Slashdot Mirror

In case anybody was interested in the free credit reports, you can get a free report annually.

In fact the three "consumer reporting companies" are required by law to give you a free credit report annually.

The commercials he is referring to are for http://freecreditreport.com/ which is free for the first 30 days.

More information from the Federal Trade Commission. Free annual credit reports from http://www.annualcreditreport.com/.

You must be a non-USian, because we have a do-not-call list here. If you sign your ph# up for it, the only unsolicited calls you will get are 1) politicians (of course), 2) companies with an "existing business relationship" with you (that's interpreted loosely sometimes), 3) charities, and 4) pollsters.

More information, for the ignorant USians among us:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/al t107.shtm

Doesn't the FCRA already allow for this?

To all the people saying domains don't get black listed. Sorry you are wrong.

I posted this exact question to slashdot about 4 years ago, back then you were just pretty much screwed.
I was actually recieving threating return mail for sending spam, which is why I posted here.

My domain did end up on a bunch of black lists and is still on a few to this day.

I will say that the better ISP's use a mailserver based black list and not a domain based one, but there are still some out there.

Now what you can do.

Go to the FTC ID theft complaint form

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/widtpubl$.startup?Z_ORG _CODE=PU03

Yes spoofing your e-mail is a form of ID theft.
The company advertised is just as legally responsible as the spammer.

If you keep fileing complaints the spammers learn not to use your e-mail. The ones in the US and Canada you can actually sue to recover damages.

Good luck

Just so you know, it's pretty easy to mostly stop credit offers. The FTC forces the credit bureaus have an opt-out page, which is linked to from this page. (I've purposely not included the direct link, in case there are other ones with similar-sounding names. Just follow the link on the ftc.gov page.)

It will be a long time before it comes to that. The FTC can't even assess a decent fine for clear violations of existing spyware laws. Think about it, these guys got off with a measly $1.5m fine total after pocketing $6m to $10m for each of the four partners (see Ben Edelman's site for the details). They're laughing all the way to the bank. So forget about the risks of prison. Quite the contrary, start a spyware company and rake in millions.

For those of you who don't like this, file a complaint with the FTC:

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_C ODE=PU01/

Also consider talking to agencies within your particular state.

I suggest you read what the Federal Trade Commission says on this subject. While IANAL, it doesn't sound like simple hand waving is going to make this go away:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/rulero ad.htm

Clicky.

UpMod Parent, BTW. While I'd agree that a warning that a normal part of their warranty "repair" process could reasonably include restoring the hard drive to the factory state, even if only for their convenience, I don't think insisting on Windows On Board sounds kosher.

As much as I like my current notebook and the rest of the support, they say that taking out the HD and/or replacing it voids the hardware warantee.

Along with any requirement of particular software, the Magnuson-Moss warranty act also prohibits this practice. As per a lovely page on the act on the FTC website, you cannot require that service be done by a particular company:

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

The system is designed such that the hard disk can be removed. So long as you know what you're doing (I've been working in IT and various related capacities for over a decade, for example, and have never been fired for incompetence, although I have been laid off a couple times) you can argue that you did the right thing. They can only void your warranty if they can show that the work was done incorrectly.

Of course, convincing them to do so might require a letter from a lawyer, which would be expensive. But nonetheless, the law is on your side, and most decidedly not on theirs.

I would think that under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty act that her machine is still warranted by law.

The act says that you can't tie people to only certain products. It's why having your car's brakes fixed at a small shop doesn't void the vehicle's warranty. If you look at Linux as just a part then she should have recourse.

I'd take them to small claims.

It seems to be covered here

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

Seems to me that saying use Windows or no warranty is a violation.

Standard disclaimer = IANAL

Under MAP, the price is allowed to be anything, as long as it is not advertised (MAP stands for Minimum Advertised Price). MAP appears to be legal, if the penalty is "you can no longer carry our products." If the penalty is "we won't pay you co-op advertising dollars" (see second link), it might be illegal.

Jan 2004 commentary on legal uncertainty of MAP:
http://www.fredlaw.com/articles/marketing/mark_040 1_qtj.html

May 2000 FTC "analysis to aid public comment" on MAP policies of "the five largest distributors of prerecorded music," Sony, Universal, BMG, WEA, and EMI:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/05/mapanalysis.htm

Pretexting is a technical term.

Pretexting is the practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses. Pretexters sell your information to people who may use it to get credit in your name, steal your assets, or to investigate or sue you. Pretexting is against the law. Source.

Lying and Fraud are broad terms, pretexting adds clarity as to the specifics of the crime. It is the same as saying Wire Fraud or Check Fraud.

It does not need to be either or, it can be both. Your suggestion only adds a nonconstructive, ambiguous element that will only serve to confuse, not clarify.

I see that now. Sorry I dont know much about federal agencies (not surprising, im from india). I have my criticisms for the FTC suit as well (link to the pdf complaint filed: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523158/0523158c416 2TakeTwoInteractiveandRockstarComplaint.pdf) but wont bring them up here because the arguments been done to death

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, but I love paying "Devil's Advocate". Who's up for a game?

The central issue revolves around can someone request money after the transaction has taken place. Generally speaking, once a transaction has occurred it is done and over with. A restaurant cannot deduct more from your credit card just because you left a mess at the table once you sign the bill. The bookstore cannot add additional fees because on your way out you took stacks and stacks of their free papers. So we work on the premise that what's done is done.

Now let's say you go to the grocery store because they are having a sale on Top Ramen. If you use a 'club card' you can get 30 for a dollar instead of the normal 20 for a dollar. So you load up on Ramen, peanut butter, Red Bull, and an orange to ward off scurvy. You enter your phone number for your club card... Well, you enter *a* phone number for *someone's* club card and take your purchase home. You head to the basement and find that even though the card worked and everything else was discounted, the Ramen was still full price. Damn them! That's cutting into your WoW fund. But do you accept that what's done is done? No, you get someone to drive you back to the store and demand the store give you back your money (cash or crediting your credit card). So in this case, the store was able to go back and change a completed transaction. They advertised a deal and did not keep up their end of the agreement. So now we've established a precedent for modifying a transaction after the fact due to one party not fulfilling their part of the exchange.

Many online store have been caught advertising an incorrect price (decimal moved in the wrong direction, wrong price entered, no price entered, etc) and get hammered from people trying to take advantage of that. Normally the store catches it before anything gets sent out, refunds the money and puts up a big "Opps and sorry" page. They take a PR dive for a while then life goes on. But in these cases, nothing has been sent so perhaps the FTC does not consider the transaction complete and StoreX is within their rights to refuse to make a sale even though money has been exchanged. It's just like you can't shove a money order under the door of Best Buy and expect them to give you a Wii when they find your money. Just because you gave them money does not mean a sale is happening.

However Amazon went so far as to actually send out a number of these DVD sets; that brings more laws into play. According to the FTC, if someone sends you something in the mail that you did not request, "You can't be forced to pay for the item or return it." So from a purely high level look at this, the consumers that did not pay for the product (or at least some got away without any payment) so therefore the DVDs are gifts and Amazon.com cannot later charge the consumer. Point of note; companies CAN sent you something that requires your payment to use such as the brazillion AOL CDs--The disks are free but in order to make anything other than coaster or a chair you need to give them a credit card.

So let's recap...

In this case, Amazon said "Buy one, get one free." That's the deal. That's the terms of the agreement. Someone found out that the ordering system was flawed and told people how to exploit that flaw. Online transactions were made, at zero to little money, and Amazon.com mailed out the DVDs fulfilling their end of the agreement. But did the consumers fulfill theirs? Did they really "buy one" in order to get a second item free? Can Amazon sue to get their money because most of the consumers made the transaction in bad faith? Breach of contract?

This should have nothing to do with big, bad corporation vs poor, little guy. These laws apply to Ma & Pa's Used Movies too. What if they screwed up orders due to Pa's Alzheimers? Would people feel so justified, proud

Calling it a monopoly would be akin to calling ANY BUSINESS a monoploy as you can only buy their product from them.

You seem to have quite a bee in your bonnet on this one. Whenever I get the urge to write in all caps, I go for a walk. Maybe you should try that.

The poster I was responding to was suggesting that CDs are like any other commodity. They aren't. You don't go buy a pound of CDs in the same way you buy a pound of butter. As I explained elsewhere, they're still somewhat subject to supply and demand, but not to the same extent commodity suppliers are.

As to the word "monopoly", you're basically wrong. As experts say in obvious places, copyrights, patents, and trademarks are all government-granted limited monopolies. That a monopoly is limited doesn't make it less a monopoly. If I have a monopoly on the world's beef, people can and will substitute chicken, but that doesn't mean I don't have a monopoly.

Yes, modern businesses make extensive use of these, but that's precisely because they're monopolies, and monopolies allow greater profit than commodities. I'm not even saying that's bad; there's a useful purpose behind all of them. I'm just saying that you can't think about the CD market in the same way you think about the butter market. Butter is pretty much butter, but Madonna is not pretty much Weird Al.

Most other countries have the Copyright on recordings go into public domain about 50 to 90 years

Currently. And that's longer than it once was. There are a lot of people with a lot of money working to change that. Remember, I said, "in practice, eternal." The question is, will we let them?

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Consumer Credit Reporting Companies are permitted to include your name on lists used by creditors or insurers to make firm offers of credit or insurance that are not initiated by you ("Firm Offers"). The FCRA also provides you the right to "Opt-Out", which prevents Consumer Credit Reporting Companies from providing your credit file information for Firm Offers.

Is that $150 per cd "sold through" or $150 per customer who is aware of the lawsuit and actually files to get their cheque?

As part of the settlement, Sony BMG will allow consumers to exchange CDs containing the concealed software purchased before December 31, 2006 for new CDs that are not content-protected, and will be required to reimburse consumers up to $150 to repair damage that resulted directly from consumers' attempts to remove the software installed without their consent. Sony BMG is required to publish notices on its Web site describing the exchange and repair reimbursement programs.

Actually, the more applicable law (at least similar to what Georgia's attempting) here might be COPPA (see the text of Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998) which addresses what kids can do on the 'net more than what adults can put online that children might be exposed to. By requiring minors (under 13) to have verifiable consent from a parent/guardian, so it does part of what Georgia's trying to do. Not sure why the law didn't extend to teenagers - possibly because of conflicts with "age of consent" related laws (yeah, IANAL). IMHO, leave these types of laws to the Federal government -- state laws are too varied and difficult to enforce. There needs to be consistency across the board.

Do you want to abolish the FCC, the Robinson-Patman Act? Have a look at

http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvspeech.htm

and try to understand a little better where you are living.

...you must include the option to end any commercial messages from the sender.

Any opt-out mechanism you offer must be able to process opt-out requests for at least 30 days after you send your commercial email. When you receive an opt-out request, the law gives you 10 business days to stop sending email to the requestor's email address. You cannot help another entity send email to that address, or have another entity send email on your behalf to that address. Finally, it's illegal for you to sell or transfer the email addresses of people who choose not to receive your email, even in the form of a mailing list, unless you transfer the addresses so another entity can comply with the law.

Technically, the company making a "pre-approved" offer hasn't actually seen your credit report. They simply ask the reporting agency to give them a list of names/addresses for people that meet a certain criteria. You give them permission to make the full inquiry when you return the application.

You can exclude yourself from the pre-screen lists at http://www.optoutprescreen.com/. I'm a bit concerned about the legitimacy of the site, but I've found multiple referrals to it from legitimate sources, including the FTC. If you aren't convinced, you can download the printed form from the site and snail-mail it to the three reporting agencies. The snail-mail method is required for permanent opt-out, anyway.

Wrong. A potential employer does not require my permission to receive lies about my character from a credit reporting agency. All they have to do is pay the parasite for the "information".

Written Notice and Authorization.
Before you can get a consumer report for employment purposes, you must notify the individual in writing -- in a document consisting solely of this notice -- that a report may be used. You also must get the person's written authorization before you ask a CRA for the report. (Special procedures apply to the trucking industry.)

In cases such as yours and your acquaintances where the information is bad on the face of it, a phone call should be all it takes. Even if it the agency doesn't immediately remove the disputed information, it is required to immediately list the information as being disputed and the reason for which you are disputing it.

Perhaps you misremember and it was the lendor who required you to send the letter from Macy's in order to validate your claim that you bore no responsibility for the account. After all it is not all that unusualy for someone to have finanical liability for an account created before he or she was born. One of your grandparents could have opened the account before you were born and later added you as a joint account holder. As a joint account holder, you would then have been jointly liable for any missed payments for an account opened before your date of birth.

Another possibility is that your anecdote predates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The reason Congress first passed the act ten years ago was precisely the type of abuse contained within your anecdote.

Also, if you forget which is the right one, you can visit the FTC's website at http://www.ftc.gov/ and navigate to "For Consumers" -> "Credit".

In other Federal trade commissioning news the FTC is going to investiagitate its relevance to Funeral Homes: FTC Tests Funeral Homes for Compliance With Funeral Rule; New Brochure Explains Consumer Rights Under Federal Law note, new brochure has been published. As a person who, in my years of experience has put together something on the order of a brochure, I know that it is a non-trivial amount of work, so if you or someone you love is planning on a funeral, I suggest you pick up this informative booklet.

On the note of viral marketing the following stream of consciousness riff; I'm a Pepper, less filling, where's the beef, <psp graff>, ok go!, my street team (currently putting stickers on your local gray metal municipal boxes), this video (marketing my current 'hood as a nice place for a monday drive), suburban blend, {yahoo cool site of the day, justin's links from the underground, memepool, metafilter, fark, digg, del.icio.us, reddit} oh it's six o'clock a decade later... I guess it's time to go home again.

beedoop.

Consider why the law quoted doesn't just openly state "It is illegal to be a monopoly". Why does the word monopoly not even appear? Does the word 'monopolize' have a legal meaning different from 'monopoly'? How have courts interpreted the law quoted?

You could read this guide as a start, but reading actual court documents is much better. Microsoft was indeed found guilty of being in violation, but not simply due to their monopoly status, but because they unreasonably restrained trade, therefore they are guilty of unreasonably restraining trade rather than 'being a monopoly' because 'being a monopoly' is not illegal.

If you did a little googling, you would see that DEC sued Intel over patent infringement and for abuse a monopoly, along with a few others.

Here is another link you might find useful.

Good becuase its there stupidity that cuased their pc to be compromised in the first place. If they had just kept their system up to date and not installed the smilely face card weather thingie they wouldn't be a spam spewing zombie right now. People need to take responsiblity for haveing insecure systems. It isn't Microsofts fault, I use XP and my system is secure, its their own fault for being lazy and ignorant. If they start getting billed for their ignorance than maybee they will pay more attention to computer secutity.

Average stupid people won't pay it; they'll spend hours on the phone complaining to some poor customer service agent instead, about how they've been charged for services they haven't used and accused of something they haven't done. Meanwhile, the spammers have already moved on to their next victim, so they don't care.

There is currently no technical measure that can be taken to stop spam at the source. Sure, you can try to put up obstacles, but I assure you, spammers will continue to find workarounds. The only real solution is for Congress to earmark funding for the FTC and FBI to find and prosecute spammers. It won't happen overnight, but if you start throwing experienced spammers in jail, all you'll be left with is the inexperienced spammers, who are easier to deal with.

Will this force spammers to move overseas? Absolutely, and many foreign governments have already agreed to cooperate in the war on spam.

Then there's the question of whether spam is actually illegal. Well, remember CAN-SPAM, the law that most Slashdotters said was a complete waste of time? The argument was, if CAN-SPAM were actually enforced, we'd still get a ton of legal spam that complies with the CAN-SPAM act. That's true, but it would be trivial to filter out! I almost never get spam that complies with CAN-SPAM.

Not trying to scare anyone here...but...my wife works in this field (no not stealing identities, helping people resolve issues arising from stolen identities!) and unfortunately it is not just about your credit. If someone gets hold of your SSN together with your name they can 'become you' in many different ways.

One of the scariest things is when your number gets used for reporting income by many people. Even if income tax is withheld on the wages of these imposters guess what happens when you work 20 different $20,000 per year jobs...you end up in the top tax bracket, and of course it looks like you've take the standard deduction 20 times. Guess who the IRS comes after to get all those extra taxes...the actual owner of the SSN of course.

Oh and imagine what happens when someone gets your SSN and other info then applies for a driver's license in your name. Maybe 6 months later you get pulled over for a routine stop and dragged to jail for non-payment of speeding fines or even worse crimes.

Are any of these likely, no...but as with all matters of probability unlikely does not mean never...it does happen to somebody.

And on the topic of companies using SSNs for non-essential situations...someone in that organization needs to look at a few recent laws regarding the correct handling of NPI (non-public information) such as:

• FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act) (which applies to more than just credit transactions) under that act the loss of unsecured customer OR employee NPI can result in federal and state fines, civil liability and responsibility for any actual losses.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FACTA/ or http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pd f)
• If you are a financial organization take a look at the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Safeguard rule. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_A ct/ or http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/05/67fr36585.pdf)
• If you are a medical organization take a look at HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), this one is a doozie as it can result in jailtime for executives.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA/ or http://www.hipaa.org/)

Not trying to scare anyone here...but...my wife works in this field (no not stealing identities, helping people resolve issues arising from stolen identities!) and unfortunately it is not just about your credit. If someone gets hold of your SSN together with your name they can 'become you' in many different ways.

One of the scariest things is when your number gets used for reporting income by many people. Even if income tax is withheld on the wages of these imposters guess what happens when you work 20 different $20,000 per year jobs...you end up in the top tax bracket, and of course it looks like you've take the standard deduction 20 times. Guess who the IRS comes after to get all those extra taxes...the actual owner of the SSN of course.

Oh and imagine what happens when someone gets your SSN and other info then applies for a driver's license in your name. Maybe 6 months later you get pulled over for a routine stop and dragged to jail for non-payment of speeding fines or even worse crimes.

Are any of these likely, no...but as with all matters of probability unlikely does not mean never...it does happen to somebody.

And on the topic of companies using SSNs for non-essential situations...someone in that organization needs to look at a few recent laws regarding the correct handling of NPI (non-public information) such as:

• FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act) (which applies to more than just credit transactions) under that act the loss of unsecured customer OR employee NPI can result in federal and state fines, civil liability and responsibility for any actual losses.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FACTA/ or http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pd f)
• If you are a financial organization take a look at the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Safeguard rule. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_A ct/ or http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/05/67fr36585.pdf)
• If you are a medical organization take a look at HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), this one is a doozie as it can result in jailtime for executives.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA/ or http://www.hipaa.org/)

What's needed here is a registration list sort of like what's used for the Do Not Call list.

If a telemarketer calls someone on the DNC list they're subject to a fine of $11K per offense.

The only exceptions to the DNC list are companies you've had a business relationship in the last 18 months.

See Question 32.

Pretexting is the practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses. Pretexters sell your information to people who may use it to get credit in your name, steal your assets, or to investigate or sue you. Pretexting is against the law.

They each face four felony counts: use of false or fraudulent pretenses to obtain confidential information from a public utility; unauthorized access to computer data; identity theft; and conspiracy to commit each of those crimes. Each charge carries a fine of up to $10,000 and three years in prison.

This is not a "Liberal" law. This is a Republican law. It isn't about protecting the people. This law is clearly about protecting the brick gambling establishments from the virtual ones. Perhaps you should review how and why laws are created in America?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

This law is more about PAC money than it is about morals or people.

How could anyone think otherwise? It isn't like the law effects the mother you describe. What you think she hasn't already pawned everything? Do you really think laws that involve money are passed to protect people from themselves? BS! What about this law?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/bankruptcy.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.256:
What is really telling about this law is that the wealthier you are the more debt you can escape and the poorer you are the less debt you can escape. Laws to protect people from gambling. Please. They don't care about people.

Aside from whatever good info is in that link, check with your own state to see what disclosure requirements there may be. California has some pretty stiff requirements. Other states will likely vary from that.

Lock it down. Cancel the email account and have any attached credit cards cancelled/changed. Change your checking account number. Keep thorough records and dig to find recent bank statements, etc. This can be a huge hassle.

File complaints with the federal and your state Attorney Generals against the trading company immediately. Consider a 6-month paid monitoring service from a major credit reporting bureau. Both the feds and your state will have advisory hotlines. IANAL and slashdot is not the place you want to go for this kind of information. Basically, don't fsck around if you think anything has been compromised.

I've been there, and these steps cost me a few dollars but saved me tens of thousands. Overseas types are pretty damned creative with your numbers. paranoid != not out to get you.

Related to the whole HP thing but not this article is that I've just realized that this whole "pretexting" thing wasn't a form of sending false text messages to phones, but a euphemism for "lying". Just thought others might not have caught on immediately either. I guess I wasn't thinking "low enough" to catch on more quickly.

Whatever happened to the old saying that your credit card would more likely be ripped off by a waiter than someone off of the internet? Or are waiters taking hacking jobs these days?

That would be part of number 1, putting all the information on the magnetic stripe. Waiters might know how to do this too.

Then again, this is a paper about data security not fraud in general. If you want advice about that, visit the FTC site where crooked clerks are front and center.

From:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/idtheft .htm

"Under federal criminal law, identity theft takes place when someone knowingly transfers, possesses or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law."

Bush speaks!...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20 040715-3.html

"This law also raises the standard of conduct for people who have access to personal records through their work at banks, government agencies, insurance companies, and other storehouses of financial data. The law directs the United States Sentencing Commission to make sure those convicted of abusing and stealing from their customers serve a sentence equal to their crimes." - George Bush.

Funny how they are all silent now.

How many people in the US actually drive a car that needs anything over 87 octane? Most cars don't need it. Arguably no cars need it. I can't remember the exact source or find it, but maybe a year or two ago I read an article written by one of the lead Porsche engineers saying that even most of their high end cars don't require high octane to run properly and while thre is better performance with it in cars designed to use it, the gain is minimal and most people are not going to notice it in daily driving on the road. The FTC agrees Then there's also the argument that I've heard multiple places that higher octane gas is more harmful to the environment. I have seen two reasons given for this. One is that is takes more crude oil to make the higher octane fuel. The other is that the additives used in the fuel to raise the octane end up creating more fumes and particles in your exhaust. The latter I suspect is true. I used to drive a v6 Taurus SHO and was a regular on a few SHO forums. A number of people had started using 87 and 89 octane rather than the recommended premium fuel because there is a valve that gets fouled up with exhaust particles and seriously hurts performance and can keep the car from starting (this is also due to poor engine design). When using the lower octane fuels drivers did not have this valve get clogged up nearly as often if ever. As to 93 octane vs 91, why do you need it? My current car "requires" premium fuel. I live on the east coast and can get 93, but if I lived in the midwest, where I did for most of my life I could only get 91 (as you mentioned) yet my car would still have all the same parts. It seems pretty clear to me that 2 extra octane isn't going to make any sort of noticeable difference.

Politicians were careful to ensure that they could still pander over the phone. Among the other exceptions, the basic rules are that any business you have had contact with for X amount of time can still call you penalty-free. Most not-for-profits can call as well. I should hope that many file complaints on truly irritating or repetative solicitations that don't meet the requirements of the program. You need the company name, phone number, and the date of the offending call.

I have found that rudeness can be pretty effective in stopping future calls, but these are my two favorite methods:
1:
Telemarketer: "Well hello Mr. sporkme, how are you this evening?"
Me: "I am soooo glad you asked. First, I was late for work because my kids made off with the car keys and I had to spend ten minutes digging through a toybox full of legos. Then I got a speeding ticket on my way in. My back has hurt all day, and I'm honestly hoping that you're selling a hemorroid cream of some kind. How is your day going?"
2:
Telemarketer: "Now what would it take to get an order from you today?"
Me: Well, honestly, sales have been down at work. Are you aware that our BXK-31-R is capable of tolerating well over sixty rads per cycle and still produces results within tolerance? This is well in excess of industry standard and we offer free support and service for the first sixty seconds of your contract. How many can I sign you up for?

To the point, It seems to be difficult to find statistical information about the success of the registry. Indiana was one of the first states to implement such a program, and several other states have separate registries (many have merged with the federal one). All I really could find without making a job of it was information on Indiana's success with the state program, and registration numbers for the federal one. Also, here is a summary chart of nationwide complaint volume.

Somehow I can't see your friendly representative voting to ban political solicitations...

They are exempted from the federal rule http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/tmarkg/donotca ll.htm. Seems like most states do the same. Here's florida http://www.800helpfla.com/nosales.html and Tennessee http://www2.state.tn.us/tra/nocall.htm, for example.

but for some reason the idiodic press thought it was really cool and neat to invent a new word nobody would understand

Actually, "pretexting" isn't corpspeak, it's legalese.

Fair debt collection practices act

Under federal law -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- it's illegal for anyone to:

• use false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or documents to get customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution.

• use forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents to get customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution.

• ask another person to get someone else's customer information using false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or using false, fictitious or fraudulent documents or forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents.

The FTC website gives good explanation of how you can get a free credit report. You can get one per year for free (as parent mentioned), but you can also get them in other situations, such as if you are the victim of identity theft, or if you are unemployed, etc.. They lay out a few examples of how you can get one in the linked document.

Someone got an expired credit card number of mine and did some damage on eBay, lucky only for about $200. It still took me approximately 30 hours of my time just to clear the shit up with AOL, eBay, PayPal, and the collection agency that originally contact me. I also filed a local police report, contacted the FTC, and Equifax. By law one of the major credit agencies has to provide you with a free credit report in those situations. I'm not sure if anything can be done if your information was just "lost", rather than "stolen", but you are atleast guaranteed the free credit report each year regardless.

I'm not interested in the government writing more laws when they can't be bothered to prosecute the ones we've already got. A cynic might wonder why the government hasn't done a damned thing to fight spam until the spammers started selling presciption drugs from off-shore pharmacies. Regular phishing scams, Nigerian extortion variants, virus-driven keyloggers, and other forms of cracking machines aren't sufficiently interesting to the local cops or to the FBI unless you can demonstrate something like $2000 worth of damages.

Oh yeah, that and Internet gambling. It used to be the case that what you did with your money was between you and your bank, and it stayed that way until and unless a judge signed a warrant; nowadays, financial transactions of some unknown size (it used to be 10K, now it's a secret) will be reported to the feds, credit card agencies & reporting bureaus like Equifax or TRW, etc.

*Astroturfing: In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals.

It's also against the law to conceal the existance of relationship between an endoser and the product, see:

FTC section 255.5

People who violate these rules by a lot can get sued/fined for up to 11K per instance.

The Commission has also used its unfairness authority to challenge information practices that cause substantial consumer injury.