?" ("No, just tell him I called and
ask him to please get back to me when he can")

Reading between the lines, it looks like you're heading for a computer
based automatic attendent or possibly and IVR (interactive voice
response) system. You could probably purchase an IVR system and do
most of what you're proposing. I've setup three for various
businesses in the past. They work reasonably well and will block most
attempts to circumvent the system. Basically, disarm the default
"Punch zero for operator" function and you'll be fine. Please don't
get clever and have the caller do a math problem and punch in the
result on the touch tone pad. That has already been proven to be a
bad idea because of the condition of the American educational system.
Such IVR systems are boring and offer little in the way of
entertainment value for the product designer. They also require some
equally boring programming and configuration in order to operate
properly.

Instead, I propose detecting the callers accent, and route the call to
either the desired party, or to a black hole depending on the their
accent. There's plenty of research on the speech recognition and
accents. For example:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/accent/

What do we do with friends, neighbors, clients, etc. that have the
"wrong" accent? :>

I suspect such accent filters might already be available. I've
received telemarketing calls from what I presume is India, that
started out with a pre-recorded message in perfect English, but when I
started speaking, was taken over by someone with a very thick and
unintelligible accent. The only reason I could think of doing that is
to bypass an accent filter. Therefore, some IVR style filtering will
be required, such as asking "Who is the president of the US of A"? or
"What time is it"?

Yet another idea. Many years ago, I had a problem on the local ham on
our radio club VHF repeater system. We had a legally licensed user
that was becoming a nusance. He was asked to not use the radio club
repeater, but refused. I decided to build a filter, set to detect
this operator, and have the repeater turn itself off when he appeared.
I tried using various radio signature identification schemes, which
proved not sufficiently reliable. Next, I devised a speech
recognition system that compared a recording of him identifying with
his call sign, with the current digitized receiver audio stream. If
it detected a match, the repeater would turn off for a few minutes. It
worked amazingly well, until he found out what was happening and
changed his manner of identification.

Access to services like that are best not *gated*. It is too obvious.
(like software that refuses to run because it is "unlicensed").

A more effective deterent is to *degrade* the service so it just looks
flakey/buggy. E.g., inject "noise", "randomly" drop the carrier, etc.
So, the unwanted user doesn't realize he is being targeted but, instead,
thinks the service is "crap". (and walks away INSTEAD of trying to
figure out how you are blocking him)

It might be possible to arrange for a recording of anyone that has an
excuse to call your phone and compare the recordings with the same
phrase spoken by the caller. In other words, an audio password.
Saying their own name should be sufficient to identify and
authenticate the caller. This has the advantage of not requiring
someone on a smartphone to punch buttons while driving and using a
hands free system, where the keypad is not easily accessible.

I think I should be able to characterize their speech - given enough
of a sample. E.g., we all have "accents" of differing degrees.
How many folks mispronounce "salmon"? Or, say "yes" as "yeah" or
"yup"? "The" as "thuh" or "thee"? etc. Plus, the coloration of
their vowels, etc.

Getting the "reference sample" should be easy -- just listen in on
a conversation with that party. Analyze it when you have "spare MIPS".
Then, update a database with those characterizations (along with the
CID encountered, time of day, day of week, etc. -- anything from
which you may be able to deduce a recognizable pattern!)

The trick, thereafter, is to be able to map your future encounters
with this (as yet unidentified) individual with the database of
previously encountered callers. And, do so interactively (so an
adversary can't just play a recording of a trusted individual
saying "hello")

> Good luck with your project.

*Toys*! :>

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:11:08 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 9/14/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

If this ultimate telemarketing call filter just happens to be a
computah, the answering machine function could be built in. A common
8GB SDHC card should be sufficient for recording messages and storing
a call record. The rest is software.

Practice typing "computer". Your use of computah is somewhat annoying.

My apologies for only being somewhat annoying.

I have no plans to adjust my spelling to accommodate your personal
preferences. However, as a consolation, I'll try to use the
dictionary spelling instead of the way it's commonly pronounced in our
correspondence and usenet replies. Feel free to remind me should I
forget.

>Or, is that your goal?

No. If I wanted to annoy you, you would have been visited by at least
5 out of 10 biblical plagues, various government officials trying to
be helpful, and telemarketers with incomprehensible accents. The
electrolytics in your electronics would all simultaneously overheat,
outgas, and leak. Everything you own would refuse to continue
functioning without an expensive upgrade. All your power devices
would be recalled as fire hazards. Your monitor would be stuck in
640x480 mode. You would discover that your friends are all
simulations and live in virtual machines. I would also have
constructed a clone of your computah, err... computer, stick pins into
the motherboard, and by the magic of sympathetic voodoo, your computer
would fail in the same manner. Since none of the aforementioned
disasters has happened to you, it would be fair to assume that I have
no interest in annoying you.

Well, maybe a tiny annoyance.
Google reports 59,400 hits for "computah".
<https://www.google.com/#q=computah>
Seems to be growing in popularity. About 2 years ago, it was half
that number.

Also, thanks for the link to Smith v3.10. It looks quite good and
I'll give it a try.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Don Y]

On 9/14/2014 12:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:59:04 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure how the unit will know you are asleep...

I had an IR motion detector wired to my computer and media player.
When I woke up in the morning, it would turn on these devices. When I
left for the office or went to sleep, they would turn off after a 15
min delay. I had some falsing problems cause by reflections from
passing cars, neighbors borrowing tools, post-midnight fridge raids,
and my time share cat, but in general it worked well enough to
determine if I was home. An IR motion detector room occupancy sensor
could be built into the authentication system to detect when one is
asleep.
http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Products/Pages/Sensors/Occupancy-Vacancy/Occupancy.aspx

A neighbor has a "security system/service". PIr detectors in every room
with an outside "exposure" (i.e., means by which an intruder could
potentially gain access -- windows, doors). Thus, essentially *every*
room has one! (except the guest bathroom which is "land-locked" -- and
the "hallway")

One could envision other technologies used to detect occupancy,
activity, *identity*.

[A local hospital track the locations of every employee on the campus]

Just knowing that an individual is in a particular room allows a lot
to be inferred (with some degree of accuracy) about his/her activities.

In a residential setting, there are only a few things that *tend* to
happen in a bathroom (shit, shower, shave, etc.). And, the amount of
time spent in the room can further refine the likely activity deduction.
If you can observe other things (e.g., are the lights on/off? exhaust
fan on/off? water running? etc.) then these observations can add to
your confidence re: a particular "diagnosis".

Exhaust fan on, water running at a significant rate --> shower.
Exhaust fan off, water running at a modest rate --> washing/shaving.
Exhaust fan on, occupied for a long time, no water --> smelly sh*t! :>
etc.

Of course, you can make a *wrong* deduction (maybe the user is repairing
some of the plumbing and has the fan on to vent the solder/flux fumes
from the propane torch)?

The same sort of things apply to institutional environments -- the
conference room *tends* to be used for meetings (if you can track
employee A, you can also know that employees B, Q and T are *also*
in that same room! More likely having a meeting than "playing poker"!)

[Note residential environments are harder to instrument -- people are
far more sensitive to "their money" than businesses are (stockholders'
money!). And, most businesses PLAN on a certain amount of "facilities
remodeling" in their annual budgets. Also, commercial properties tend
to lend themselves more readily to "modification" than do residences.

If the
phone is not answered it will pass the call to the regular answering
machine... which will require the ringer circuit, darn!

If this ultimate telemarketing call filter just happens to be a
computah, the answering machine function could be built in. A common
8GB SDHC card should be sufficient for recording messages and storing
a call record. The rest is software.

Famous last words: "the rest is software"! :>

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:45:36 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
Gave us:

Practice typing "computer". Your use of computah is somewhat annoying.

My apologies for only being somewhat annoying.

Perfect reply.

To be properly pedantic is to be so where it actually has a beneficial
outcome. Being pedantic over trivialisms is pretty fucking trivial
itself, from the get-go.

This ain't mil spec, and you (he) ain't the specifier of what is good,
right, civil, conventional, expected, implied or otherwise.

Rodney King said it best. And they gave the Nobel prize to that
booger picking retard, Arafat that year. A fucking PEACE PRIZE, no less!

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:28:36 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

>No. What I really want is an "electronic secretary".

It's been tried before:
<http://www.rexophone.com/?p=1138>

The "secretary" analogy/model is a good one, I feel. A "good"
secretary knows your habits, preferences, priorities, etc. and
can make decisions based on those.

It's much easier to have the electronic secretary run your life for
you than for it to guess what you're going to do next. For example,
the electronic secretary could prepare your schedule for you and
enforce compliance with the schedule through various unpleasant ways.
I vaguely recall a 1950's sci-fi story that revolved around that
theme.

E.g., if you are "in the conference room", chances are, you
won't want to take a call from a friend/acquaintance/sales rep.
If you're in "the corner office" -- along with several other
executives -- an incoming call from your SO should probably have
a higher threshold set for interruption: "Should I interrupt
his meeting with the execs?" ("No, just tell him I called and
ask him to please get back to me when he can")

The problem is that you're building a state machine with an unknown
number of states. You can do that successfully, but only to the point
where you go insane trying to define all possible states for all
possible input conditions. There are AI (artificial intelligence)
programs that will do that. I've scribbled one program each in Prolog
and LISP to see what they were like. More successfully, I worked on a
telephone answering contrivance, that used a state machine to
determine the outcome of all possible input conditions. The state
table was wall size. (The flow chart fit on letter size page). It's
not like you have only two possible states for your machine (i.e.
answer phone, don't answer phone). You also have a wide collection of
possible actions that can be performed for either state. What makes
this work is that with a state machine, everything happens at the same
time with storage for prior states. It can be done with a big lookup
table if necessary.

There are various schemes to help simplify the programming. One is to
assign a "value" to each input and a "cost" to each output. For
example, on a scale of 0-9, a call from the family would be a 9, while
an obvious telemarketer detection would be a zero. Various
acquaintances would have assigned "values" as would your location,
time of day, and what else you might be doing. Any state that exceeds
some threshold, answers the call. Below that threshold, the call is
dealt with according to a "cost". For example, dumping to voice mail
is cheap. SMS message alert to your cell phone is expensive.

The down side to such a state machine is that you can easily create
undefined states. That's where a combination of inputs has not been
defined and the state machine has no clue what to do with it. An
early ATM machine did that when someone forgot to program in the input
state of the cash drawer. The machine thought the transaction hadn't
been completed and failed to deduct the amount from the users account.
Repeating the cash withdrawal over and over until the drawer was
finally opened, was recorded as a single withdrawal.

Your electronic secretary has far too many input states to be
manageable. Off the top of my thinning head:
1. CID (caller ID)
2. Time of day
3. Local activity (meeting, lunch, busy, working, etc)
4. Your location
5. Remote activity (driving, meeting, travel, airport, bus, etc)
6. Urgency level
7. Human telemarketer detection
8. Machine telemarketer detection
9. Value of caller
10. Cost of call disposition (Voicemail, SMS, ring through, forward)
11. Occupancy detector (did you step out?)
12. Alarms and alerts (computer failure, heartbeat, autoreboot,
connectivity loss, power fail).
13. Priority bypass and over-ride.
14. Remote message playback request.
15. Local intercom.
16. Whatever else I forgot.
Now, all you need to do it put together a chart for every possible
condition and state of these inputs, to decide what to do with the
incoming phone call. Got the picture?

Instead, I propose detecting the callers accent, and route the call to
either the desired party, or to a black hole depending on the their
accent. There's plenty of research on the speech recognition and
accents. For example:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/accent/

What do we do with friends, neighbors, clients, etc. that have the
"wrong" accent? :

Lots of ways to bypass the system:
1. CID (caller ID) from known caller. Note that you should check
both the calling number and the associated ID. Both can be spoofed,
but it's unlikely that a telemarketer will get the ID correct.
2. Touch tone a bypass code.
3. Voice recognition bypass.
4. Hangup and call back. System detects two sequential calls from
the same CID.

The trick, thereafter, is to be able to map your future encounters
with this (as yet unidentified) individual with the database of
previously encountered callers.

Actually, the trick is to have more than one recording of each
individual with which to compare. Unfortunately, that's not always
possible. Time for some math. Ideally, it would be someone saying
the same word or phrase through various devices (POTS, VoIP, cell
phone, Bluetooth). Each sounds sufficiently different to make
identification possible. I had the advantage of a phase that was
present in most transmissions (the FCC call sign) which also provided
a form of identification. Very roughly, my address book has about 500
names. If I store 5 seconds of a phrase, with 6 different devices,
I'll have 30 seconds of recordings to compare per caller. With 500
possible callers, that's searching 250 minutes of recordings per call.
I gave up trying to compare compressed audio, so that's about 2
Mbytes/minute or 500 MBytes of data that has to be searched and
compared continuously for each call. If I'm looking at a 5 second
window, then I'll be searching at:
500 MBytes * 8 bits/byte / 5 sec = 800 MHz
I other words, my brute force method is not going to happen with a
commodity PC.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:03:57 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

One could envision other technologies used to detect occupancy,
activity, *identity*.

I worked on a proposal for a nuclear power plant that wanted to know
the location of literally everyone at all times. We didn't get the
contract, but did participate in the inevitable compromises until the
bitter end. The problem was that they wanted to know if anyone was
trapped inside a room or building in the even of a nuclear incident.
There were various systems proposed for identification (mine was an IR
transponder on an ID badge) but all were rejected as being unusable
during an emergency, especially when everyone tries to squeeze through
the doorway bottlenecks. After the usual acrimonious yelling and
screaming, it was decided to keep it simple and just track people
going in and out of the doorways. There were only 20 doorways that
needed monitoring. They gave up on individual identification and just
settled on counting people going in and out which was done with two
PIR detectors per doorway. They couldn't do activity and identity,
but occupancy was possible.

Expanding on this, you could issue everyone an RF ID badge, and track
their location. The technology for this already exists. There are
some technical problems, but the real problem is human. People forget
their ID badges. The local hospital has such a system. I can get
real numbers if you want, but my guess is that on any given day, at
least 5% of the staff has forgotten their electronic door keys, ID
badges, or both. They pickup temporary cards at the security office
and then forget to return them.

Just knowing that an individual is in a particular room allows a lot
to be inferred (with some degree of accuracy) about his/her activities.

True, if you're consistent. I'm not. For example, I arrive anywhere
between 8AM and 1PM. lunch is anywhere between 10AM and 3PM. I leave
anywhere between 5PM and midnight.

>In a residential setting,

I'm sure the family will be thrilled with your requirement that they
carry RF ID cards and have their activities monitored.

Of course, you can make a *wrong* deduction (maybe the user is repairing
some of the plumbing and has the fan on to vent the solder/flux fumes
from the propane torch)?

I've worked on several "smart home" systems. Something like this, but
more customized:
<http://www.elanhomesystems.com>
One of them has a voice control feature. You say the magic words and
the computah, err... computer, responds with the desired action. The
system has some intelligence. For example, telling it to turn on the
lights when the lights are already turned on, will produce a
computerized question asking for clarification. There are sensors
scattered around the house to deal with the HVAC system which includes
an occupancy sensor system. It's not to track users so that phone
calls can be directed to the correct room. It's simply to turn off
the heat or cooling in rooms that are not being used. Batting average
for getting right is about 95%, which means that the HVAC system is
wasting expensive gas and electricity for 18 days per year. Swell.

Automation is fine. Predictive automation is a problem (see DARPA
autonomous vehicle trials for an example).

Have you considered that this project might be a bit too ambitious?
If not, have you considered that instrumenting the house and office in
the manner you suggest might be overkill for simply answering a
telephone? Rube Goldberg comes to mind, where the complexity of the
system is far in excess of what is required to accomplish a simple
task.

>Famous last words: "the rest is software"! :>

That works for me because I'm not a programmist.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Don Y]

On 9/14/2014 11:42 AM, rickman wrote:

You also have to allow for it to be spoken in case the caller can't
emit DTMF during the call.

I don't. I can't remember the last time I couldn't send a DTMF tone.

My parents have a *dial* telephone.

Why can't your system count dial pulses? Got to be easier than voice
recognition.

If you "dial" while a call is in progress, you stand a good chance of
dropping the call. (At least this is how things *used* to be. I can
dig out a dial phone and try it on our current service. Of course,
no guarantee that that will speak for the nation as a whole...)

"Easier" implies "easier for the DEVELOPER". I prefer to makelife
easier for the *user*!

Do all VoIP systems alow tones to be generated by the station set?
Even after the call has been placed?

If you "borrow" the phone at your MD/Dentist/Retail/etc. location,
do they *hand* you the phone? Or, dial for you and hand you the
*receiver* (because the phone is located someplace convenient for
*them* to access, not "guests"/visiors)?

If you are driving, do you want to again bring your eyes to the
phone to type in a code number?

[And, why are so many VRT systems replacing the old DTMF interaction
with voice response?]

DTMF is for the convenience of the DEVICE implementer, not the user.

Great, how well does voice work in the presence of noise? I don't use a
cell phone while driving, it's too dangerous.

VRT/IVR systems are only *increasing* in popularity as vendors try
to replace minimum wage humans with zero-wage machines.

If you try to address an *unconstrained* vocabulary, the problem is
far more difficult than if you inherently limit the user to picking
from a shorter list of words (which can be *deliberately* chosen to
be more easily "distinguishable").

For example, the selections {beam, beat, bean, beak} would be a
*really* bad choice! OTOH, {beam, sick, tan, case} would be much
more reliable (note I have just made up two four-word sets without
concern for the *application*)

This is why it is relatively easy to RELIABLY recognize things like
account "numbers" in speech. And, why resllving SPELLED words
would be considerably harder (more choices -- 26 vs 10 -- and
more "close" sounds -- 'ess' vs. 'eff', 'bee' vs. 'pee', etc.)

This will stop the robo calls.

It will stop the calls whereby a robot dialer AND TALKER deliver the
message. But, if the dialer is automated and hands off the call
to a human once the circuit is complete (answered), then the human
can listen to your message and comply.

I find very few of those. They usually listen for someone answering the
phone and many start their own blurb before asking you to wait for the
handoff. Do you really need to stop all the annoying calls or just get
the 98th percentile?

Most robocalls, here, wait for the callee to answer. Then, within a
second -- perhaps two -- you can hear a human come on the line.They have
obviously designed their systems for this handoff to be very
quick -- much longer than two seconds and I suspect folks would be in
the process of hanging up ("crank call") before they got on the line.

How many calls do you expect your secretary to let "slip through"?

I can't afford a secretary just to screen my calls. Will your device
also make coffee when you ask?

How does making coffee relate to "PSTN Authentication"?

> Will it find your missing umbrella when it raining?

See above.

There are lots of things a machine just won't ever be able
to do effectively.

Secretaries used to answer the phone and "take messages". Then, we
created answering machines! Secretaries used to "take dictation";
now we have Dragon Dictate.

Folks who previously couldn't "afford a secretary" *can* afford an
answering machine, speech recognition software, etc.

If I'm in my bedroom and haven't moved from there for 10 minutes, the
chances are: I'm asleep!

Similarly, if I am in the bathroom, I *probably* don't want to take the
call.

If I'm in the back yard, I probably don't want to be disturbed for
"just anyone".

And, I sure as hell don't want *every* phone ringing if it knows
I'm "at" a particular phone!

I think you are designing a secretary. How does your phone know where
you are?

Not germane to the question at hand. Rather, an example of how you can
*use* authentication in a larger context.

How does *your* secretary know where you are? Is she seated outside
your office door so she can watch you come and go? Do you regularly
tell her where you will be when leaving? Do you work in an "open"
floorplan so she can see clear across the building and notice you
chatting with the VP 60 ft away? Do you maintain a "pegboard" (or
other notification system) to indicate that you are out of the office?
Does she know about the 12:30 staff meeting (and naturally *assume*
you are there)? Does she know your habits well enough to predict
where you are *likely* to be?

[Assume a client had charged you with designing a system that could
track and report your "location". Could you do it?]

Only with GPS but then that is useless info. Your system needs to know
*why* you are where you are.

You aren't thinking hard enough! :> There are lots of ways to
determine *without* GPS! When you go shopping in your favorite
department store, the overhead cameras aren't just watching to
have a record of any shoplifting activities; rather, they are
also tracking your movement through the store and, eventually to
a cash register (and a specific *transaction* at that cash register!).

If you stopped in "Sporting Goods", then, presumably, you were
*interested* in those products (you don't go looking for bath
towels in that department!).

If you're in the kitchen, you are probably either:
- preparing a meal
- cleaning up from a meal
- routine housecleaning
- grabbing a quick snack/beverage
etc.

You probably are NOT:
- taking a crap
- sleeping
- reading a suspense novel
- mowing the lawn
- changing the oil in your vehicle
etc.

"Place" is a pretty good predictor of "activity". You can further
qualify this with simple things like "time of day" (e.g., chances
are, if I am in the kitchen at 5P then I am probably doing something
"meal related"), accumulated knowledge of the user's habits, etc.
(I have a friend who "sleep eats"!) Note that you dont care what
*specifically* the user is doing in those places. Rather, you are
concerned with the *types* of activities in which he *may* be
engaged!

If you're in the kitchen (for any length of time -- ruling out "grabbing
a quick snack/beverage), then the activities in which you are likely to
be involved will *tend* to be similar -- in terms of your willingness to
"answer the phone", "respond to an incoming email", etc.

In a business environment, equivalent patterns exist: the Monday
afternoon staff meeting; hosting sales reps just after lunch; debugging
in the lab; etc.

I am the secretary. If I had one she would be very pretty and I won't
mention her other duties... Not looking for a machine to replace that
function... lol

You do this a lot in your posts. You start going off on what appear to
be tangents because you have not explained most of what is going on. So
you are going to wire all your doors (and windows so the system knows if
you have used a fire escape and call 911)? What else will this system
monitor that you haven't mentioned? I think this is going to be a
multi-thousand dollar system by the time it is done.

If you've watched my posts over the past year or so, I've discussed
other aspects of this "system".

If you haven't -- or haven't paid attention -- then there is nothing
*missing* from my original post that affects "PSTN Authentication".
Do I have to describe how I intend to use a particular capability
before it can be considered or designed? Haven't I clearly stated
my goal in describing an "automated attendant" and the parallels to
a "good secretary"?

LOL, that is rich, I'm supposed to trace your posts over the years!!!

Your post said it would do different things based on where you were
without saying anything about how it would know. Let's face it, using a
door is a poor indicator of where you are. You go to the garage for any
number of things and the unit will think you are away. But it is your
system, you can make it do what you want. I just don't see how it would
be of value to anyone else.

Who said "using a door"? C'mon, I'm disappointed at how unimaginative
you're being! You *can't* come up with an ECONOMICAL way of telling
where I am in a particular "edifice"??

The industry trend seems to be contrary to your intuition -- witness
all the money moving into home automation, etc. Apple wants to
"have your house welcome you home" (by sensing when your cell phone
returns to the premises). You don't think they haven't considered
watching your cell phone's "travels" through the house to *also*
cater to you?? (how many folks effectively *wear* their cell
phones? Almost like a piece of JEWELRY! Like, maybe, a WATCH!!!)

If Bob calls answer the phone and tell him you are on the way
yourself!

I'm not *at* the phone that Bob has called! Or, I *may* be yet don't
want to get drawn into a conversation with Bob which will delay
everything *else* I may have planned.

[Again, think: good secretary!]

You mean mind reader?

If the device has been TOLD to "give Bob the following message", how
is that reading minds?

That is totally different from "I may be...". Just say I want the system
to recognize a caller and give him a selected message. Isn't that simple?

Because that requires the user to "do everything". What good is a
secretary that has to be told how to handle every contingency?
A *good* secretary learns your preferences, habits, priorities, etc.
and adapts them to new situations.

E.g., if you chose to NEVER take a call from Fred "after 9PM",
then why can't it learn from OBSERVING your behavior (like your
secretary) and *hide* incoming calls from Fred at those times?
Why should the user have to EXPLICITLY "program" every action?
(i.e., "told how to handle every contingency")

Connecting your smart phone to a bunch of BT peripherals (lights,
HVAC, doorbell, etc.) does *nothing* (that you couldn't also do in
1970) to change your way of life. It just saves you a few steps
to the lightswitch, thermostat, etc.

What you want from "systems" is for them to anticipate your needs
and adapt to them.

E.g. instead of "programming" your thermostat to different temperature
settings at various times on various days of the week, why not just
*change* the temperature to be what you want it to be -- and let the
thermostat *watch* what you have been doing (over the course of
days, weeks, months, etc.). You end up with a very different UX!

"Gee, with my smartphone, I can call home and turn the ACbrrr on
*before* I get home so it is comfortable when I arrive!"

(Um, why doesn't your ACbrrr know to turn *itself* on in anticipation
of your returning home at 5:13-5:17 eh evening??)

A "good secretary" would know -- from empirical observation ("Sheesh!
Every time I get Bob on the phone, I've got to hear about his *kids*
for 20 minutes!") -- that calls from Bob shouldn't be passed through
when there is a schedule to be met.

More mind reading... how does the system know you have a schedule to meet.

See above.

We are creature of habit. At home. At work. etc.

If you have a device that is *on* 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year doing nothing *but* answering the phone (and watching
*hen* YOU choose to do so, etc)then why can't it LEARN from those
observations instead of forcing the user to *tell* it how to handle
each condition?

If you carefully look at how you live *your* life, you'll find there
are big patterns to which you have grown so accustomed that they are
invisible!

What time do you go to bed? Wake up? Do you shower just before bed
or just after rising? Coffee in the morning? Or, only on those
mornings when you "weren't late"? Late night snacks? Read before
bed? Leisurely showers or "functional" ones? Stopo at the gym
on tuesdays and thursdays?

I have thought of all these things just in my cell phone ringer setting.
I've yet to figure out an approach that would let it select a setting
even remotely automatically. I find there are far too many exceptions
and I can't remember to manually adjust it every time, so invariably I
end up missing calls or being disturbed when I don't want to be.

Because it doesn't have the capabilities that a "good secretary" would
have! And, it is too tedious for you to have to tell it how to handle
every contingency!

E.g., if we receive calls while preparing a meal (or, ABOUT to do so),
we don't bother to answer -- because we are BUSY with something "time
sensitive" (the food will spoil or our stomachs will complain). The
caller can try back later... instead of us answering, engaging in
pleasantries for some number of minutes, then begging off so we can get
back to a meal that HOPEFULLY hasn't gone cold during the interruption.

Exactly, you don't have to answer. YOU are the best filter.

AND, something that can SEE how I respond to EVERY situation can
make some deductions from that! (coupled with some general rules
that I can pre-state to "prime the pump").

This is how a good secretary works. He/she "knows" you.

Once you
eliminate the ones who can't, or won't press "xy" you are down to a very
few who will ring the phone. The rest I can decide whether to answer or
not.

Ok, I see three classes of callers.

1) Spammers - don't ring the phone and don't take a message.
2) Low priority calls - go to answering machine without ringing.
3) High priority calls - ring phone, go to machine on no answer

I want more than that. I want to know who is calling so I can
use that information to *tailor* a response.

E.g., if I am "expecting a call", then I really DON'T want most
of the normal rules to apply! I want to "keep the line free"
(because, even with Call Waiting, I can't know the identity of
the *waiting* caller!) waiting for *that* caller.

If *I* call in, I may want to "leave instructions" for how calls
should be handled in the immediate future ("If Bob calls wondering
where I am, tell him I've had car troubles and will be a little
late"). Or, retrieve messages.

The members of 2 and 3 varies bases on my privacy setting. Caller ID can
be used for all three selections since any ID I don't recognize is in
group 1. Group 1 callers get a message telling them they are not
recognized and to contact me another way.

Here is a problem. Someone I know calls me for help and uses a different
phone, the system rejects their call. Even if voice recognition is used,
noise in the environment may prevent that from working. How do they get
past the system and reach me? The prompt needs to give a code for even
class 1 callers to bypass the system and ring the phone. Perhaps with a
different ring pattern which will tell me this is a class 1 caller.

The BIGGER problem is: "This is Dr Welby calling from The Local
Hospital. Your offspring/spouse is here in our ER in a life
threatening situation. We need you to come in and give your
consent..."

("Telemarketers, please press 1. Friends and family, press 2.
Doctors looking for emergency contact, press 7" :-/ )

How do you handle the folks who YOU may want to have access to you
(via the phone) but that may not feel obliged to deal with your
"system"?

"Screw this! Let him *wonder* why his kids haven't returned from
school, yet. Or, hear about the accident on the evening news..."

If you are calling you know to press "abcd" before the machine prompts
you for "xy".

Too easy for someone to notice. I much prefer spending extra effort
"training" it to my voice and then engaging in an authentication dialog
(even the number of words required for me to command it to perform a
specific action increases the chance of it verifying *my* speech
characteristics)

Good luck. I think this will be some time showing up.

I have no goal of it EVER "showing up" -- for anyone OTHER than me! :
Thankfully, I have the money, resources and skills to pull it off
without having to wait for a vendor to do a (poor) job of it --- with a
"limited imagination"!

Yes, well they are trying to actually provide something that does the
job as opposed to thinking about it forever.

I've already got those "poor" solutions. And, no sign that ANYONE is
"thinking about it" -- AT ALL (let alone "forever"!)

C'mon...this isn't a "new" problem. And, doesn't rely on "new"
technology. So, why are all ofthese solutions that "do the job"
leaving *so* much to be desired? (why do you *still* receive
telemarketing calls? political surveys? etc. "No market"
for such a GOOD device???)

I guess they must think they are doing a DIFFERENT job!

 

[rickman]

On 9/14/2014 3:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:59:04 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure how the unit will know you are asleep...

I had an IR motion detector wired to my computer and media player.
When I woke up in the morning, it would turn on these devices.

You keep making jumps in logic. An IR detector can't tell if you are
asleep or not. It can't tell if you are at the office.

When I
left for the office or went to sleep, they would turn off after a 15
min delay. I had some falsing problems cause by reflections from
passing cars, neighbors borrowing tools, post-midnight fridge raids,
and my time share cat, but in general it worked well enough to
determine if I was home.

It also can't tell if you have gone to the kitchen or bathroom or
whatever. It is very hard for a computer system to tell what you are
actually doing and why you are in a given room. I know in my lifestyle
this sort of thing would be pointless.

An IR motion detector room occupancy sensor
could be built into the authentication system to detect when one is
asleep.
http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Products/Pages/Sensors/Occupancy-Vacancy/Occupancy.aspx

If the
phone is not answered it will pass the call to the regular answering
machine... which will require the ringer circuit, darn!

If this ultimate telemarketing call filter just happens to be a
computah, the answering machine function could be built in. A common
8GB SDHC card should be sufficient for recording messages and storing
a call record. The rest is software.

Yep if that is what you want. But that doesn't get you a cordless
phone. Mine already has the answering machine built in complete with
remote access. Why reinvent the wheel?

--

Rick

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:14:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

I've worked on several "smart home" systems. Something like this, but
more customized:
http://www.elanhomesystems.com
One of them has a voice control feature. You say the magic words and
the computah, err... computer, responds with the desired action.

Incidentally (an intro to topic drift), you can get the same effect
using Google Voice Search. It should work if your computah, errr...
computer, has an attached microphone.
<https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/3542118?hl=en>
Run Google Chrome. Go to:
Settings -> Advanced Settings -> Privacy
and check the box labeled
[x] Enable "OK Google" to start Voice Search
Then, bring up Google search. You'll see a small microphone on the
right side of the search box. Just say "OK Google" followed by
whatever you want to lookup. If you have your speakers enabled,
sometimes the answer will spew from the speakers.

I like to leave open a window with Chrome running so that I can ask
stupid questions. Favorite questions are "what time is it" and
"current weather". A favorite demo is "how far to Dominican
hospital". It's also good for unit conversions. Try "convert 10 feet
to meters" or "convert 22 miles per gallon to liters per kilometer"
and the usual math problems. Also physical constants. Try
"Boltzman's constant" or "Planck's constant". More:
<https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1331723?hl=en>

It's not quite ready to run your life for you, but that will probably
be a feature in the next release.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[rickman]

On 9/14/2014 6:14 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 9/14/2014 11:42 AM, rickman wrote:

You also have to allow for it to be spoken in case the caller can't
emit DTMF during the call.

I don't. I can't remember the last time I couldn't send a DTMF tone.

My parents have a *dial* telephone.

Why can't your system count dial pulses? Got to be easier than voice
recognition.

If you "dial" while a call is in progress, you stand a good chance of
dropping the call. (At least this is how things *used* to be. I can
dig out a dial phone and try it on our current service. Of course,
no guarantee that that will speak for the nation as a whole...)

You must have been in some other country. I've never been able to drop
a call by pulse dialing. In fact it used to be common for systems to
accept pulses as well as DTMF.

"Easier" implies "easier for the DEVELOPER". I prefer to makelife
easier for the *user*!

Go for it! I won't wait for your solution. I may not live that long.

Do all VoIP systems alow tones to be generated by the station set?
Even after the call has been placed?

If you "borrow" the phone at your MD/Dentist/Retail/etc. location,
do they *hand* you the phone? Or, dial for you and hand you the
*receiver* (because the phone is located someplace convenient for
*them* to access, not "guests"/visiors)?

If you are driving, do you want to again bring your eyes to the
phone to type in a code number?

[And, why are so many VRT systems replacing the old DTMF interaction
with voice response?]

DTMF is for the convenience of the DEVICE implementer, not the user.

Great, how well does voice work in the presence of noise? I don't use a
cell phone while driving, it's too dangerous.

VRT/IVR systems are only *increasing* in popularity as vendors try
to replace minimum wage humans with zero-wage machines.

If you try to address an *unconstrained* vocabulary, the problem is
far more difficult than if you inherently limit the user to picking
from a shorter list of words (which can be *deliberately* chosen to
be more easily "distinguishable").

For example, the selections {beam, beat, bean, beak} would be a
*really* bad choice! OTOH, {beam, sick, tan, case} would be much
more reliable (note I have just made up two four-word sets without
concern for the *application*)

This is why it is relatively easy to RELIABLY recognize things like
account "numbers" in speech. And, why resllving SPELLED words
would be considerably harder (more choices -- 26 vs 10 -- and
more "close" sounds -- 'ess' vs. 'eff', 'bee' vs. 'pee', etc.)

Yep, they work well when you are calling from your quiet living room.
They are crap when calling from a cell phone on the highway.

This will stop the robo calls.

It will stop the calls whereby a robot dialer AND TALKER deliver the
message. But, if the dialer is automated and hands off the call
to a human once the circuit is complete (answered), then the human
can listen to your message and comply.

I find very few of those. They usually listen for someone answering the
phone and many start their own blurb before asking you to wait for the
handoff. Do you really need to stop all the annoying calls or just get
the 98th percentile?

Most robocalls, here, wait for the callee to answer. Then, within a
second -- perhaps two -- you can hear a human come on the line.They have
obviously designed their systems for this handoff to be very
quick -- much longer than two seconds and I suspect folks would be in
the process of hanging up ("crank call") before they got on the line.

How many calls do you expect your secretary to let "slip through"?

I can't afford a secretary just to screen my calls. Will your device
also make coffee when you ask?

How does making coffee relate to "PSTN Authentication"?

Think <secretary>

Will it find your missing umbrella when it raining?

See above.

See above.

There are lots of things a machine just won't ever be able
to do effectively.

Secretaries used to answer the phone and "take messages". Then, we
created answering machines! Secretaries used to "take dictation";
now we have Dragon Dictate.

Folks who previously couldn't "afford a secretary" *can* afford an
answering machine, speech recognition software, etc.

What does that have to do with *your* gadget? Will your gadget be a PC
running Dragon Dictate?

If I'm in my bedroom and haven't moved from there for 10 minutes, the
chances are: I'm asleep!

Similarly, if I am in the bathroom, I *probably* don't want to take
the
call.

If I'm in the back yard, I probably don't want to be disturbed for
"just anyone".

And, I sure as hell don't want *every* phone ringing if it knows
I'm "at" a particular phone!

I think you are designing a secretary. How does your phone know where
you are?

Not germane to the question at hand. Rather, an example of how you can
*use* authentication in a larger context.

How does *your* secretary know where you are? Is she seated outside
your office door so she can watch you come and go? Do you regularly
tell her where you will be when leaving? Do you work in an "open"
floorplan so she can see clear across the building and notice you
chatting with the VP 60 ft away? Do you maintain a "pegboard" (or
other notification system) to indicate that you are out of the office?
Does she know about the 12:30 staff meeting (and naturally *assume*
you are there)? Does she know your habits well enough to predict
where you are *likely* to be?

[Assume a client had charged you with designing a system that could
track and report your "location". Could you do it?]

Only with GPS but then that is useless info. Your system needs to know
*why* you are where you are.

You aren't thinking hard enough! :> There are lots of ways to
determine *without* GPS! When you go shopping in your favorite
department store, the overhead cameras aren't just watching to
have a record of any shoplifting activities; rather, they are
also tracking your movement through the store and, eventually to
a cash register (and a specific *transaction* at that cash register!).

So your system will tap into the store's video and look for you?

If you stopped in "Sporting Goods", then, presumably, you were
*interested* in those products (you don't go looking for bath
towels in that department!).

If you're in the kitchen, you are probably either:
- preparing a meal
- cleaning up from a meal
- routine housecleaning
- grabbing a quick snack/beverage
etc.

Or looking for the shoes I left somewhere other than the bedroom or
kitting my kayaking gear or feeding the cats or looking out the window
at the bird feeder or repairing my glasses with a steak knife or getting
frisky with a lady friend... such a long list, my PC only has 16 GB, I'm
not sure it can remember every possibility.

You probably are NOT:
- taking a crap
- sleeping
- reading a suspense novel
- mowing the lawn
- changing the oil in your vehicle
etc.

Other than the first two, I don't do any of those anywhere... Not very
useful info to anyone.

"Place" is a pretty good predictor of "activity". You can further
qualify this with simple things like "time of day" (e.g., chances
are, if I am in the kitchen at 5P then I am probably doing something
"meal related"), accumulated knowledge of the user's habits, etc.
(I have a friend who "sleep eats"!) Note that you dont care what
*specifically* the user is doing in those places. Rather, you are
concerned with the *types* of activities in which he *may* be
engaged!

If you're in the kitchen (for any length of time -- ruling out "grabbing
a quick snack/beverage), then the activities in which you are likely to
be involved will *tend* to be similar -- in terms of your willingness to
"answer the phone", "respond to an incoming email", etc.

I don't agree at all. Look at my list. Some are very interruptable and
others.. well not so much.

In a business environment, equivalent patterns exist: the Monday
afternoon staff meeting; hosting sales reps just after lunch; debugging
in the lab; etc.

Again, nonsense. I can be sitting at the exact same computer doing very
different work that has very different levels of interruptability. Or
not work at all again with different desired interrupt masks.

I am the secretary. If I had one she would be very pretty and I won't
mention her other duties... Not looking for a machine to replace that
function... lol

You do this a lot in your posts. You start going off on what appear to
be tangents because you have not explained most of what is going on. So
you are going to wire all your doors (and windows so the system
knows if
you have used a fire escape and call 911)? What else will this system
monitor that you haven't mentioned? I think this is going to be a
multi-thousand dollar system by the time it is done.

If you've watched my posts over the past year or so, I've discussed
other aspects of this "system".

If you haven't -- or haven't paid attention -- then there is nothing
*missing* from my original post that affects "PSTN Authentication".
Do I have to describe how I intend to use a particular capability
before it can be considered or designed? Haven't I clearly stated
my goal in describing an "automated attendant" and the parallels to
a "good secretary"?

LOL, that is rich, I'm supposed to trace your posts over the years!!!

Your post said it would do different things based on where you were
without saying anything about how it would know. Let's face it, using a
door is a poor indicator of where you are. You go to the garage for any
number of things and the unit will think you are away. But it is your
system, you can make it do what you want. I just don't see how it would
be of value to anyone else.

Who said "using a door"? C'mon, I'm disappointed at how unimaginative
you're being! You *can't* come up with an ECONOMICAL way of telling
where I am in a particular "edifice"??

The industry trend seems to be contrary to your intuition -- witness
all the money moving into home automation, etc. Apple wants to
"have your house welcome you home" (by sensing when your cell phone
returns to the premises). You don't think they haven't considered
watching your cell phone's "travels" through the house to *also*
cater to you?? (how many folks effectively *wear* their cell
phones? Almost like a piece of JEWELRY! Like, maybe, a WATCH!!!)

None of the above is any evidence that I am wrong. They make all sorts
of useless gadgets that are sold all over the world.

If Bob calls answer the phone and tell him you are on the way
yourself!

I'm not *at* the phone that Bob has called! Or, I *may* be yet don't
want to get drawn into a conversation with Bob which will delay
everything *else* I may have planned.

[Again, think: good secretary!]

You mean mind reader?

If the device has been TOLD to "give Bob the following message", how
is that reading minds?

That is totally different from "I may be...". Just say I want the system
to recognize a caller and give him a selected message. Isn't that simple?

Because that requires the user to "do everything". What good is a
secretary that has to be told how to handle every contingency?
A *good* secretary learns your preferences, habits, priorities, etc.
and adapts them to new situations.

"Learns"! Even a secretary has to be told.

E.g., if you chose to NEVER take a call from Fred "after 9PM",
then why can't it learn from OBSERVING your behavior (like your
secretary) and *hide* incoming calls from Fred at those times?
Why should the user have to EXPLICITLY "program" every action?
(i.e., "told how to handle every contingency")

Connecting your smart phone to a bunch of BT peripherals (lights,
HVAC, doorbell, etc.) does *nothing* (that you couldn't also do in
1970) to change your way of life. It just saves you a few steps
to the lightswitch, thermostat, etc.

What you want from "systems" is for them to anticipate your needs
and adapt to them.

Sounds great, but even my PC, arguably the smartest device I own, hasn't
figured how to "learn" the simplest of my repetitive behaviors. You
think my refrigerator will do any better?

E.g. instead of "programming" your thermostat to different temperature
settings at various times on various days of the week, why not just
*change* the temperature to be what you want it to be -- and let the
thermostat *watch* what you have been doing (over the course of
days, weeks, months, etc.). You end up with a very different UX!

Uh, my thermostat has already learned my behavior... for half the year
at a time anyway. Summer, 76°F, in the winter 68°F. I just have to
tell it when it is winter and when it is summer by changing the
temperature on the thermostat and changing "cool" to "heat".

"Gee, with my smartphone, I can call home and turn the ACbrrr on
*before* I get home so it is comfortable when I arrive!"

(Um, why doesn't your ACbrrr know to turn *itself* on in anticipation
of your returning home at 5:13-5:17 eh evening??)

Because I work from home?

A "good secretary" would know -- from empirical observation ("Sheesh!
Every time I get Bob on the phone, I've got to hear about his *kids*
for 20 minutes!") -- that calls from Bob shouldn't be passed through
when there is a schedule to be met.

More mind reading... how does the system know you have a schedule to
meet.

See above.

We are creature of habit. At home. At work. etc.

If you have a device that is *on* 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year doing nothing *but* answering the phone (and watching
*hen* YOU choose to do so, etc)then why can't it LEARN from those
observations instead of forcing the user to *tell* it how to handle
each condition?

If you carefully look at how you live *your* life, you'll find there
are big patterns to which you have grown so accustomed that they are
invisible!

What time do you go to bed? Wake up? Do you shower just before bed
or just after rising? Coffee in the morning? Or, only on those
mornings when you "weren't late"? Late night snacks? Read before
bed? Leisurely showers or "functional" ones? Stopo at the gym
on tuesdays and thursdays?

What have you been drinking? All of a sudden you are on an IA jag.

I have thought of all these things just in my cell phone ringer setting.
I've yet to figure out an approach that would let it select a setting
even remotely automatically. I find there are far too many exceptions
and I can't remember to manually adjust it every time, so invariably I
end up missing calls or being disturbed when I don't want to be.

Because it doesn't have the capabilities that a "good secretary" would
have! And, it is too tedious for you to have to tell it how to handle
every contingency!

No, it is impossible for my phone to know the difference between being
at lunch with someone I don't mind interrupting to take a call and
someone I don't want to interrupt, etc...

E.g., if we receive calls while preparing a meal (or, ABOUT to do so),
we don't bother to answer -- because we are BUSY with something "time
sensitive" (the food will spoil or our stomachs will complain). The
caller can try back later... instead of us answering, engaging in
pleasantries for some number of minutes, then begging off so we can get
back to a meal that HOPEFULLY hasn't gone cold during the interruption.

Exactly, you don't have to answer. YOU are the best filter.

AND, something that can SEE how I respond to EVERY situation can
make some deductions from that! (coupled with some general rules
that I can pre-state to "prime the pump").

This is how a good secretary works. He/she "knows" you.

I assume you don't mean "knows" in the Biblical sense?

Once you
eliminate the ones who can't, or won't press "xy" you are down to a very
few who will ring the phone. The rest I can decide whether to answer or
not.

Ok, I see three classes of callers.

1) Spammers - don't ring the phone and don't take a message.
2) Low priority calls - go to answering machine without ringing.
3) High priority calls - ring phone, go to machine on no answer

I want more than that. I want to know who is calling so I can
use that information to *tailor* a response.

E.g., if I am "expecting a call", then I really DON'T want most
of the normal rules to apply! I want to "keep the line free"
(because, even with Call Waiting, I can't know the identity of
the *waiting* caller!) waiting for *that* caller.

And you have to *tell* the system that, right?

If *I* call in, I may want to "leave instructions" for how calls
should be handled in the immediate future ("If Bob calls wondering
where I am, tell him I've had car troubles and will be a little
late"). Or, retrieve messages.

Again, this is far, far too complex to tell the system how to deal with
Bob, Ted and Alice every half hour.

The members of 2 and 3 varies bases on my privacy setting. Caller ID can
be used for all three selections since any ID I don't recognize is in
group 1. Group 1 callers get a message telling them they are not
recognized and to contact me another way.

Here is a problem. Someone I know calls me for help and uses a different
phone, the system rejects their call. Even if voice recognition is used,
noise in the environment may prevent that from working. How do they get
past the system and reach me? The prompt needs to give a code for even
class 1 callers to bypass the system and ring the phone. Perhaps with a
different ring pattern which will tell me this is a class 1 caller.

The BIGGER problem is: "This is Dr Welby calling from The Local
Hospital. Your offspring/spouse is here in our ER in a life
threatening situation. We need you to come in and give your
consent..."

Yeah, your phone is going to recognize that message... lol

("Telemarketers, please press 1. Friends and family, press 2.
Doctors looking for emergency contact, press 7" :-/ )

How do you handle the folks who YOU may want to have access to you
(via the phone) but that may not feel obliged to deal with your
"system"?

"Screw this! Let him *wonder* why his kids haven't returned from
school, yet. Or, hear about the accident on the evening news..."

You are really out there.

If you are calling you know to press "abcd" before the machine
prompts
you for "xy".

Too easy for someone to notice. I much prefer spending extra effort
"training" it to my voice and then engaging in an authentication
dialog
(even the number of words required for me to command it to perform a
specific action increases the chance of it verifying *my* speech
characteristics)

Good luck. I think this will be some time showing up.

I have no goal of it EVER "showing up" -- for anyone OTHER than me! :
Thankfully, I have the money, resources and skills to pull it off
without having to wait for a vendor to do a (poor) job of it --- with a
"limited imagination"!

Yes, well they are trying to actually provide something that does the
job as opposed to thinking about it forever.

I've already got those "poor" solutions. And, no sign that ANYONE is
"thinking about it" -- AT ALL (let alone "forever"!)

C'mon...this isn't a "new" problem. And, doesn't rely on "new"
technology. So, why are all ofthese solutions that "do the job"
leaving *so* much to be desired? (why do you *still* receive
telemarketing calls? political surveys? etc. "No market"
for such a GOOD device???)

I guess they must think they are doing a DIFFERENT job!

We have discussed getting rid of 99% of the robo and marketing calls.
There are even devices out there that do this. Most of what you suggest
is simply not practical or won't work well.

--

Rick