Slashdot Mirror

You will have to know the company's name or phone number to file a "do not call" complaint.

I've heard of something similar involving copying machine and laser printer supplies. The Federal Trade Commission has a good web page that describes the scam and its variations.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

For the next time some hippy says "information wants to be free." Well clearly only some information according to the slashbots. If information wants to be free, so be it. If someone is showing you that, in their humble opinion, pepsi is a delicious beverage far superior to other national brands, so be it. If someone is demonstrating that, in their humble opinion, a honda is a mighty fine automobile to drive, so be it.

Oh government, save us from Fox Mulder getting a haircut at supercuts. Look at that basketball player! He's clearly wearing nike shoes! But don't you dare say whose copyright we can and cannot infringe.

From FTC.gov
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
advertisements cannot be unfair.
Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.



Wow no mention of to what types of advertisements this applies. So I bet it already covers product placement.

Oh Holy Government, deliver us from everyone who sells products. Most Benevolent Government, I cannot get myself to turn the TV off, so please, in thine mercy, clense the airwaves of any chance for profit. I mean, jobs are soooooooo overrated.

So is information free, or not?

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

Before you flame me for what I'm about to say, I fully support the list. I hate telemarketers. The first judge (West) didn't have a problem with the list, just that the FCC was supposed to implement it, but then delegated illegally to the FTC. Congress has fixed that (in ONE DAY!) and El Presidente will sign it tomorrow (hey, even he's not that stupid). So Judge West was actually correct in his ruling. But it's been fixed, so it's a moot point.

The latest debacle is because the exemptions the FTC has carved out for charities, politicos, and surveys is essentially arbitrary. They can't do it. It's known in legal circles as a prior restraint on speech and with very narrow exceptions, is a no-no.

But they can EASILY fix it (and in probably less than one day). The lawsuit will go away, the list will live on, and everyone will be happy.

All they have to do is give you several choices:

1) Prohibit ALL unsolicited calls, no matter who they're from

2) Prohibit ALL commercial for-profit calls AND/OR

3) Prohibit ALL charitable solicition calls AND/OR

4) Prohibit ALL political calls AND/OR

5) Prohibit ALL survey calls...

That's it. Have the DBA stop eating and add a few fields. Have the web developer stop surfing /. and add a few checkboxes to the form... Have the VM guy add a few choices to the phone system...

Problem solved... This setup - where the Gvmt doesn't get to decide what you get or don't get, but must simply issue the Order to protect you as you demand is supported in Supreme Court case law and other laws dealing with junk mail.

Oh, and by the way, I TOLD this to the FTC already back in January 2002 when I submitted a comment regarding the DNC list... Guess I was right eh?

There are two items I'd like to address:

1. Please call this judge (since he believes in free speech) on his public phone and use your right to free speech to calmly and politely tell them that you are very upset that he ruled in favor of private for profit corporations to ring your private, individually funded, telephone.

Judge Edward W. Nottingham
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse A1041 / Courtroom 14
(303) 844-5018



2. To address this entire situation: I'd like to say that I feel that it is completely insane! The fact of the matter is, there are already laws in place that opt a person out when a telemarketer calls. If simply you tell a telemarketer to no longer call you, they can't call you for 10 years! This law is on the books and sets a prior precedent.

Here are a few links that clearly state this fact:

FTC

Junkbusters

So this brings me to this question... What in the hell are the telemarketers trying to prove? That the RIAA is not the only one that can piss off their target market?

The do-not-call list is even better for telemarketers as it provides only 5 years of protection and it saves them the time AND the money from having to maintain and collect data on their own lists!

Can someone help me understand how any of this free speech platform they are using is in any way valid at all?

I concur with your assessment that H.R. 3161 does not appear to have room for loopholes, given its extreme brevity.

However, by ratifying and giving the FTC the ability to enforce the huge legislation that H.R. 3161 enacts (found in U.S. Code here), there may be impetus to vote down something so powerful, especially in the hands of the FTC. It's a balance of power I suppose. I haven't had time to read 16 CFR Part 310, but I suspect that Mr. Paul is concerned about the extension of powers given to the FTC that could be abused.

I'm not sure though, as that he hasn't replied to my email yet. He may be getting a huge influx of mail as that the vote was so lopsided.

Of course, the telemarketing jobs that will be lost will likely be prisioners anyway. Egads, they'll have nothing to do all day except learn about methods to commit better crimes from the people who got caught using those methods.

Of course with the highest incarceration rate of any industrial nation, the job I sacrafice may be my own someday...

The constitutional issue is the seperation of legislative and executive power. The congress granted the FTC the authority to make rules concerning telemarketing fraud. The court felt that this rule was outside the authority granted by congress. An executive branch agency does not have the ability to make law, but the do have the ability to make the rules used to implement a law. The court held that the FTC overreached, it tried to make law instead of rules.

Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.

Here is the decision the judge rendered. It seems an incredible reach to find that Congress did not authorize the FTC to create the Do-Not-Call list.

I went here to the FTC site on rulemaking re: telemarketing calls, and it looks to my eye like this is authorized by existing legislation. Also, I read this on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (Amended) and how it derives from Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

I guess this is just a case of the court being overly cautious here, but I fail to see how this is a restraint on Free Speech, since (a) the speech we are talking about here falls into the "commercial" category (b) it is "speech" directed into people's private homes without their authorization, permission or any expectation that they want to be bothered with it. Free Speech doesn't mean the freedom to yell your speech into my ear whenever you feel like it.

I went here to the FTC site on rulemaking re: telemarketing calls, and it looks to my eye like this is authorized by existing legislation. Also, I read this on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (Amended) and how it derives from Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

I guess this is just a case of the court being overly cautious here, but I fail to see how this is a restraint on Free Speech, since (a) the speech we are talking about here falls into the "commercial" category (b) it is "speech" directed into people's private homes without their authorization, permission or any expectation that they want to be bothered with it. Free Speech doesn't mean the freedom to yell your speech into my ear whenever you feel like it.

I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at /. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.

SCO's Address:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

FTC Consumer Complaint Form

Take a stand and make a real difference.

--
Slash

Everyday consumers should not be afraid of having their identity stolen. This is an issue that is overblown by the media and other entities that have an interest in scaring people to sell their own often-unneeded "solutions".

A good example are the credit card companies that promote their cards as being superior because they offer "online fraud protection." In most cases, this is mandated by law and not some special feature they've exclusively come up with.

The Fair Credit Billing Act of 1976 basically protects consumers from a variety of unauthorized charges. It doesn't matter if your identity was stolen, if your credit card was charged by an unauthorized party, you're usually not liable.

The real danger in identity theft is for people who actually try to use stolen credit cards and the merchants who allow them to process those transactions erroneously - they might be exposed to liability, but by Federal Law, the consumer is generally well-protected.

It should be pointed out however, that the new era of debit cards and direct-deposit transcations are not covered under the Fair Credit Billing Act. The smart consumer does NOT use a debit card; and only uses a credit card, which offers protection against fraud not found in other methods of payment.

There's a copy of the FDCPA here and it is kind of interesting to read what is and isn't allowed. We should all get to know this.

Perhaps you should use the following to get them to cease communication via your cell phone. I am convinced that accruing minutes on your cell phone (I know some plans are unlimited, but most aren't) would be tantamount to causing you to incur a charge. In English, that means it's your dime, not theirs. You are paying out money to accept their call. If it was a landline and you were not limited on minutes of usage, it would be an entirely different story. Perhaps you should return their call and insist on alternate means of communication. If it is a collection agency for a debt that you do owe, then you should communicate with them. If you do not owe the debt, then you should notify them verbally and in writing of a dispute.

Here's what the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has to say about it.

808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

(5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true propose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees.

another poster already mentioned it, but it bears repeating:

the riaa has violated the copa:

http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

• saw "laws that they believe support their position"
• were "willing to use the legal system to seek financial remedy from the perceived violators"
• and "the threat of financial penalty is likely to alter behavior".

File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Mention how you feel that they are attempting to extort money from you. The FTC DOES take these matters seriously. If they receive many complaints about a particular company, they will be very inclined to launch an investigation. The mere mention of an FTC investigation is not good news for a company, nor its stock.

File a complaint online

Take a more active role in this. Don't just vent your frustrations on /. where no one outside our community will hear.

-- Slash

So I think i am entitled to download at least enough music to compensate me for the excessive money that I paid on all the cds I own.

And then there is always the thingie about copy protection and CSS, which will not allow me to make a copy for backup purposes or view a DVD on my Linux machine. Come on, The entertainment industry got it comming!

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

Can you stop a debt collector from contacting you?

You can stop a debt collector from contacting you by writing a letter to the collector telling them to stop. Once the collector receives your letter, they may not contact you again except to say there will be no further contact or to notify you that the debt collector or the creditor intends to take some specific action. Please note, however, that sending such a letter to a collector does not make the debt go away if you actually owe it. You could still be sued by the debt collector or your original creditor.

May a debt collector continue to contact you if you believe you do not owe money?

A collector may not contact you if, within 30 days after you receive the written notice, you send the collection agency a letter stating you do not owe money. However, a collector can renew collection activities if you are sent proof of the debt, such as a copy of a bill for the amount owed.

[...]

So I suppose that the this doesn't exist? The FTC does go after companies who make false claims in promoting their products.

You can file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission even without receiving a mailed invoice. Use this form.

I'm sorry, but I call BS.

Yeah, right - not like they would be taken to court for price fixing and settle for $65 million or violate anti-trust laws by price fixing, would they?

RIAA members control CD prices illegally and have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar several times. What you pay retail for a CD today as compared to 10 years ago is meaningless.

We would simply bend over and pay up like good little lemmings?

Aside from the mixed metaphor - lemmings don't commit suicide. You may already know this but I wanted to help educate the general public...

Who knows what other lies Disney has been feeding us? Next we'll find out that there aren't really mermaids!

Oh, and to stay on topic, here is some info on making a complaint to the FTC. Here's the link to the online FTC complaint form. For good measure, you can also submit a complaint to the SEC here.

"I don't trust Michael Powell."

You didn't read the article. This has nothing to do with Michael Powell. The article regards comments made by Tim Muris, chairman of the Federal Trade Commision. Michael Powell is chairman of the Federal Communications Commision.

After caving in to media interests and allowing further consolidation

That is a strange article to site in support of your belief that government should regulate broadcast communcations, which makes me think that you did not read it either. If you had, maybe you would have noticed the excerpts of congressional testimony. Democrats Byron Dorgan and Barbara Boxer site their own concern about the growing popularity of conservative political ideas in radio and TV broadcasting as justification for government regulation. It gives a good sense of their horror that the free speech permitted by under-regulation will allow conservative ideas to become even more popular. Boxer specifically uses the Fox News reference to France and Germany as the "Axis of Weasels" as an example of an undesirable political statement. Regardless of how the the public conceives of this issue of goverment regulation of communication, on the political level is not really about media consolidation, it is about censorship and free speech.

Or you can file a complaint online.

If the National Do Not Call List rules are any indication, Mr. Dean may believe that he is exempt from being labelled a spammer.

From the FTC donotcall site:

Will the National Do Not Call Registry cover all telemarketing calls?
Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Some types of calls are exempt. Political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, and the business of insurance, to the extent that it is regulated by state law, are permitted to call you.

So if this is specifically exempted from the telephone spam rules, presumably it will also be exempted from any future email spam rules, and thus has already been declared perfectly acceptable behavior.

why would there be a penalty for checking it?

There is no penalty, at least as far as your credit score is concerned. Requesting a copy of your own credit report is not a "hit" against your credit score -- it's codified as an entirely separate event from credit checks for getting/extending lines of credit. As far as the cost -- there is none if you live in certain states (don't live in one? Go bitch at your legislature and ask them why they aren't helping their constituents), are unemployed, or recently denied credit.

It's obvious that they know credit reports are frequently (usually?) based on incorrect data and they don't want people to find out.

What bullshit. Yes, credit reports occasionally have bad data in them. If it was frequent or even common then the entire system wouldn't work. Think about it.

the government passed a law saying they aren't liable for any damages caused by their data, no matter how incorrect it was

Really? Which law was this?

The FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) states that when a consumer notifies the credit agency of incorrect information in their credit report the agency has 30 days to remove the incorrect data or dispute it. If they fail to do this (or dispute it and they're wrong) then you can sue them for damages. Damages such that you probably won't need to work for several years afterwards unless you feel like it. Judges are people too, have had their own issues with credit agencies, and take a rather dim view toward the agencies flouting the law. The FCRA is a very powerful piece of legislation that's largely pro-consumer.

Looking at one of their reports, I believe the quote was "The FTC's identity theft Web site had received more than 699,000 hits since it was launched in February 2000" that spawned that number.... The actual report I expect it's from is here, and the article from the story misquoted it - the actual number of complaints to the FTC via their hotline for 2001 was over (but probably around) 86,000.

Several websites seem to use the larger number, but most of them are selling something and just playing "woopsie" with the numbers.

At 86,000, that puts it more at the level of arson. So I'll spend just about as much effort avoiding it - none outside of common sense. However, my credit cards do have insurance, just like I have insurance on my apartment and belongings. And I don't post my SS# to usenet.

What I encounter far more often is the stupid debt collection agencies sending me bills that have nothing to do with me, where the name is slightly different and the SS# is nowhere near the same - I don't think those are someone trying to steal my identity. Rather, I think it's the debt collectors getting desperate to find someone and spamming any name that's even close hoping that either they'll find him, or someone else will pay the bill without realizing it isn't them.

Oh - by the way, the "using seperate random passwords for important online accounts" thing.... I count that as common sense. Add in - not logging into bank or brokerage services from untrusted computers, especially at Kinko's.

Maybe file a complaint on the FTC website? Tell them how many Linux systems you have and how much SCO claims you owe them. ($699 / system and $32 / embeded system). Then explain that SCO wont provide proof of their claims and what Linux is. The form for filing complaints is here

There are some significant antitrust issues related to the non diclosure of patent settlements (although probably not in this particular case).

Settlements between competitors in patent cases raise important and sensitive antitrust issues. The issues are important because patent settlements may create or maintain monopoly in technology and innovation markets and may also effectuate a monopoly or cartel in a related goods markets. Antitrust risks are highlighted by the fact that, absent the patent rights, patent settlement agreements may be per se antitrust violations. Further, anticompetitive patent settlements unlike most antitrust conspiracies are enforceable in court,and by that means can prevent the cartel cheating that is the bane of cartels. Thus, the antitrust risk that a settlement agreement may operate as a disguised cartel has long been recognized.

The antitrust enforcement issues are sensitive because patent settlements can also promote efficiencies, resolving patent disputes that might otherwise block or delay valuable invention. Settlements can reduce the expense and delay that patent litigation often entails. They enable risk averse business firms to avoid litigation uncertainty and variance of outcome. These risks include the unjustified loss of patent rights if a court erroneously holds the patents invalid. Finally, patent settlements can promote productive technology interchange within industries (at least for non-core technologies).

Thus, antitrust screening of patent settlements has an important role to play, identifying antitrust risks and balancing efficiency benefits. However, effective antitrust scrutiny is constrained by several factors. First, since the anticompetitive risk is most acute when patents are weak, invalid or not infringed, any precise identification of the antitrust risk would requires assessment of patent validity and scope. But these issues can only be fully resolved through litigation, and settlement precludes litigation. The alternative of assessing probable validity and infringement in an antitrust proceeding fails to provide a tractable or predictive legal standard.

Antitrust scrutiny of patent settlements is further constrained by the fact that patent settlements are not disclosed to enforcement agencies. To be sure, the Patent Act requires filing of interference settlements and collateral agreements with the PTO. But it appears doubtful that the PTO can police disclosure of collateral agreements and the Department of Justice lacks standing to enforce compliance.The absence of effective disclosure requirements for patent settlements stands in sharp contrast to disclosure provisions for mergers, R&D joint ventures and innovation-related production joint ventures all of which require notification of the transactions to the antitrust agencies. Finally, defendants in settlement cases benefit from two legal presumptions that while legitimate in themselves, impede antitrust challenge: a patent is presumed to be valid and courts have frequently declared that patent settlements are to be encouraged.

Will all the current FUD have a bit of a slow-down effect on businesses using Linux? Probably.

Does the SCO situation, and the resultant FUD from Gartner and others piss me (and most/all other Linux users) off? Definitely.

But here's the thing to remember: Linux isn't OS2, or DR-DOS or even Netscape/Mozilla. Since Linux is GPL, this kind of FUD can't kill it. Slow it down a bit, maybe, but even that is arguable.

So while we should do everything we can to combat the SCO FUD (like file a complaint with the FTC), don't worry too strenuously. Linux is one product that will survive and thrive based on its merits, not good or bad publicity.

And yes, I know that Caldera/SCO got approximately $155MM from Microsoft for DR-DOS, but where is DR-DOS as a competitor to MS/Windows? That's right, nowhere, because MS killed it, even though it was considered by some to be a far superior product.

Here's the ftc complaint form:

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

You can find the online complaint form here.

To fill out the form, here is SCO's information:

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Anyone who uses Linux is threatened by SCO and should file a complaint. I just filed mine, you should file yours too!

You can find the online complaint form here.

To fill out the form, here is SCO's information:

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Anyone who uses Linux is threatened by SCO and should file a complaint. I just filed mine, you should file yours too!

I don't think the SEC would really care. They deal with internal corporate practices as they relate to the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds. I believe you meant the FTC Please see my post below (threaded view) for a direct link to their complaint form. I've already filed one.

Maybe U.S. users should start taking the same action. Would the FTC listen?

FTC Complaint Form

FTC Complaint Form

This web mail thing is not-uncommon. I absolutely hate it.

I once wrote to Joe Lieberman, my Senator, via e-mail. Now, while he did reply, eventually, as part of the reply I was told that in order to get better attention I should use the web form on his web site. When I tried that, the web site refused to accept my brower, IE only. I still get hot over that.

It seems to me that if you can now file your mortgage and other documents (see ESIGN, First Online Refi and probably others) that the President's office should be able to accept comments, and letters via regular e-mail.

Why is regular (read "real") e-mail important? If I am fired up enough to write the President, it is likely that I'll want to include my congressman, senator or the OP-Ed of a newspaper, along with a copy back to myself. Not possible with this "tool." Beside's, websites are vulnerable to the Slashdot effect. E-mail may not be perfect, but I don't have to sit and wait for the compose window to render.

Technically, I'm not sure if PGP or GPG meet any necessary standards, and the technique is far too obscure to casual e-mail users. I submit that all e-mail software should be delivered with a signing tool. That should go for web-mail too. I do not know of any that are. (Check that, Mozilla does, although I cannot see how to use it, yet.) Maybe that would be a start in the right direction.

After all, AOLTW owns a huge music and film library, and they can easily support direct sales through AOL just from this library.

I'm surprised as well. One of the concerns the FTC had about the merger was anti trust possibilities if the companies combined. One of which was if AOL and TW became one company, the media library could be restricted to only AOL customers. Part of the conditions of FTC approval was that the content still be available to competitors.

See the FTC approval with conditions, Dec. 14 2000.

Most notable from the link concerning the topic: "...The proposed consent order also addresses concerns about potential discriminatory treatment against non-affiliated ISPs in terms of the content and Internet services delivered to subscribers..."

Not only did AOLTW not restrict the media library (to the best of my knowledge), they haven't even offered it themselves in any major endevour until now.

It could've been such an advantage it was a condition of the FTC's merger approval that they not deny competitors this content. On the other hand, AOLTW went a step above that, and didn't even offer it themselves until now.

Very surprising indeed.

Some ultrasound firms say their products will also repel mice, rats, roaches, bats, fleas, spiders, and the like. The evidence to date suggests these claims are greatly exaggerated. At best they work only when used in conjunction with a concerted anti-pest program involving traps, improved sanitation, elimination of entry points and nesting places, and so on. So don't throw away that flyswatter yet.

So that's how they see us eh? As the enemy?

And what about this plan to fill our mail boxes up with crap by KILLING MORE TREES??

Well, here's somehting I found on the FTC website about telemarketing,
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-tmark.htm

Someone look this assholes info up and let's SPAM and DDOS this jerkoff to death.
That comment he made calling us dogs was the line in the sand and he crossed it..

Optima Direct
8100 Boone Boulevard
Vienna, VA 22182-2642
USA
Phone: 703 918 9000
Fax: 703 918 9001

James Lyons, Sr. Vice President

FTC sues Toysmart.com

There is a PDF with other more informative FAQs : here

Don't bother calling, CT is in the list of states that will be transferring their current list to the national one. (Actually they're adopting the national one and adding what they have to it.)

Connecticut will adopt the National Do Not Call Registry in place of its existing state do not call list and share the numbers on its state list with the national registry. Connecticut consumers who already signed up for the state list do not need to re-register to have the protections of both federal and state law.

You can register by phone as well, without giving out an email address. Info on how to register by phone is here.

You can't register here, but much more info at: http://www.ftc.gov/donotcall/