Apple's iOS 26 Text Filters Could Cost Political Campaigns Millions of Dollars (businessinsider.com) 91
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from Business Insider: Apple's new spam text filtering feature could end up being a multimillion-dollar headache for political campaigns. iOS 26 includes a new feature that allows users to filter text messages from unrecognized numbers into an "Unknown Senders" folder without sending a notification. Users can then go to that filter and hit "Mark as Known" or delete the message.
In a memo seen by BI and first reported by Punchbowl News, the official campaign committee in charge of electing GOP senators warned that the new feature could lead to a steep drop in revenue. "That change has profound implications for our ability to fundraise, mobilize voters, and run digital campaigns," reads a July 24 memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC. The memo estimated that the new feature could cost the group $25 million in lost revenue and lead to a $500 million loss for GOP campaigns as a whole, based on the estimate that 70% of small-dollar donations come from text messages and that iPhones make up 60% of mobile devices in the US. Apple's 'rules' for this new spam text filtering feature "aren't unclear at all," notes Daring Fireball's John Gruber. "If a sender is not in your saved contacts and you've never sent or responded to a text message from them, they're considered 'unknown.' That's it."
"The feature isn't even really new -- you've been able to filter messages like this in Messages for years now, but what iOS 26 changes is that it now has a new more prominent -- better, IMO -- interface for switching between filter views." It's also worth noting that there's no filtering by message content, so all political parties will be affected by this feature. "[T]here's no reason to believe that Republican candidates and groups will be more affected by this than Democratic ones," writes Gruber.
In a memo seen by BI and first reported by Punchbowl News, the official campaign committee in charge of electing GOP senators warned that the new feature could lead to a steep drop in revenue. "That change has profound implications for our ability to fundraise, mobilize voters, and run digital campaigns," reads a July 24 memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC. The memo estimated that the new feature could cost the group $25 million in lost revenue and lead to a $500 million loss for GOP campaigns as a whole, based on the estimate that 70% of small-dollar donations come from text messages and that iPhones make up 60% of mobile devices in the US. Apple's 'rules' for this new spam text filtering feature "aren't unclear at all," notes Daring Fireball's John Gruber. "If a sender is not in your saved contacts and you've never sent or responded to a text message from them, they're considered 'unknown.' That's it."
"The feature isn't even really new -- you've been able to filter messages like this in Messages for years now, but what iOS 26 changes is that it now has a new more prominent -- better, IMO -- interface for switching between filter views." It's also worth noting that there's no filtering by message content, so all political parties will be affected by this feature. "[T]here's no reason to believe that Republican candidates and groups will be more affected by this than Democratic ones," writes Gruber.
Seems strange to admit publicly. (Score:5, Insightful)
The electorate will forgive you a pointless quagmire war, a few hundred thousand surplus infectious disease deaths, or similar minor matters; but surely loathing of spam is not merely bipartisan but essentially universal. I'd assume that even 'direct marketing' scumbags don't enjoy sampling their colleagues' product involuntarily.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, from what I've seen - people only seem to think the OTHER* party is the spam party.
*OTHER = not your party, whichever one it is
Re:Seems strange to admit publicly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The truth can coincidentally align with politics (Score:2)
... it's just that they're different lies ...
Either party can be truthful. When the truth coincidentally aligns with the politics. :-)
Both teams leverage trust and naivety (Score:2)
To me the one who slings the childish insults, and lies constantly, is the "other" party.
As an independent, both Repub and Dem match that description. Seriously, we are tolerant of insults when they come from our team, we don't suspect lies when they come from our team. And both teams leverage that trust and naivety.
The truth is, when either party is telling the truth, it is because the truth is coincidentally in alignment with the politics.
Re: (Score:3)
This change will mean my wife stops missing messages from people she knows. It also means I won't spen
Re: (Score:2)
No primary source suggests that the effect would be partisan—that's editorializing by Daring Fireball writer John Gruber. The GOP letter, which is somewhat internal to the RNC fundraising effort, simply provides an estimate of their own lost revenue.
If you're an unknown sender, you go into the bin. Simple as.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're an unknown sender, you go into the bin. Simple as.
The big problem is Unknown Senders that you *do* want to hear from, often in a very timely manner:
--'Confirm your phone number' codes when signing up for an account on a new service/website.
--2-factor authentication codes. Sometimes the number that sends the codes is different than the number that sent the 'Confirm your phone number' message.
--'Is this your transaction or is it fraud?' requests from your bank or credit card provider.
--'Reply Y to confirm your appointment, reply CANCEL to cancel'.
Many o
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong, but first we must all take two minutes out of our days to laugh at the misfortune of political canvassers, whose methods should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
This feature allows ALL unrecognized numbers to be sent to the "Unknown Senders" folder, but users don't have to turn that feature on immediately. I have my phone set to display all messages and any that are obvious solicitations that I don't want to see again get added to my "Block Senders" list. Sure, the solicitors can call from random numbers but usually I o
Expected SMS number for alerts (Score:2)
Sometimes a business will send messages from multiple numbers (best case is out of a pool that they own, worst case is from their SMS provider's pool that is shared when other clients of the SMS provider.
Remembering to check your spam folder when requesting a 2FA or phone-number-verification code is a workaround, at least you know that you requested the code and are expecting it. Some of the other situations happen when you aren't expecting them so you don't know to check your spam folder.
Sending important alerts from random numbers is a big security NO-NO.
In fact, in the transaction alert case, if it's from some random number and not your bank's number, that most likely yet another phishing campaign trying to trick you into providing your info by pushing you using urgency (Omg, there might be a fraudulous transaction I need to check ASAP).
A medical appoint SMS from someone who is not your usual doctor or the official number of the usual platform their are using might also be potential infor
Re: (Score:3)
>"No primary source suggests that the effect would be partisanâ"that's editorializing by Daring Fireball writer John Gruber."
Bingo.
People love to twist everything to make it partisan. Both parties use SMS spamming, probably to the same extent.
Half the phones in the USA are Android. And on those, I know you can block (send to voicemail, not allowed to completely block under Android) "unknown" senders. I do it already with phone calls (free), and it will work with SMS as well, if wanted (paid versi
Re: (Score:2)
"No primary source suggests that the effect would be partisan"
Sure but MAGA grandparents don't receive ANY messages from their kids or grand-kids, so they are glad if ANYBODY texts them. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you make up shit about John Gruber simply proves you are partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Yeah. You're right. Editorializing by Slashdot commenter fuzzyfuzzyfungus, then!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm just a bad judge of public opinion; but I'd think that identifying yourself as 'the spam party' would be something you would avoid at all costs.
Nah, they'll just mandate that companies delivery their message or face investigations by the FTC, FCC, FBI, SEC, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I *will* say for political texts: they tend to be responsive to replying with STOP. Unlike most spam mills, PACs and campaigns definitely would accrue a reputation penalty for ignoring unsubscribes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know something is wrong when you have 32,000 unread text messages.
Filters not a problem if you get white listed .... (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm just a bad judge of public opinion; but I'd think that identifying yourself as 'the spam party' would be something you would avoid at all costs.
Both parties are spammers. However only one party is likely to be white listed by Apple without coaxing or publicity, so the other needs to preemptively whine to be similarly treated.
2FA exception? (Score:2)
As bad as 2FA over SMS is, that doesn't stop it from being widely used. I can see a lot of messages ending up there.
Re:2FA exception? (Score:4, Informative)
As bad as 2FA over SMS is, that doesn't stop it from being widely used. I can see a lot of messages ending up there.
Apple already extracts those and offers to fill them in, so I don't think that will be an issue.
Re:2FA exception? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're trying to log into a service, and it tells you it sent an SMS, I don't imagine it being very hard to figure out that you need to check your phone for the SMS.
Re: (Score:1)
Weird (Score:3)
These kinds of unsolicited messages are illegal in other countries
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we aren't. A plutocracy? Maybe. Oligarchy? No.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Back about 30 years ago it was different.
Back 57 years ago, my father was asked by the political machine to run for office. Part of their requirement was that he had to vote for a pack of laws that would profit them. So, no, it's not something new. And remember John Hancock, one of the founders, was basically a smuggler, others were salve traders, and the vote was restricted to land owners (the rich) in many instances.
But Oligarchy only takes them so far as to being obscenely rich. For that, they require plutocracy and despotism, which the GOP app
Re:Weird (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not illegal in the US because the courts have ruled that blocking political spam would be the government interference in political speech, which violates the first amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
wait, are you saying it is illegal for me to setup a filter to automatically delete messages I don't want to see? How does that not violate MY 1st Amendment right. Pretty sure my civilian 1A right overrules a random politician', especially on my device.
Re: (Score:2)
YOU can block spam. That is covered by YOUR first amendment rights.
I was responding to the statement "these kinds of unsolicited messages are illegal in other countries." Sending these political messages can not be made illegal in the US because the Supreme Court ruled that such a law would violate the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Everything is illegal in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Everything is illegal in Germany."
And everything causes cancer in California.
Re: Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Calif does have data to back all of the claims. When the data is not definitive, then whether the strength of that data is sufficient to make you not use the product is left for you to decide. That's why the products are not banned. It is informed freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This message is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These kinds of unsolicited messages are illegal in other countries
Of course the people writing the laws on what is considered an illegal unsolicited message would leave their own fundraising as an exception to the rule. Now that there's been a technological solution to this spam they get upset. The thing is that if they'd have enforced their own rules on unsolicited phone calls and messages then this technological solution may not have been developed, people would merely tolerate a modest number of calls asking them for donations or to answer a poll on some political ma
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
americans love scamming people and getting scammed
our very own president scammed his own supporters and us citizens with a streamer level crypto rug pool. and they knew this and chose it anyway.
this is scam america now. welcome to hell loser
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's good not to be American.
I get maybe one scam call every year or two
Maybe one text message every few months
I don't think our Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act outlaws political campaign messaging , it doesn't explicitly allow it. Campaign advertising limits would be restricting that. People don't like txt spam, and is it worth using limited advertising budgets on that? That's another thing I like. There are limits on how much can be spent on political advertising. And most significant political dona
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely, very rarely, get a spam call.
I virtually never get a spam text.
I don't recall ever getting any kind of political text.
I live in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a mobile phone. I'm just very careful about to whom
I give the number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a shock, I know, but laws differ among countries.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it's wishful thinking for a country "of the people, by the people, for the people" actually listens to the people, not just the political parties and their donors.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, that is wishful thinking.
Hopefully, you didn't figure that out only recently.
Re: (Score:2)
They're illegal in the US if they're automated. But if they're sent by a real person, they're legal. Problem is you can't tell if they are or aren't auto sent. But this feature will grab off all of them from unknown folks and keep them from being annoying.
Oh noes! (Score:1)
Woe is me.
Good job Apple (Score:2)
Now can we have a similar feature for phone calls?
When calling a phone number have the phone automatically send a name and email address. If the incoming call is from a sender where all details are Unknown, then instantly redirect it to Voicemail and place the item in "Unknown callers" folder for later review.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this feature already exists, at least for Apple phones.
I can put my phone on a kind of "do not disturb" function where anyone not in my contacts list will be sent to voicemail. This has become a necessity for me as I can get literally a dozen spam calls in a day trying to sell me shit. I don't know how I got on some kind of list of people that needed what they are selling but I'm flooded with calls, and these calls are clearly coming from Pakistan or something given their accent and handle
Re: (Score:2)
>"I'm pretty sure this feature already exists, at least for Apple phones."
It does for Android as well, at least in Samsung, and there are apps that can do it as well if not built-in (the send unknown calls to voicemail function).
In Android, there is no way to TOTALLY block calls on an unrooted phone. All you can do is send to voicemail.
My problem is that wasn't good enough, because all these people and machines would leave messages. And that is just as annoying- it will cause a notification that interr
Re: (Score:3)
Add a list of known spammers and send them to Lenny or a more modern AI bot that resembles an old man or woman hard of hearing with a short memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I want is deny/allow lists based on entire area codes.
The problem is those bad terds use spoofed phone numbers, and they love spoofing even your phone's local area code.
We should really eliminate area codes for North America now that most phones are cell phones which inherently require global routing -- and with number porting which is not region restricted - breaks all the original assumptions about phone numbers being tied to geography, and modern telephone routing infrastructure can handle having
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the rest, whether they spoof the numbers or not doesn't matter since I'm not interested in talking to anybody from their alleged area codes anyway.
Sure, some spam calls would get through from my geographic area code since it would be white listed, but it would still be a huge im
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the point of discarding area codes? You still need that many digits, so regardless of whether or not cell phones are tied to an area seems irrelevant.
Basically suggesting dissolving the NANPA and moving to a lookup database, instead of a complex hierchical system: by going to flat 10-digit numbers with no more NPAs (Area codes) and no more CO codes (The 3 digits after the NPA). This also opens the possibility of having 11-digit phone numbers some day OR premium 7-digit numbers with no area
Re: Good job Apple (Score:2)
In my spare time I'm currently working on my own phone/dialer app.
The idea is that only people in my contacts and whitelisted numbers are allowed to call me by default. Everyone else gets an automated message saying "Please state your name and the reason for the call and I will call you back. Maybe."
There's a few security-related hoops to jump through to make it work but I'm making progress.
So basically (Score:4, Interesting)
Text messages will be handled the way phone calls already are handled - at least if you have "silence unknown callers" enabled.
Works for me!
Re: (Score:2)
Text messages will be handled the way phone calls already are handled - at least if you have "silence unknown callers" enabled.
Works for me!
Google tends to do this quite well on Android.
Suspected Spam messages or calls are listed as "spam" and it's up to you if you want to see or take them.
The thing is, very few people in my contacts list SMS me these days, we've all got better methods. So SMS is mostly used by either business or organisations who need to contact me (I.E. my doctor, delivery notifications, bank alerts, the shop fixing my windscreeen) who won't be in my contacts list and possibly operating from multiple numbers and spammer
Re: (Score:2)
Text messages will be handled the way phone calls already are handled - at least if you have "silence unknown callers" enabled.
I have every variation of the "block unknown calls" set properly in my phone. No matter what settings I use, the phone ALWAYS rings when a spammer is calling.
Fuck society. You all are assholes.
Unsympathetic (Score:3)
Who owns a phone number. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I called my cell service provider on what to do about the flood of spam I was getting and they suggested blacklisting the phone numbers. The issue is that the phone numbers keep changing. They never call from the same number twice so a black list doesn't help unless the list can block out entire area codes, nation codes, or even exchanges.
If this were a blacklist based on individual numbers then it must be a list with billions of entries to be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
It is trivial to spoof the number on caller ID. You would have to block all numbers in the range (000)000-0000 to (999)999-9999.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly it is trivial to spoof the caller ID.
I had someone call that wanted my social security number and other info that would clearly be the basis of an ID theft. I pushed back and the guy asked me for the phone number of the local PD. I gave him the number from the phone book, hung up, and forgot about the call. About a half hour later I got a phone call from the phone number I gave, but with an obvious error, and the guy claimed he had a warrant for my arrest. I told him I'd be waiting at the front
Re: (Score:2)
Go All In On This (Score:3)
We need to put more effort into this. Surely we can figure out a way for Apple to cost political campaigns to lose Billions or even Trillions.
Your tax dollars financing spam! (Score:2)
So your tax dollars and donations from shady billionaires are financing massive spam campaigns and now they do not like the fact they will be filtered with all the other spam and scam - do I have that right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch (Score:2)
As it should be from the start. (Score:2)
Stop winging. Stop spamming.
We're going to need a smaller violin (Score:2)
... to play for all the spammers.
A start (Score:2)
My party will be hurt more, but I don't mind. (Score:2)
I applaud this move from Apple. Yes, it will definitely hurt the GOP more than the DNC. Due to mistaken identity, I received the DNC's messages while my wife got the RNC's. DNC
Now if they'd just fix waitlist messages... (Score:2)
I had this feature turned on for a few months with the older iOS' and it worked great... until I got onto a waitlist at a restaurant and then "never" got the text telling my table was ready. There was no notification indication at all which normally is what I would've wanted.
AI filterting would be great for that sort of stuff but then the spammers would immediately jump on that "Your table is ready! respond to me about your inheritance is Uganda!"
Filtering? (Score:2)
Oh, you mean where you donate to one local campaign, and the next day your inbox is filled with a) begging letters FROM THAT SAME CAMPAIGN, as well as b) almost every other major campaign in the country?
Repeal Citizens United.
Republicans! Victims! (Score:2)
It's all a plot by Dems from the basement of a pizza parlour!
Switch to Android (Score:2)
Dude, where's my WHOOSH?