FTC Moves Forward With National Do-Not-Call List

The answer? by FunkSoulBrother · 2002-12-18 10:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps the guy who just asked slashdot has his answer.

Re:g to the oatse by xagon7 · 2002-12-18 10:19 · Score: 1

parent = 1337 5p3ak ... v2.0

or

plain ole stupidity.

Now by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed.

Re:Now by NanoGator · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 4, Funny

"For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed. "

I'd love that. I'd report my address as *@*.*

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Now by archeopterix · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed.
Unenforcible, and it would be a great source of e-mail addresses for spammers. Ironic, isn't it?
Re:Now by bethenco · 2002-12-18 10:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm not sure I could support a legally enforced `do not spam' list. In fact, I have mixed feelings about the `do not telemarket' list, despite the fact that I hate telemarketers (AT&T has called me trying to sell long-distance service about five times in the past few days!).

The issue of the government controlling use of technology is what gives me reservations about making spam illegal. Electronic mail's vulnerability to spam is a flaw in the design of the system itself. We should not attempt to solve this problem by introducing regulations that ban certain uses of electronic mail. When you think about it, a federally enforced do not spam list would be a similar approach to that taken by the DMCA. The DMCA attempts to reduce copyright violations by outlawing the distribution or use of software that exploits flawed copy-protection schemes. A federally enforced do not spam list would attempt to reduce destructive uses of email by outlawing certain uses of the flawed electronic mail system.

What about alternatives? In general, we should look for a technological solution to this technological problem. The Bayesian spam filters that everyone has been talking about seem promising. Some system involving only accepting messages signed by trusted sources may also be possible. Of course, you can't list every source you would like to accept mail from, so a system like this may take some hard thought.

Anyway, we may not find a perfect solution to the spam problem immediately, but my point is that government regulation is A Bad Idea.
Re:Now by ackthpt · 2002-12-18 11:13 · Score: 1

Unenforcible, and it would be a great source of e-mail addresses for spammers. Ironic, isn't it?
I dunno, at 11K$ a pop, they could probably afford to enforce it nicely. I wouldn't even mind getting a share of that fine, as I've certainly cumulatively spent many hours clearing the crap from my mailboxes and devising ways to be rid of it. Besides, most of these spammers are domestic USA businesses and shouldn't be too hard to track down and flog. A few harsh examples and I think you could see this stuff drying up pretty quick. Americans typically are less inclined to do business internationally, so foreign spam shouldn't be too much of a problem. If it is, Bush could just threaten economic sanctions, etc. against the offending country, or even invade.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Now by Alien+Being · 2002-12-18 11:41 · Score: 2

"government regulation is A Bad Idea."

Spam is denial of service. It uses up my phone line, email, answering machine, trash can, time, and patience. It costs me money and privacy. It's getting worse and there's little I can do about it.

Spam is necessary. We must be heard. We can trade information about people and target our efforts, or we can shoot at anything that moves. People are becoming desensitized to our messages, so we must turn up the volume.

Mmmmmmmm!!! profit! We could easily offer customers ways of eliminating spam, but it would be like cutting our own throats. We can't let the gov regulate us. If *we* regulate the gov properly, we can score big bucks by selling "weapons" to both sides.
Re:Now by Mac+Degger · 2002-12-18 11:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The difference is that spam is always bad, and circumventing copyright protection has many ambiguous and good uses.

Comparing DMCA and anti-spam laws can't be done, as they aren't equal.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:02 · Score: 0

Do you work for the telemarketers?, sorry but you really sound like one.
Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:12 · Score: 0

I wouldn't say that, the DMCA protects rich companies against us (very bad), where this regulation would protect us against rich companies (very good).
Re:Now by bethenco · 2002-12-18 12:50 · Score: 1

Suppose there were never any ambiguous or good uses for circumventing copy protection. Would the DMCA be a good thing in that case?

I think some of the flaws in the DMCA are deeper than the fact that it restricts legitimate copy protection circumvention. It changes the use of your computer from right to a privilege. It basically says that you can only configure and use your tools in a way permissible to the government.

As for the issue of outlawing spam, here's another way of looking at. If a computer is setup to accept connections over the network and runs software that relays or saves electronic messages sent to it, then it's fair game. The owner of the machine has set it up that way with the knowledge that they have no control over what signals might be coming down that cable. When designing any sort of system that involves machines under the control of different people, we have to assume that if the system is in any way vulnerable to malicious or abusive uses, those uses will be exploited. We can't rely on the government to hold together broken security.
Re:Now by arkanes · 2002-12-18 13:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is not a technological problem. It's a social problem. Buisnesses assume that you want thier products and attentions, even in the face of your denials. Imagine, if you will, a really annoying guy following you around the mall. You have every right to NOT be harrassed by him, and, likewise, you have every right to not be contacted by people you don't wish to be contacted by. When you tell someone that you aren't interested in thier product, they should be obliged to no long attempt to sell it to you - thats the point of these do not call lists, and that would be the point of a no-spam list. Note that spam is, by definition, commercial email, not private correspondance, so this isn't a freedom of expression issue.
Sadly, both spammers and telemarketers are pretty much totally morally bankrupt people - both buisnesses are based on the idea that if you bug someone enough, they'll give you money to go away.
Re:Now by aneurysm36 · 2002-12-18 13:15 · Score: 1

This is different from DMCA. DMCA prohibits certain (fair) uses of things that I own.
This list is something that I would have to opt in on, and would be mutually beneficial. I guaran-fucking-tee you that I will NEVER buy anything from an email or a phone call. This list saves me the hassle of deleting that shite, saves the network latency and disk space and other usage and waste at the ISP level, and saves the spammers the time and resources they would waste by sending it to me.
I shouldnt have to spend time and money implementing my own solution to control this flood of crap when we can just have our government create a central list exactly like this. This is the type of service that I want my government to provide for me.

Where do I sign up?!?!

--
------ hi mom
Re:Now by schmink182 · 2002-12-18 13:21 · Score: 1

I think a good idea to remove SPAM is to all get personal websites and do what Roblimo has done (scroll down about half way).
Re:Now by Melantha_Bacchae · 2002-12-18 14:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

bethenco wrote:

> As for the issue of outlawing spam, here's another way of looking at. If a computer is setup
> to accept connections over the network and runs software that relays or saves electronic messages
> sent to it, then it's fair game. The owner of the machine has set it up that way with the
> knowledge that they have no control over what signals might be coming down that cable. When
> designing any sort of system that involves machines under the control of different people, we
> have to assume that if the system is in any way vulnerable to malicious or abusive uses, those
> uses will be exploited. We can't rely on the government to hold together broken security.

Just like when we take those machines with four wheels and internal combustion engines down the road, we do so with the knowledge that we have no control over the sobriety, state of mind, courtesy, or experience of the other drivers. In fact, we have to assume that some of them are going to be drunk and try to kill us. So do we just let the drunks and reckless drivers kill people, and blame it on a fault of automotive security (steering wheels let cars be driven into other cars)?

Sorry, but if you "children" can't be civil, daddy (government) is going to have to lay down the law to keep the peace. In fact, that is one of the few decent reasons to have a government: so civilization doesn't turn into a bunch of idiots clubbing each other to death. (Note: this is commonly deemed to be undesirable.)

If people can't discipline themselves to maintain appropriate speeds, drive safely, and stay sober, awake, and attentive throughout the driving process; speed limits, fines, etc. get imposed to tone down the death count. Similarly, if greedy gluts can't quit monopolizing the world's lines of person to person communcation (phone, snail mail, and email) to feed their greed; the government is going to have to take some kind of measures to keep them open for their intended purpose.

Personally, I would rather the government be kept far from the internet. But that is ceasing to be an option, thanks to leaches that make millions and build mansions out of stuffing the email system full of horrible junk. If you don't like the government messing with the internet, go thank the spam kings and the slimy pyramid schemers who don't know how to behave.

"What do you think Mothra would do?"
Moll, "Mosura" 1996
Re:Now by standards · 2002-12-18 16:27 · Score: 2

I don't buy it.

Private speech and political speech are fundamentally different than commercial speech.

Yes, this CAN be regulated by the government. Why? Because the industry has be unable to self-regulate. It isn't about speech... it's about giving an industry the right to ring a little bell inside of my house.... and removing that right.

My grandfather is 98 years old. He gets 5 or 6 telemarketing calls a week. He does not need this BS. He asks them to take him off the list, but new players call him back. They try to sell him everything from roofing (for his condo?) tohearing aides.

Please tell me, DMA, how we can stop this without my 98 year old grandfather losing his phone and without costing him $$$ he can't afford.
Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 19:16 · Score: 0

Ron popiel would be spraying his bald spot with 'instant' hair to hear you say that!!!
How would people learn about websites they could buy their dogfood from without spam? you know those people are too lazy to even get up to buy dogfood, so of course, the ads have to come to them, and the effort involved in stopping them has to be greater than simply giving up and not paying the phone bill so they can't get through to you anymore.

Okay, so I hate spam and telemarketers as much as the next guy, but they serve a role, in peretuating the myth that as long as you produce a lot of garbage for the masses to gobble up in consumerism that the economy is 'strong.'

When the econmy isn't strong those panicky wall-streeters need every bit of confidence they can get in the econmy still being strong enough, so they don't pull out money and really hurt the parts of the econoly that we depend upon for our daily needs.

Spam helps keep the stock market afloat on the myth that we have a strong, robust, and 'diverse' economy. because when those egg-slicer vendors and 'better' potato peeler venders go out of buisness they KNOW the economy has tanked. might as well pack up and watch the global econmy collapse along with ours, because most of the crap is getting made overseas.
Re:Now by Jondor · 2002-12-18 20:13 · Score: 2

First of all goverments already regulate the use of media. Frequencies, the decency of what can be shown etc. Not to mention obligatory filtering of websites using badly constructed black-box software.

Seconds, here I don't see regulation. I see a system where joe sixpack can register that he doesn't want to be disturbed AND a stick to hit back ($11K) if his wish is ignored.

Personaly I think it's still a little low tech. Afterall, if one can have callerid and distinctive ringtone it should also be possible to give a call an identifier "marketing opertunity" and the owner of the telephone a way to auto-ignore these calls..

--
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
Re:Now by EvilBudMan · 2002-12-19 03:26 · Score: 1

I think there ought to be a DO call list instead of a DO NOT call list. Once some get's their hands on that do not call list then they will be getting calls from Umbagolia where the laws don't apply.
Re:Now by mark_lybarger · 2002-12-19 04:17 · Score: 2

my oh my.

a governement's job is to protect the nation's borders, and to uphold the federal constitution such that one person's actions do not infringe on another person's rights. anything else, IMO, is overstepping its bounds.

however annoying it might be, a person or company (do companies have rights under the constitution?) calling someone else on the telephone does not infringe on the callee's basic rights. the same goes for email spamming. they're not stealing your resources, connection time, etc. remember, YOU signed up for an email account which you allow to accept messages from anyone, anywhere.

while i would probably benefit slightly from a phone opt-out list, i don't really think it's the job of the federal government to do. i'm really curious why those legislators are wasting our time with this silly issue. aren't there other things they should be focused on? i prefer a simple and very loud STFU to the AT&T sales represenitives will eventually get the message across. Spamming the spammers is also an interesting tactic to get your name off the list.

with all this fricking legislation, i won't be able to walk up to someone in public and try to carry on a conversation for fear of being arrested for "stealing their precious time without consent".
Re:Now by bethenco · 2002-12-19 05:50 · Score: 1

Private speech and political speech are fundamentally different than commercial speech.
When you start making distinctions like that, you're treading on dangerous ground. I'm sorry, but I'm a hard-liner when it comes to freedom of speech. The classification of some forms or pieces of communication as `commercial speech' or `hate speech' and restriction of those communications is a breach in the dam of the sacred first amendment. Who defines what is `commercial'? With free speech, it's all or nothing.

Despite the emotionally stirring reference to your 98-year-old grandfather, the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be. He gets 5 to 6 telemarketing calls a week. Figure it takes 15 seconds to determine each one is a telemarketing call and hang up. That's a minute and a half wasted per week. I think we can pay that price until we come up with a better solution in order to keep technology free from government control.
Re:Now by bethenco · 2002-12-19 06:04 · Score: 1

Imagine, if you will, a really annoying guy following you around the mall. You have every right to NOT be harrassed by him, and, likewise, you have every right to not be contacted by people you don't wish to be contacted by.
I don't see it that way. In the mall analogy, the obnoxious guy has the right to say whatever he wants to you, and you have the right to ignore him. What we need are better methods of ignoring spammers. Work on better filters, think about what's wrong with the email system, do something, but don't be so quick to let the government control the Internet because we can't think of a good solution ourselves at the moment. Come on, where's your hacker, DIY spirit?
Re:Now by bethenco · 2002-12-19 06:17 · Score: 1

Agreed. If people can't get along using some communication system they've established, that's not a problem suitable for government intervention. The government is not here to make everyone `play nice', and it would never be capable of accomplishing that anyway.

When people are, say, shooting each other, *that's* when the government needs to get things under control.
Re:Now by plague3106 · 2002-12-19 06:37 · Score: 1

however annoying it might be, a person or company (do companies have rights under the constitution?) calling someone else on the telephone does not infringe on the callee's basic rights.

Yes they are; my right to privacy, and my right to be left alone or contacted only by people I care to have contact me. What you're saying is that basically its ok for anyone to barge into your house and start telling you about their new shiny thing. thats basically what telemarketers and spammers do.

(do companies have rights under the constitution?)

If somehow they do, they shouldn't. People have rights.

YOU signed up for an email account which you allow to accept messages from anyone, anywhere.

No, i didn't. I signed up for an email address to accept messages from friends, family, my employer, and companies i'm actively doing buisness with.

Do i have an address so that EVERYONE may contact me, or so that people i know can find me? If you think its everyone, please by all means post your home address here.

. i'm really curious why those legislators are wasting our time with this silly issue. aren't there other things they should be focused on?

We don't put other issues on hold because there are more important things; they can address both at once.

while i would probably benefit slightly from a phone opt-out list, i don't really think it's the job of the federal government to do.

I benefited greatly since my state adopted a DNC list. Maybe you don't care about telemarketers calling during dinner, but i do. If not the federal gov't, who will stop these companies from harassing me?

i prefer a simple and very loud STFU to the AT&T sales represenitives will eventually get the message across.

Funny, it didn't stop the bank offering to mortage my apartment. I yelled, threatened to sue, asked them nicely...no matter what i did they didn't stop calling me. Since i've been on the DNC, not one word, and i've been much happier.
Re:Now by mark_lybarger · 2002-12-19 07:00 · Score: 1

my right to be left alone or contacted only by people I care to have contact me

is this right explained in the constitution somewhere? i must have missed it. you are free to my knowlege to make yourself as much a hermit as you want, or accessable as you want. if you sign up for a telephone from a phone company that publishes your number, or sells the number, you are indirectly making yourself accessable to anyone who can get the number. my point was that it is not the responsibility of the federal governement to provide regulation on these matters. perhaps the states have the flexability to implement this type of regulation, but i really think it oversteps even the bounds of a state legislature.

No, i didn't. I signed up for an email address to accept messages from friends, family, my employer, and companies i'm actively doing buisness with.

which service provider gives these types of email accounts? do you provide them with the list of addresses you accept email from? my email provider offers a publicly accessible email address that accepts email from anyplace, and my email client is what i use to filter out the mails. i usually just delete those i don't want to read.

i'm sure the DNC list in your state has been very nice to the people, but the governments has another job to do. no, they don't do both at the same time. i'm sure those lawyers are good multitaskers, but they still work on one thing at a time. there may be lots on the burner, but only one active thing at a time. this does take time away from their primary job of protecting the boarders and the constitutional rights of its citizens.

again, you don't have a right to be left alone, but the freedom to make yourself inaccessible.
Re:Now by blank_coil · 2002-12-19 13:47 · Score: 1

You have some of the most insightful comments I have read on slashdot in a while. I completely agree with your argument.

--
No sig for you.
Re:Now by plague3106 · 2002-12-20 07:26 · Score: 1

again, you don't have a right to be left alone, but the freedom to make yourself inaccessible.

This basically sums up your arguement, so its the only line i'll quote.

Unfortunatly, following your line of reasoning, i don't have the right not to be assulted, just to make it impossible for others to assult me.

That is not freedom to me, and probably not to alot of other people. All of our rights are not enumerated in the Bill of rights, and if you read it, you'd see that there are 2 amendments that say basically that.

People have a right to speech yes, but they do NOT have the right to force others to listen.

As far as email goes, the fact that i don't publish it in a public place means i only want people i know emailing me.
Re:Now by mark_lybarger · 2002-12-20 08:20 · Score: 2

i read them here

i don't see anything that grants people the right to be left alone.

ammendment 4 reads

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

this provides some level of privacy, only against unreasonable searches and seizures. if the police are investigating a neighborhood stalker, they can knock on your door to see if you're all right and have noticed anything suspicious that you would like to report. you don't have to tell them jack, you don't even have to answer the door that i know of, but they can knock. likewise, if you're walking down the street, you have the freedom to holloer to someone else walking on the other side of the street to ask if they know the current time. they don't have to answer you at all, no, but you have the freedom to ask.

a physical or verbal assult would be against the laws and the constitution as it inhibits the victim's right to live and causes personal damage to another (one's constitutuional rights stop when they infringe another's constituional rights). the "inaleinable" rights seem to be left out of the national constitution, but appears in many states constitutions. perhaps that was indicitive of how much control the original authors felt the national governemtn should have over citizens lives. the government was to protect the nation and the small few rules outlined in the constitution. we've come a long way in 200+ years.
Re:Now by plague3106 · 2002-12-20 18:06 · Score: 1

ammendment 4 reads

Perhaps if you scrolled down a you would have noticed these two:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

likewise, if you're walking down the street, you have the freedom to holloer to someone else walking on the other side of the street to ask if they know the current time. they don't have to answer you at all, no, but you have the freedom to ask.

This is not the behavior we're talking about, nor is it behavior which a national DNC list seeks to stop. There are some issues that are dangerous to make laws about because they may snowball; this is not one of them. It annoys me that you're trying to link the two together, because it detracts from real issues that may snowball, and cause others to ignore these issues 'because everything snowballs to those nutcases.' Finally, we are talking about regulating a buisness, not an individual. They are not the same, nor do they have the same rights.

Others have suggested that its ok for someone to keep talking to you or asking you questions after you've ignored them or told them to stop. This is harrasment, and you seem to reconize that you can cause harm to others verbally as well as physically. This is what telemarketing companies do; harrass people that don't want to be called. Self-regulation has failed and in most cases being asked to be put on a do not call list doesn't work. Even for the few that do respect it, your number gets passed around to far more buisnesses that will feel free to call you whenever they want then can be possible to keep up with.

The bottom line is that i'm in my house, and people do not have the right to harrass me there. If i can't escape harrassment in my own home, where the hell can i?
Re:Now by standards · 2002-12-22 01:17 · Score: 1

Why is it dangerous ground? Why is it so hard to classify?

Classifications work both ways you know.

And we have the people to decide what is what.
Re:Now by bethenco · 2002-12-23 03:26 · Score: 1

The ninth and tenth amendments state precisely why the DNC or DNS (do not spam) lists are beyond the bounds of the government's power. `Powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution' are the rights the government has to regulate or control the activities of its citizens. The bill of rights lists activities which the government does not have the right to control. The ninth and tenth amendments say that, by default, the government does not have the right to control any activity not specifically mentioned.

The basic idea here is that when you have a `right' to do something, that means the government may not interfere with your doing it. That *does not* mean that government should pass laws to ensure you are capable of doing it. You have the right to communicate freely, so the government does not have the right to interfere with how you do so. If you have trouble communicating due to technological limitations of the medium (e.g., vulnerability to abuse), that does not mean the government should step in and control the use of the medium.

Finally, we are talking about regulating a business, not an individual. They are not the same, nor do they have the same rights.
I don't think this distinction is valid. What is a company other than a collection of people working together to make money? How is a collection of people working together to make money any different from a collection of people working together to do something else?
The bottom line is that i'm in my house, and people do not have the right to harrass me there. If i can't escape harrassment in my own home, where the hell can i?
Here's another way of looking at the situation. You don't have an inherent right to use, say, email. If people want to setup some communication system like email, that's fine, but if it doesn't work out (e.g., due to vulnerability to cheap mass advertising), that's just too bad. The government never guaranteed you email to begin (the citizens set this up themselves), so if it isn't worth using, don't use it. Better yet, make a superior system. This idea does not apply as much to the telephone system since the government already regulates that a great deal, but I think it's the right way of looking at communication systems in general.
Re:Now by plague3106 · 2002-12-23 13:22 · Score: 1

The ninth and tenth amendments state precisely why the DNC or DNS (do not spam) lists are beyond the bounds of the government's power. `Powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution' are the rights the government has to regulate or control the activities of its citizens. The bill of rights lists activities which the government does not have the right to control. The ninth and tenth amendments say that, by default, the government does not have the right to control any activity not specifically mentioned.

They have power over interstate commerce. Most telemarkets call you from outside your home state. From that i think that the nation DNC list is well within their power, and the state DNCs will handle your local scum.

I don't think this distinction is valid. What is a company other than a collection of people working together to make money? How is a collection of people working together to make money any different from a collection of people working together to do something else?

The distinction is that a corperation doesn't have any ethics. All that matters is the bottom line. Corperations also have billions of dollars to buy laws. Personally, i don't think its right that the people with the money make the rules. Finally, individuals would never spend all day calling people to harrass them, but buisness does. Thats another distinction for you to consider.

You have the right to communicate freely, so the government does not have the right to interfere with how you do so. If you have trouble communicating due to technological limitations of the medium (e.g., vulnerability to abuse), that does not mean the government should step in and control the use of the medium.

If i cannot communicate using a medium, have i not been deprived of my right to speech (and to listen)? If everytime i tried to talk to someone within 10 feet of me and someone else kept prohibiting us from talking, isn't that a restriction on speech?

Here's another way of looking at the situation. You don't have an inherent right to use, say, email. If people want to setup some communication system like email, that's fine, but if it doesn't work out (e.g., due to vulnerability to cheap mass advertising), that's just too bad. The government never guaranteed you email to begin (the citizens set this up themselves), so if it isn't worth using, don't use it. Better yet, make a superior system. This idea does not apply as much to the telephone system since the government already regulates that a great deal, but I think it's the right way of looking at communication systems in general.

So i pay for something for a particular purpose, but someone else can abuse it to make it worthless to me? I fail to see your logic here. People can post a No Soliciation sign on thier property to prevent unwanted disturbences. Until these DNC lists, there was no similar method to stop phone soliciations. People that i do not wish to have call me have no right to call me. I'm paying for phone service, i can dictate who may use it to make either outgoing or incoming calls.
Re:Now by plague3106 · 2002-12-23 13:26 · Score: 1

Oh, and something else i find interesting about your last paragraph. You say the government shouldn't regulate technology, but its ok because they've already regulated the telephone system.

This seems rather contradictary; if you really believed in your position, you'd be calling for deregulation.

Finally, you seem to miss the point that these DNC lists ARE regulations in the telecommunications industry, so your idea doesn't apply by your own admission.

Well by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Where's the FTC's national "Do Not Spam" list?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:20 · Score: 0

the national list calls YOU to propose creating a new fdc!

Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:28 · Score: 0

They do here, too...
Re:In Soviet Russia... by chimpo13 · 2002-12-18 10:51 · Score: 1

A call my friend got 2 days ago:

So yesterday evening i'm eating dinner and watching tv when the phone rings. i answer it.

phone: Hi, is lisa simpson there?

me: whos calling?

phone: this is so-and-so from California Financial, can i speak with lisa simpson?

me: no

i then hang up.

a few seconds later the phone rings again.

me:hello?

phone:why'd you hang up in my face?

me:what?

phone:why'd you hang up in my face, bitch?!

they hang up. i laughed and tried to *69 them but it didnt work.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:In Soviet Russia... by KevinIsOwn · 2002-12-18 10:58 · Score: 1

A call my friend got 2 days ago: phone: chimpo13's friend is lying. me: Duh.
Re:In Soviet Russia... by chimpo13 · 2002-12-18 11:23 · Score: 1

You're right. It was a call to me. I just didn't want /.ers to make fun of me.

I'm also 6'5", weigh 300 pounds and quarterback for an NFL team in San Francisco. But once again, I didn't want to say that so you geeks don't make fun of me and hurt my feelings.

I can't even read or write, my personal assistant reads the posts, I answer them, and he transcribes them. It's so you geeks will like me because I can use a computer. Just like how it worked for Wil Wheaton.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by iWishMeHadModPoints · 2002-12-18 11:26 · Score: 1

Damn, that's funny, I wish I had mod points.

--
Some day I will have mod points, so add me to your friends.
Re:In Soviet Russia... by jimlintott · 2002-12-18 12:14 · Score: 2

I had a telemarketer hang up on me once. It went like this:

Her: Hi, I'm blah blah and I'm calling to tell about the fantastic prize you've won. It's a blah blah blah.

Me: Oh.

Her: You don't sound too excited for someone who has won such a wonderful prize.

Me: I'm waiting for the catch.

Her: (click)

Another thing is to tell them that you were just sitting there masturbating and would really like it if they could describe themselves for you. Ask what colour their underwear is. They'll hang up.
Re:In Soviet Russia... by DirkDaring · 2002-12-19 01:57 · Score: 1

Dangit it Jeff. I needed a couple more TDs in last game to win my Fantasy football game. You need to throw more. What are you doing here, get out there and practice.

Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by Flamesplash · 2002-12-18 10:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Loosely related, but you can currently get off Junk mail lists through a similar method.

--
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson

Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by PD · 2002-12-18 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative

That costs $5. That sounds suspiciously like "pay us some money or we'll harass you."

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by digerata · 2002-12-18 10:27 · Score: 1

That's a wonderful idea, and its only 5 bucks.
But I'll still be getting crap about the Swedish made penis cream because this is not an international organization.

--

1;
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by Malicious · 2002-12-18 10:45 · Score: 1

Know ahead of time, that before they sign you up for the service, they charge [a modest] $5.

--
01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by jazman_777 · 2002-12-18 10:50 · Score: 1

That costs $5. That sounds suspiciously like "pay us some money or we'll harass you."
They're already harassing you for free.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by PD · 2002-12-18 11:10 · Score: 1

And they should stop for free too.

Or perhaps I can set up a wardialer and start charging people "protection money".

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by jazman_777 · 2002-12-18 11:22 · Score: 1

Or perhaps I can set up a wardialer and start charging people "protection money".
Good idea, but the DMA already has been using it for a long time now.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by theMightyE · 2002-12-18 11:42 · Score: 1

On another loosly related topic, you can turn your answering machine into a device that removes your phone number from telemarketers lists, and it's free to boot. Basically, you put those tones you hear when you call a disconnected line at the beginning of your answering machine message. The auto-dialing computer that telemarketers use is often designed to recognize these sounds and mark the number as no longer in service. The system them removes your number from the list. Joy!
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 14:24 · Score: 0

heh, I actually went to visit the DMA site and clicked on their Privacy Statement link at the bottom of the page.

A very insightful Privacy Statement, that one.
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by standards · 2002-12-18 16:10 · Score: 2

Hey, I tried that a few weeks ago and it hasn't worked yet. I get even MORE junk mail now!

Airport Security was a airline industry-regulated business, because "government regulation wasn't necessary" and was "too expensive".

Looks like THAT didn't work either.
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by Zathrus · 2002-12-18 17:21 · Score: 2

And they should stop for free too

They do. Send snail mail. Costs you a stamp.

Or perhaps I can set up a wardialer and start charging people "protection money".

Please do. When you call the wrong numbers consecutively the FTC and local phone company will be quite happy to cart you off to jail for interfering with emergency numbers (hint - wardialiling too many hospital, fire station, police, or other lines is a violation of federal law -- I used to work at a hospital and it's a bad thing when the entire unit's phone lines are tied up by some telemarketer).
Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 02:51 · Score: 0

Costs you a stamp.

What part of the word "free" don't you understand, idiot?

Could this be used... by inode_buddha · 2002-12-18 10:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

to set legal precedent for effective anti-spam regulations?

--
C|N>K

In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Telemarketers hang up on you!

Suing would be an admission... by program21 · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

The DMA suing would basically be an admission that they use unethical tactics.
From from what I've read, this doesn't say that they can't call, only that can't call if the number they are calling is on the Do Not Call list (and also the Caller ID stuff, which is secondary).
Frankly, I don't see how this would in any way affect 'buying oppurtunities', as the list would be opt-in, and so anyone on that list DOESN'T want to hear from telemarketers; it's actually better for the marketers since they have a greater chance of reaching someone who might be their product.

--
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.

Re:Suing would be an admission... by Siva · 2002-12-19 10:38 · Score: 2

i disagree that opt-in is better for marketers. a good chunk of the successful calls are people who would likely choose not to opt-in. these people are analogous to the "on the fence" voters out there, who are most actively pursued by candidates because they know they have a chance of winning their vote, as opposed to someone who is adamantly against them. they are people who might not seek out whatever product or service the caller is offering, but who can be pressured into buying. if the list was opt-in, all of these sales would be lost.

--Siva

--

Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.
Re:Suing would be an admission... by program21 · 2002-12-19 14:15 · Score: 2

If the list was opt-out, everyone would be included and only the people who took the time to go through the process of getting their name off the list would be abled to recieve calls.
I assume that most people will choose the path of least resistance, beit an opt-in or opt-out system. If it's opt-in, there are going to be people who don't want the calls but can't be bothered to get on the DNC list, and if it's opt-out there will be those who don't mind getting the calls but won't get themselves off the list.
With an opt-in system, there is a greater number of people to be reached, and of those that can be reached, a greater probability that they would be interested. An opt-out system decreases the total number of people and would almost certainly lead to a decrease in sales via telemarketing calls.

--
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Re:Suing would be an admission... by Siva · 2002-12-19 19:56 · Score: 1

wait a second here...when you say opt-in, are you referring to an opt-in Do Not Call list, or are you referring to a "Please Call" list? i had interpreted the latter...it doesn't make as much sense in hindsight though...

--Siva

--

Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.

Oh FTC by Shawn+Baumgartner · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 1

I love you. :) Admittedly, I will miss seeing how long I can get the bastards to wait on hold, but a small price to not have to deal with (much of) that telemarketing crap anymore. I know where the goddamned store is and I have Internet access; some doofus who got turned down as the fry guy at McDonalds isn't providing me with any great shopping revelation.

--

Shawn
Because you gotta bitch

It is obivoulsy Trolling Stones by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 0

he patented the g to the oatse, c to the izzex, which had you read is bio, would realize that it is a combination of goatse.cx, and jay-z's song, Izzo(H.O.V.A.)

Finally! by freeze128 · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Finally a list where you can post "ME TOO!!!" and it actually MATTERS!

hang ups by JohnG · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 2

I'd say at least 60% of all telemarketing calls I get are hangups and it is very annoying. My friend recently called from korea and left a message on my voicemail, his phone number didn't show up on the caller ID so no I have to answer all the unavailables. Sheesh, is it annoying. The worst is the pre-recorded unsolicited crap though, I had one of those come in right as I was about to call the doctor for an emeregency. Luckily it didn't turn out to be anything because the damn recording tied up my line so long I would have died before I got through.

Re:hang ups by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:31 · Score: 0

What's really annoying now is that, rather than hang up, sometimes they ask you to stay on hold until one of their assho^H^H^H^H^H operators is free. Oh Lord do I hate that.
Re:hang ups by HeghmoH · 2002-12-18 11:52 · Score: 1

You were about to call the doctor for an emergency, and you didn't want to hang up on a recording? You control how long these things take.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:hang ups by JohnG · 2002-12-18 11:59 · Score: 2

I DID hang up on the recording, but it didn't hang up on me. When I picked the phone back up to call the doctor the recording was still talking. You have to wait quite a while before the recording will break the connection. At least with my telephone company.
Re:hang ups by HeghmoH · 2002-12-18 14:04 · Score: 1

Interesting. Is this something unique to telemarketer calls for you? For me, whenever I hang up the phone, the line becomes mine in about one second, no matter what the guy (or machine) on the other end is doing.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:hang ups by JohnG · 2002-12-18 14:16 · Score: 2

It does it to the recording that calls to remind me about doctors appointments as well. I'm not sure if it does it to real people, because generally when you hang up on a real person that don't even try to hold the line open but for so long. (And I don't usually just hang up on people, or pick the phone right back up if I do)

ummm.... by Quasar1999 · 2002-12-18 10:21 · Score: 2

can I be put on the DO-NOT-SPAM-ME list????

What do you mean it's only for telephones?

I'd like you to know Mr. Politician, I voted for the other guy.

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Re:ummm.... by mrkurt · 2002-12-18 10:28 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, the FTC's do-not-call list doesn't cover all businesses, either. If it isn't regulated by the FTC (i.e, financial services), they aren't covered. However, the FCC is about to promulgate their own "do not call" list, that covers the rest... so, stay tuned. Personally, the calls from the *&#@! banks (who I have credit cards with) are the ones who call me the most, and therefore wouldn't be affected by the FTC action. So I'm waiting, Commissioner Powell...

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Re:ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:36 · Score: 0

sure, give me your e-mail address

Caller ID by All+Names+Have+Been · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 1

...also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled.

Now if we could only call them back when they're eating lunch and ask them if they'd like to purchase a Mandrake subscription..

Re:Caller ID by redcliffe · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 2

But you'd have to check that they aren't in the "Do Not Call" list first.....

how about by Sad+Loser · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

doing the same for the Direct Marketing Association as we have for the self styled 'spam king'
Details here

--
Humorous signatures are over-rated.

Are these guys evil or what? by InterruptDescriptorT · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 4, Funny

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Good grief! Can you the ultimate evil company's board of directors?

CEO, EvilCo: Satan himself
VP of Intellectual Property, West Coast: Jack Valenti
VP of Intellectual Property, East Coast: Hilary Rosen
VP of Sales and Marketing: The Direct Marketing Association
CFO: David Skilling

VP of Getting Royally Screwed Every Time Shit Goes Down: The customer.

--
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)

Re:Are these guys evil or what? by danny256 · 2002-12-18 10:43 · Score: 2

Don't foget old Ralsky, there's got to be a place for him at that company!
Re:Are these guys evil or what? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-12-18 10:51 · Score: 2

Shouldn't Eisner be somewhere on that board, not to mention Sen. Hollings (D-Disney^WS.C.)?

I'd mention billg, but why bother?

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Are these guys evil or what? by jazman_777 · 2002-12-18 11:07 · Score: 1

CEO, EvilCo: Satan himself
Is that an oblique reference to B*** G****?

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:Are these guys evil or what? by Dan+D. · 2002-12-18 11:51 · Score: 2

Wait, isn't that the Presidential Cabinet? Or am I confused about how corporate america works?

--
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
Re:Are these guys evil or what? by swv3752 · 2002-12-18 14:36 · Score: 2

Isn't this slashdot? There is no mention of Gates or Ballmer.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

FTC Press Release by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 0

Here's the press release straight from the FTC:

FTC Announces Final Amendments to Telemarketing Sales Rule, Including National "Do Not Call" Registry

Potentional Loss of Buying Opportunities? by Cyclopedian · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Please. All the telemarketers want to sell you are 'insurance', aluminum siding, and all unwanted assorted crap. I'm an informed consumer and if there's something I want to get, I'll find it and get it myself, thank you.

-Cyc

--
/.'s 10 Millionth

Sueing on what basis by phorm · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Seems to me that if you took the time to sign up for this list, then you would be just plain pissed off by any further telemarketer calls, and thus not likely to purchase anything anyways. No customer lost here.

Now, if they really want to advertise, I've found those washroom/urinal advertising signs to be quite effective as most men prefer to look straight forward and having something to read helps prevent the possibility of peripheral vision eye-wandering.

Re:Sueing on what basis by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:30 · Score: 0

I prefer to stare at my penis.
Re:Sueing on what basis by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Well I for one would take the calls over the bathroom ones. The ones we have in my Uni's washrooms are of little old women who have been helped by United Way... It's creepy as all hell having a grandma watch you pee
Re:Sueing on what basis by Esion+Modnar · 2002-12-18 11:12 · Score: 1

It seems to me that a telmarketing company's main job is to separate the wheat (potential customers) from the chaff (indifferent to antagonistic callees), a whole heluva lotta chaff. They oughta be glad for this DO-NOT-CALL list, since anybody signed up for it is 99.99% chaff.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Re:Sueing on what basis by donutz · 2002-12-18 11:35 · Score: 2

Now, if they really want to advertise, I've found those washroom/urinal advertising signs to be quite effective as most men prefer to look straight forward and having something to read helps prevent the possibility of peripheral vision eye-wandering.

Wait a minute...are you that guy that seemed to be checking me out while I was taking a piss?
Re:Sueing on what basis by ConceptJunkie · 2002-12-18 11:50 · Score: 2

I think you are giving their intelligence too much credit.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Sueing on what basis by Mac+Degger · 2002-12-18 11:58 · Score: 2

Janitoirs all over the world must cringe at that form of advertising.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Sueing on what basis by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2002-12-18 13:30 · Score: 2

Janitoirs all over the world must cringe at that form of advertising.

The ad goes on the wall above the urinal in front of the eyes, not IN the urinal. The point is one has something to stare at that's not a brick or tiled wall wall while one wees into the urinal.
Re:Sueing on what basis by DavidTC · 2002-12-18 14:43 · Score: 1

No kidding. I'm fine with ads on the wall in restroom, but I don't want any people on the ones right above the urinal, or in the stalls.
If I wanted other people to watch me pee I'd be doing on the sidewalk.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Sueing on what basis by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 16:22 · Score: 0

The joke wasn't exactly a thinker, yet you managed to not get it and went even further and felt a need to correct the guy. Congrats.
Re:Sueing on what basis by Happy+go+Lucky · 2002-12-18 20:44 · Score: 1

The ad goes on the wall above the urinal in front of the eyes, not IN the urinal. The point is one has something to stare at that's not a brick or tiled wall wall while one wees into the urinal.
And most places just use the sports page out of the paper for this. However, when the Broncos absolutely suck ass this year, I think I'd rather see ads for aluminum siding while recycling my beer.
Re:Sueing on what basis by jez9999 · 2002-12-18 23:34 · Score: 1

However, when the Broncos absolutely suck ass this year, I think I'd rather see ads for aluminum siding while recycling my beer.

Recycling it? So you drink your own urine?

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:22 · Score: 0

the telemarketers sue YOU!

this could get interesting by actionvance · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 1

So great.... people will farm there telemarketing out to out of country companies that only call the "do not callers" - because they will be especially receptive and un suspecting of a telemarketer. OR Companies will get more creative. Service providers such as cable companies may start giving out courtesy calls where they try to pimp out other products

Misreading by adamwright · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 4, Funny

I originally read that as "The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue U.S. consumers for the potential loss of buying opportunities." and was remarkably unshocked :)

Don't call me by Student_Tech · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll call you if I want something your service offers. To quote one of my parents "We don't do business over the phone" (unless we made the call).

Will this become the new "click here to opt out?" by idontgno · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 1

1) Acquire U.S. national do-not-call list.
2) Leave the country.
3) Set up in some spam-friendly Bumcrackovia
3) Start spam-calling everyone on the do-not-call list
4) ???
5) Profit!

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Yeah, what is that? by unicron · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 2

I seem to be pretty clear of them, but whenever I visit my parents place, even if it's just for dinner or something real short, they get a lot of silence-calls. Not hang-ups, the line doesn't go dead, just silence. My folks are pretty boring people and it's just them, so I'm not inclined to believe someone is fucking with them. Is this some type of auto-dialer fucking up somewhere?

I can't believe people would use something like an auto-dialer. Go to the big house; bread and water, icy-showers, guards whupping your ass round the clock, and the only way? Suicide.

--
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.

Re:Yeah, what is that? by splume · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2

This is acutally the telemarketers computers waiting for you to pick up. Once they know they have a live number (which they have just determined by you yelling nasty things into the phone) they will call you back at a later date with a person there ready to harass you.

I read this info a while back, but don't remember where.

Those annoying tricky bastards!

--

Who is John Galt?
Re:Yeah, what is that? by rudedog · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2

I get silence calls all the time. It usually comes in clusters. For two or three days, 3-4 times a day, the phone rings, I answer, and nothing. Then we don't get another cluster for a week or so.

I'm quite certain that it's autodialers, because once or twice I've just waited on the line for a minute or so and the soliciter has started talking. I then tell it to put me on the do not call list.
Re:Yeah, what is that? by ianjk · 2002-12-18 10:45 · Score: 1

I seem to be pretty clear of them, but whenever I visit my parents place, even if it's just for dinner or something real short, they get a lot of silence-calls. Not hang-ups, the line doesn't go dead, just silence. My folks are pretty boring people and it's just them, so I'm not inclined to believe someone is fucking with them. Is this some type of auto-dialer fucking up somewhere?

I think...
my hunch is that the telemarketing company makes a few thousand extra calls a day by dialing numbers before their operators are actually availible, (and routing calls already dialed to the next availible operator immediatly after they finish their last call) saving the second or two that it takes to dial after a call has been completed, I have had this happen, and sometimes after 10 sec they will pick up.
Re:Yeah, what is that? by Chris+Burke · 2002-12-18 10:51 · Score: 2

Amazing how much engineering you can apply to the problem of how to most efficiently piss people off.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Oh well... by Zapateria · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 2, Funny

...I guess I'll have to put up with tormenting the Jehovah's Witnesses instead.

Re:Oh well... by ejsjrnc · 2002-12-18 10:34 · Score: 1

Of course, you could always do something similar to this and make a profit to boot.

They'll be opt-in calls from now on... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

... the recording or shpiel will start out, "You agreed to receive this call...."

Is it just me or... by Toraz+Chryx · 2002-12-18 10:23 · Score: 5, Funny

Is
"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities." the funniest sentence ever?

"But we wanted to offer them a once in a lifetime chance!!!!!"

Re:Is it just me or... by javahacker · 2002-12-18 11:21 · Score: 1

They can still sell to everyone who doesn't opt out, so what are they complaining about?

Oh yeah, that means they are out of business, doesn't it?

I think they need to find a new business model.
Re:Is it just me or... by netringer · 2002-12-18 12:12 · Score: 2

Is "The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities." the funniest sentence ever? "But we wanted to offer them a once in a lifetime chance!!!!!"
Why, thank you!***blush***

The DMA really does say stuff like that. Quote: "Some consumers would like to receive fewer telephone marketing calls at home." Doh!

If you sign up an any of the "Preference Lists" they require you to verify by mail in writing so no villainous person can maliciously deny you a chance for these great buying opportunities.

BTW, Here's where to deny the opportunity for yourself: by Snail Mail [It costs $5 to sign up online!], Email, and Telephone.

--
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly

The New York one has been fairly effective by burgburgburg · 2002-12-18 10:24 · Score: 2

So far, the New York version has been fairly effective at stopping telemarketers from calling. I'm shocked, though, that the W bunch would have kept this thing going forward. My guess: they'll tank the lawsuit from the DMA and then say "We tried.".

Re:The New York one has been fairly effective by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:42 · Score: 0

Stop and do a little research before you get on your political soapbox.

If you had done your homework, you'd learn that Texas has a similar law, enacted under W's term as Governor.
Re:The New York one has been fairly effective by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:44 · Score: 0

the W bunch as you put it installed one of these in Texas before he was President How long has the NY version been in effect?

Ring Ring... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:24 · Score: 0

It's for you!

dupe by zozzi · 2002-12-18 10:24 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I predict that this story will be a dupe, I'll say this in every article and then when the dupe occurs I can link to this message and say I'm a great prophet...

... shouldn't need to wait for long now...anytime now (checks watch, hits reload button, mutters and smiles an evil grin....)

--
---

joke? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:25 · Score: 1, Funny

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

What ... a ... joke. I do hereby state that I DO WISH to lose all buying opportunities presented to me by postal service mail or by telemarketing ... yet the DMA, in their infinite wisdom, is here to protect me from my foolish decision. What a bunch of great guys ... way to go.

It's Run by the DMA by mashie · 2002-12-18 10:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.

Re:It's Run by the DMA by jonbrewer · 2002-12-18 10:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.

Indeed it is - however, having used the mail preference service since 1998, I can say without reservation that it works, and is a good thing. I still get some junk from local businesses who don't subscribe to the DMA's lists, but it's on the order of three or four pieces a month.

The service is worth every penny I spent to get on it. (I think it was $0.32 for the stamp back then)
Re:It's Run by the DMA by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:16 · Score: 0

It's a good thing? My arse it is, it's blackmail. They demand $5 for a faint suggestion that I might receive less junk mail if I fill in their stupid form. Don't forget use of this list is entirely voluntary, no direct marketer has to take any notice of it.

Laws are required to stop this kind of abuse. Unfortunately what we end up with will have no teeth - it's been tried before, and the Direct Mail Association has enough lobbyists to gut any proposal that will kerb their "right" to spread garbage far and wide.
Re:It's Run by the DMA by jridley · 2002-12-18 11:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Amusing or not, it does work. I sent in my card several years ago, and I get essentially no junk mail anymore.

Also, after just a couple of months of methodically using the "do not call" line and being a bit of a prick about it, I do not get telemarketing calls anymore. NONE. It's been literally MONTHS since I've gotten a call. Once in a while a small local company will call and want to clean my furnace ducts or something, but that's like 2 or 3 times a year.

These methods do work but you must be stubborn.
Re:It's Run by the DMA by jonbrewer · 2002-12-18 12:31 · Score: 4, Informative

My arse it is, it's blackmail. They demand $5 for a faint suggestion that I might receive less junk mail if I fill in their stupid form.

The $5 is only to submit online. Just print the thing out and mail it in. Cost of a stamp today, $0.37.

As for the list being voluntary - it's observed by those who send more than 80% of the junk mail in the US. I know a little about the direct mail industry, having consulted for a mailing equipment manufacturer in the recent past.
Re:It's Run by the DMA by FoxMcCloud · 2002-12-18 22:53 · Score: 1

Well, now I realise I was lucky to live in France. Phone telemarketing just doesn't exist... or maybe one call in 2 years or something...
Actually I've been studying in Canada for the last 2 years so maybe this has changed since :P But I doubt it.

--
bool Marketoid::IsGood(){return IsDead();}
Re:It's Run by the DMA by hacker · 2002-12-19 01:08 · Score: 2
Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.
And..
1. Costs $5.00 to process online
2. Is "free" through snail mail (if the processing online is $5.00, why is it any less through snail mail?)
3. Their online system for processing either request is completely broken, and clicking on their forms to process it leads you to a nearly blank page, in both Windows, Linux, and BSD, under 11 separate browsers.
Maybe they should hire a webmaster to clean up their act. Or.. maybe that's how they get around the requirement. Just put up a page saying that you can get yourself off the list, "Click here now!" and then break the web form, so it doesn't actually do anything.
"Look! We comply with the laws! We're just having technical difficulties right now, but we'll be back up in a few months."
Suuuuuuure you will.
Re:It's Run by the DMA by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 02:43 · Score: 0

consulted for a mailing equipment manufacturer in the recent past

Well then you cheap whore, you are part of the problem and not to be trusted on this matter. Fuck you where you breathe.

Loopholes? by P!Alexander · 2002-12-18 10:25 · Score: 3, Informative

As with every other law, I'm sure the lobbyists will make sure that we'll still get our fair share of calls from "legitamized" companies.

From the FTC website (emphasis added):

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers a choice about whether they want to receive most telemarketing calls. Consumers soon will be able to put their phone numbers on a national "do not call" registry. It will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry.

We'll see exactly how it holds up...

Re:Loopholes? by jpt.d · 2002-12-18 10:43 · Score: 2

The others can just get their numbers from the list.

--
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Re:Loopholes? by foo12 · 2002-12-18 10:52 · Score: 1

Most states exclude most calls from candidates for office or most registered non-profits (Easter Seals, etc.) Political speech carries much stronger free speech guarantees than commercial (marketing) speech, hence the former. The latter I imagine is in place for at least two reasons: many nonprofits are religious organizations, again a troublesome area for speech rights, and it keeps the states from looking like they hate charities.
Re:Loopholes? by Sylver+Dragon · 2002-12-18 11:36 · Score: 2

As with every other law, I'm sure the lobbyists will make sure that we'll still get our fair share of calls from "legitamized" companies.

Of course they aren't going to stop all unsolicited calls, they don't have the authority. They only have authority over certain areas. Specifically, they don't have the power to stop political telemarketers, its outside their domain. Financial institutions are probably outside their influence as well. So cut them some slack, at least they are trying to move in the right direction. Its going to be a case of small steps to get this madness stopped, and it will never be brought to a complete halt, but it would be nice to stop some of it.

--
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.

IN NAZI GERMANY by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:25 · Score: 0

you could be arrested for suing someone!

Good! by missing000 · 2002-12-18 10:25 · Score: 1

It's about time. My state has had a no-call list for about a year, and about half of the phone numbers in the state have signed up.
I just got a new number, so I'm getting tellemarketing calls 2 or 3 times a day until the list gets updated, but when I had a number on the list there was never an unwanted call.

As much as I hate ... by craenor · 2002-12-18 10:25 · Score: 1, Troll

To admit this. I don't think legislation of this kind would be legal. That smacks of a violation of free speech. Just because you decide you hate to receive calls from one company, doesn't mean that should apply to all companies who market by phone.

I could see a service however, (not government sponsored or mandated) that would maintain a "Do not call database" for a small fee.

Craenor

Re:As much as I hate ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:37 · Score: 0

Free speech lets you think and say what you want.
Free speech does not let you contact me and try to sell me shit.
Re:As much as I hate ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:46 · Score: 0

To admit this. I don't think legislation of this kind would be legal. That smacks of a violation of free speech. Just because you decide you hate to receive calls from one company, doesn't mean that should apply to all companies who market by phone.

I don't think so. IANAL, but I don't think the First Amendment protects companies' rights to contact the masses. I hate it when I get a call from someone who pretends to be my best friend, yet they can't pronounce my last name. To make it worse, it's usually when I'm busy studying. Why should the government protect their "right" (as you imply) to talk with me? They shouldn't. The First Amendment says nothing about protecting corporations "rights" to call people at home.

On the flip side, I think the government should protect me from getting bombarded by telemarketers (and, extending this idea, spammers). They regulate how businesses can market products (no false advertising, various restrictions on what they can and can't show, etc.), why not extend this to mass marketing at a personal level?

If I don't want to be contacted by Company X, I don't listen to their radio ads, I don't look at their billboards, I flip the channel when their commercials come on, etc. The difference between these and simply hanging a phone up, though, is that I can zone out any of the aforementioned methods. Getting a phone call, though, requires I stop what I'm doing (which may be very important) and give my (usually) undivided attention to whoever it is that's annoying me.

Food for thought.
Re:As much as I hate ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:49 · Score: 0

I don't think legislation of this kind would be legal. That smacks of a violation of free speech. Just because you decide you hate to receive calls from one company, doesn't mean that should apply to all companies who market by phone.

You are making me angry with your "free speech" blah. I don't want to be disturbed with phone calls. Maybe I have bad legs and I have to come downstairs to answer just another phone call from a telemarketing guy. Is it not better to ask for some money because he/she disturbed me? Why is my lost time not important. God, I'm loosing time event now, tapping here... Let's go back to programming.

And by the way, next time I'll call you to try to sell you some brain. Sorry, it was a joke. I'm sick of telemarketeers fucking with my time. OK, I could say "please do not call me again" but... why? There are a lot of marketeers so, if I, by principle, don't like to be contacted over the phone by any of them I should make public my request to not be called even before it happens. That's why the FTC proposed this law, to let people to express this desire in a public place every marketeer should check before calling. If you don't agree even with the basic principle of "do not call me again", tell me, and I'll call you in the middle of the night to sell Linux to you (if you are a Windows guy), to sell OS X (+computer) to you (if you are a Linux guy), or to sell you Windows XP (+computer) to you (if you are a Mac guy). And sorry, for the people who want to force everybody to speak with he/she please feel free to replace "guy" with "girl" or with "sex of your choice".

SERENITY NOW!!! SERENITY NOW!!! (C)Seinfeld

Peace.
Re:As much as I hate ... by richmaine · 2002-12-18 10:52 · Score: 1

I personally mean it to apply to all companies who market by phone. What I want to know is who are you to tell me that I'm not allowed to mean that.
Re:As much as I hate ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:54 · Score: 0

Freedom of speach doesn't extend to unwanted telephone calls. The bill of rights does not protect the companies that call you up wheather or not you want it.

- Floyd
Re:As much as I hate ... by gearheadsmp · 2002-12-18 10:57 · Score: 0

...and I supppose you're one of those people who believe spammers when they deny during an interview that they don't send unsolicited commericial e-mail to e-mail addresses they obtain, and also include "reply to be removed from this list" in their spam. Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the right to contact random people at their private home phone/e-mail address. It was intended to prevent people from being persecuted for voicing their beliefs, whatever they be. A sales pitch isn't a belief, opinion, alignment, etc.
Re:As much as I hate ... by mangu · 2002-12-18 11:52 · Score: 2

It's not about restricting your speech. You may still speak freely, you may say whatever you want. It's about protecting my right to privacy. Where is it mentioned in the Constitution that I'm forced to listen to you?
Re:As much as I hate ... by dchism · 2002-12-18 12:40 · Score: 1

Your constitutional right to free speech gives you the right to express our opinions. It does not guarantee you that someone will actually listen.
Re:As much as I hate ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 14:41 · Score: 0

If the government can't gather up all the telemarketers and spammers and ground them up into pig food, the least they can do is set up this "do not call" list.

These butt munches have been enjoying too much free speech already, as in free use of MY phone, MY computer, MY fax machine.

MY phone (computer, fax...) is not YOUR business tool. The phone is there for when I want to use it. When I need to buy something I can figure it our for myself, I don't need some glue sniffing loser calling me at their convenience.

Free speech is when I am free to not listen to it.
Re:As much as I hate ... by Sabalon · 2002-12-18 17:18 · Score: 2

Free speech means you can say what you want. It doesn't mean you can force me to listen to it.

If you wanna stand on the street corner and talk about x,y or z, that's fine. But you can't do a thing if I decide to put my fingers in my ears and not listen.

In this case, the government is helping people do that if they want, probably because of the FCC and FTC tie-ins.

Hey, let's help out! by Shoten · 2002-12-18 10:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

What say we all get together and DoS DMA's infrastructure while this is in consideration? After all, if we were to keep calling them incessantly (and emailing, and whatever else we can do), it would certainly be an elegant form of vengeance, particularly if it impeded their ability to fight the FTC on this one. Don't forget to get the law firm that is "of counsel" to them in this matter :)

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.

Telezapper... by wnknisely · 2002-12-18 10:26 · Score: 5, Informative

On a related note:

I grabbed one of those Telezappers while I was waiting in line at Staples last week buying a UPC. Danged if the silly thing doesn't work.

It emits the three tones that the phone company plays when you dial an out of service phone number. Everyone hears it when I answer any call - but the cool part is listening to the auto-dialers automatically hangup when they "hear" it.

There ought to be some way to hack together a similar machine using an old voice modem and some sort Tone controller - kind of a hybrid box for getting long distance phone calls for free. (Anyone else remember those?)

--
In illa quae ultra sunt

Re:Telezapper... by idontgno · 2002-12-18 10:30 · Score: 1

Dude...
You've got a sound card on your PC, no? That and an impedance-match transformer and you're golden.
Better yet, if you have a voicemail-capable modem, you have a PCM wave device built in. That would work OK with nothing more than software.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Telezapper... by 4/3PI*R^3 · 2002-12-18 10:31 · Score: 2, Informative

All you have to do is record these tones on the outgoing message of your answering machine. Then never answer a call before your answering machine picks up -- unless you of course you recognize the number on your caller id box.
Re:Telezapper... by Bonker · 2002-12-18 10:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Download the tone from http://heymoe.freeyellow.com/ and record it on an old answering machine. Set the answering machine to pick up all calls on the first ring and volume to 'max' on the answering machine, so you can use it to screen your calls.

Total cost? $5 for a cheap-ass answering machine at Wal-mart.

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Re:Telezapper... by 4/3PI*R^3 · 2002-12-18 10:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Here are the tones you need are here (http://home.attbi.com/~dakine/sound/tones.wav)
Re:Telezapper... by wnknisely · 2002-12-18 10:41 · Score: 1

mod: +1 genius.

That's great - I hadn't heard that they were available for download.

Not as much fun as generating them on the fly I suppose - but it's a quick and dirty hack.

--
In illa quae ultra sunt
Re:Telezapper... by inode_buddha · 2002-12-18 10:46 · Score: 2

sort of like the Blue box for telemarketers? I bet it wouldn't be all that hard to do in software even with newer modems (mine's a Rockwell 56k, bout a year old)

--
C|N>K
Re:Telezapper... by Woogiemonger · 2002-12-18 10:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know no one wants to give the phone company more money, but my parents finally decided to go for Verizon's "call-intercept" after enough debate, at $5 a month. Incoming callers who block their numbers from being identified are screened..here's the description:
"Screens unidentified calls and lets you handle them however you like. Works with Caller ID, prompting unidentified callers to announce who they are before your phone rings."
So anyway, it's apparently been working great. They used to get 5-10 calls a day at all hours. It's been a month since they signed up, and so far they get none from what I've heard. Could be a solution to telemarketing, although I don't like the fact that we have to pay for protection. I'd rather let the telemarketers pay fines, and maybe throw them in jail.
Re:Telezapper... by bihoy · 2002-12-18 10:59 · Score: 1

Sounds like this would make a good feature for manufaturers to add to an answering machine. It would be great if you could just enable this tone by flipping a switch on your machine.
Re:Telezapper... by plumby · 2002-12-18 11:01 · Score: 2

Of course, the fact that most predictive diallers hang up when they detect an answerphone anyway means that this is probably unnecccessary.
Re:Telezapper... by FatAlb3rt · 2002-12-18 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

...$5 a month...it's apparently been working great

Especially for the telephone company WHO SOLD THE NUMBER IN THE FIRST PLACE!! Now they profit again each month.
Re:Telezapper... by haystor · 2002-12-18 11:08 · Score: 1

The answering machine should automatically pickup, play those tones, then play a ringing sound really loud that sounds just like your phone, then a message and finish with a beep.

--
t
Re:Telezapper... by base3 · 2002-12-18 11:21 · Score: 2

But if predictive dialler your answering machine picked up, then it will try again. If it thinks your number's out of service, it won't. Hence the SITs.

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:Telezapper... by afidel · 2002-12-18 11:25 · Score: 2

actually most predictive dialers place you into another catagory when they get a machine, the "harrass these people on another day when they are more likely to be home time" list. With the out of service tone they are dropped. Actually most telemarketers don't mind do not call lists so much because it raises the % of sucessfull calls, thus dropping their costs. I have a friend that works in data screening for a telemarketing firm and he says the only reason he won't like this is that it will add one more step to every single campaign he has to load as it will be another database to check lists against but otherwise he and his bosses are all for it.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Telezapper... by Cyno01 · 2002-12-18 11:32 · Score: 2

Better yet, pick up and after the machine connects you blast the telemarketer with a blue box tone. :)

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Re:Telezapper... by dissy · 2002-12-18 11:33 · Score: 2

Its pretty funny they are selling you a service, to prevent certain people from calling you who are just paying them for a service (callerid blocking) who are only paying for that service because you are paying them for a service (caller ID) in the first place.

Ahh what a racket :)
Re:Telezapper... by OYAHHH · 2002-12-18 11:37 · Score: 1

Ok,

While we are pitching products, I have another great gadget to buy.

I bought a GREAT caller ID box that allows you to categorize incoming calls into something like 8 different categories. Some of the categories are: "Friend", "Family", "Work" (why would ever want this category?), a "Dog Barking", "It's for you in a male voice", and "It's for you in a female voice",

When a call comes in that has been previously categorized by you, the caller ID box audibly calls out the category name (or barks in the case of the dog barking category).

When a call comes in that you haven't categorized but a number exists, the box quickly audibly calls out each digit.

When a call comes in that has not been categorized and does not have a number then the box either audibly calls out "Number Blocked" or "Caller Unknown".

The url for this gadget is:

LifeWithEase

I've got this box and a telezapper and they are both fantastic products.

--
Caution: Contents under pressure
Re:Telezapper... by prockcore · 2002-12-18 12:29 · Score: 2

Incoming callers who block their numbers from being identified are screened

Qwest offers that service for free. Anyone who actively blocks their caller ID that calls me get's a recorded message telling them that I don't accept calls from blocked caller ID and then instructs them how to unblock it.
Re:Telezapper... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:34 · Score: 0

Or use one of the recording greeting cards.

At one point back in school, I had a homebrew telephone answering machine that automatically pickups the phone and plays a greeting card message.

It was a simple nor gate wired as a shot circuit with a reset after time outs. Unfortunately it would be difficult to get that part 15 certification.
Re:Telezapper... by G27+Radio · 2002-12-18 14:46 · Score: 2

That's not the end of the phone companies' little in-house arms race either. A couple months ago I paid a $20 setup fee and about $5 a month for BellSouth's "Privacy Director". It was great for the first two or three months. Now I'm regularly getting multiple calls each day from numbers that show up as "Privacy Bypass" on my caller ID, one of which has left the same recorded message on my machine for nearly five days straight now.

I'm feeling pretty ripped off because of the $20 setup fee. If the service had lasted a year before becoming useless I'd be less aggravated.

What really gets me is that I'm getting more of these calls now than I was before I got the service. Guess I better try the Telezapper tones on my answering machine and see if that works. BTW, I've heard that you only need the first tone in order to get the auto-dialers to hang up.
Re:Telezapper... by Sycraft-fu · 2002-12-18 14:57 · Score: 2

The only problem with those is some people (like me) recognise those tones and ALSO hang up. I had this happen and it took a bit before I figured out what was going on.
Re:Telezapper... by jez9999 · 2002-12-18 23:45 · Score: 1

It emits the three tones that the phone company plays when you dial an out of service phone number. Everyone hears it when I answer any call - but the cool part is listening to the auto-dialers automatically hangup when they "hear" it.

That sounds a bit stupid. Now, whenever anyone genuine calls you, they hear an 'out of service' tone and hang up too.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Telezapper... by Zigg · 2002-12-19 00:28 · Score: 2

I heard once (urban legend?) that these "privacy" services permit the whole identification thing to be bypassed by a static code of some sort. If so, then maybe these guys found out your code?
Re:Telezapper... by rnelsonee · 2002-12-19 08:28 · Score: 1

Well, this works great, but it's annoying to the people that know you. I'd suggest downloading only the first 1/3 of that tone here. This way, it's much less annoying, but it still works, since most telemarketers use devices that call several people at once, and the computer, upon hearing even the first part of the three-tone "your call cannot be completed as dialed" tone, immediatly gives up and tries the next number.
-- Rick

Barrier to Entry by mr.crutch · 2002-12-18 10:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

The FTC can't reasonably regulate international companies, that's why.

The trouble with a "Do Not Spam" list is that there is no international barrier to entry for any of these spammers. If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper).

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant. The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls. The FTC could try to regulate Spam, but the are just too many loopholes to be successful.

Re:Barrier to Entry by Large+Green+Mallard · 2002-12-18 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant.

Keep in mind, a growing number of companies in the US are moving their call centres to India... it can't be TOO expensive :/
Re:Barrier to Entry by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2002-12-18 10:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

For that kind of volume, I wouldn't imagine you'd use the switched telephone network. You'd probably use a 1-800 number in the US and have it route over private leased trunks to your call center(s). Just guessing, though.

My previous employer had a branch office in Asia, and one time I checked our phone bill. After that, I didn't want to see it any more.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Barrier to Entry by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 16:32 · Score: 0

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant.

I guess at a nickel per minute, the phone bill will be substantial.

Keep in mind, a growing number of companies in the US are moving their call centres to India... it can't be TOO expensive :/

The one time a company i formerly worked at looked into it, they could run a call center 7/24 and cut costs. They would, of course, close their current 8.00 am to 9.00 pm mon - fri 8.00 to 5.00 pm sat and sun call center in the US.
Re:Barrier to Entry by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 20:20 · Score: 0

> Compared to Spam, the cost of making an
> international phone call is significant.

I don't know about the expense argument. I live in Germany and only pay ~US$.5 to call my family in the States. But then again, a Telemarketer would also have legal problems with operating out of Germany. Maybe all the countries were it would be legally possible would also be expensive.
Re:Barrier to Entry by Guppy06 · 2002-12-22 15:37 · Score: 2

"If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper)."

At least until the entire country of Thailand is blacklisted, a solution that is being talked about more and more.

(No, not Thailand in specific, spam-friendly countries or regions in general.)

"The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls."

You forget that the cost of the call is often offset by the cost of labor. English-speakers work for less in India than they do in the US. That, and I'm sure they can get some sort of bulk rate discount on their calls.

Ummm, there's a *huge* difference.... by inode_buddha · 2002-12-18 10:26 · Score: 2

between "...the potential loss of buying opportunities." and an actual lost sale. It all really makes me wonder wtf is the legal system coming to in the US? Ideas anyone?

--
C|N>K

Re:Ummm, there's a *huge* difference.... by Bonker · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 1

The legal system is becoming what it's always become in any culture and in any civilization... an implimentation of the golden rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!

DON'T LOSE OUT! 847sjsj by Bonker · 2002-12-18 10:26 · Score: 5, Funny

DON'T LOSE OUT!

The FTC is about to take away your ability to recieve great offers and buying opportunities through email.

Stop them before they stop you!

For a small donation of only $10, you can help fund the fight against unwanted government regulation in direct marketing.

Remember that only you can make a difference.

You have received this mail because you indicated that you wanted to receive promotional offers of this kind. If you no longer wish to receive mail like this, please click this link:

http://www.spamhaus.com/addressverifier.pl?adress= cmdrtaco@slashdot.org

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!

Re:Will this become the new "click here to opt out by idontgno · 2002-12-18 10:27 · Score: 1

Crap.
I think item "4" should be "Learn to count."

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Not your typical Linux geek... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:27 · Score: 0

I, for one, DO NOT want to be making eye contact with another man when I have my dick in my hand!

Re:Not your typical Linux geek... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 0

Clearly a closet case.

Loopholes by SmartGamer · 2002-12-18 10:27 · Score: 1

The charities aren't the only holes here.

-What defines a mass marketer? Could I get sued by dialing two wrong numbers in a row who are on the DNC list?

-What, exactly, do they define a "chairity" as?

-Will there be an opportunity for telemarketers to buy a permit to call these people?

-What about schools, who have a viable reason to contact large numbers of people? (*ring* "School's closed!")

-What about a practical joker who registers a whole bunch of numbers other than his own, of people who, for some insane reason, actually like telemarketers?

-Is there any way to get off the list?

-What about ad faxers? ...there just isn't enough information.

--
Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.

Maybe, but by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:28 · Score: 0

Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time. Set the law up so as to automatically force the SPAMMERS to waive any and all rights by using ANY portion of the list. That way, they could not say they got the list from another source. Devious, yes, tasty, mmmmmmm. If your email was on another list, who cares, they would be subject to automatic jail time. Perhaps a 30 day stretch in the slammer for each violation! Talk about fun!

Re:Maybe, but by archeopterix · 2002-12-18 10:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time.
Send marines to bust some guy from souvereign territory of Quibumba Republic? Unfortunately this is not that simple. Well, there is a partial solution - a trusted organization that keeps the list and only answers queries about e-mail addresses. Or just publishing hashes of the prohibited e-mails. But this is only partial.
Re:Maybe, but by sjames · 2002-12-18 10:45 · Score: 2

Send marines to bust some guy from souvereign territory of Quibumba Republic?

It would be the least controversial U.S. use of military force since WWII. One shot, one kill!

those little roulette games on the urnial cakes by Unknown+Poltroon · 2002-12-18 10:28 · Score: 2

What a golde..rem, prefect advertising spot.

--
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.

The War On Telemarketers by rossjudson · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 2

Personally I think this is more important than the war on terrorism. I mean, nobody's tried to blow me up lately, but these calls happen every single day. So who isn't going to want to be on the national do not call list?
Predictive dialing should simply be recognized as harassment and prosecuted as such under current law. If you or I repeatedly call somebody and then hang up, don't you think the police and/or phone company are going to be interested? Oh yeah, I forgot, the phone company is making money on all those calls.
We could also legislate that all unsolicited commercial phone calls carry a surcharge. This surcharge can be rebated to consumers directly -- it shows up on your phone bill. The more you've been called, the more you get back.

Re:The War On Telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:47 · Score: 0

Not bad, make it an ok to call list instead of a do not call list. They have to pay a surcharge for calls on the list that is rebated to the customers, and they have to pay a... not $11,000 which is nothing to large companies, but a $100,000 (which is steep enough not to make this a day to day regular practice for them) and 50% of that goes to the consumer when they call someone who is not on the list. And it needs to be legal to require phone records for this purpose. I request a transcript of all who called me, highlight offender, fill out form (available online, at post office, and at libraries), drop it in a special box setup along with the drive by mailboxes at the post office. Two weeks later I get my $50,000.

Thanks by The+Kow · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 5, Funny

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Next: Stalker sues State for issuing restraining order, denying his ex-wife the opportunity to be harassed mercilessly.

--
Moo

Re:Thanks by Malicious · 2002-12-18 10:50 · Score: 1

Next: Stalker sues State for issuing restraining order, denying his ex-wife the opportunity to be harassed mercilessly.
You need to word it properly: Ex Lover sues State for issuing restraining order, denying his ex-wife a Life extending opertunity.

--
01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110

And They Charge You $5 by mashie · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 1

And they charge you $5 for the privilege - the bastards!

Re:And They Charge You $5 by jratcliffe · 2002-12-18 10:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Only if you do it online - if you actually send them snailmail, it's free. On the face of it, that seems sorta dumb (it must cost them >>> more to process a letter than the results of a web form), but if they made it too easy to sign up for the list, too many people might do so.

That being said, you should remember that, overall, direct marketers don't want to waste their time and money contacting you if you _really_ don't want to buy. Their hope is that some people who might say "I want off the list" will actually buy, when they're called or mailed.
Re:And They Charge You $5 by mashie · 2002-12-18 11:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Good point about the $5.

By the way, the response rate that snail mail requires is astonishingly low. My sister works in the marketing department of a major catalog company - they consider a 2% response rate excellent.

So if you live with someone who complains about all the catalogs but still buys from time to time, tell them this: every time they buy from a catalog they are voting to have 50 more sent to them.

Another interesting tidbit - list exchange. You know that buying from Lemurs Unlimited gets you on the mailing list of Ferrets Forever, Gerbils by Mail, and HamsterConnection. The way this works is that catalogs "rent" lists to each other. So Catalog B rents 10,000 names from Catalog A with the restriction that they can only mail to them for a certain period of time. If a rented name responds to Catalog B, B is allowed to keep mailing them. If they don't, they must stop mailing after the designated period. This is done not for spam prevention but to keep competition for good customers $ under control.

What's amusing is the way this in enforced. When Catalog A rents the list of names, they seed it with a few address of their own employees, or PO boxes, etc. They know that these customers won't respond, since they're fake. If Catalog B keeps mailing after the rental period, they start a fuss and sometimes sue.

And, yes, my sister does feel a little guilty about her job. In fact, she's quitting soon and going to grad school...
Re:And They Charge You $5 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:18 · Score: 0

You, and your whole family, deserve bucketloads of spam, jim@mine-control.com - you're part of the problem.
Re:And They Charge You $5 by fname · 2002-12-18 11:33 · Score: 1

When did people working honest jobs at catalog companies become a lower life form that murderers, thieves and other assorted felons.

This whole if-you-spam-you-are-evil-thing is getting a bit tired. It's time to hop off that saddle and get down from your horse. Write your representative, vote, organize, whatever. But please, stop acting as if spamming is the most awful thing one can do during his time on this planet.

This crowd which shouts at the top of their lungs that the internet cannot be legislated by governments, and then try to shout and shove their own way to controlling it need to take a good, long hard look in the mirror. You are basically illogical and power hungry.
Re:And They Charge You $5 by theonetruekeebler · 2002-12-18 11:54 · Score: 2

Please don't confuse direct mailers with spammers. As is the point of this thread, you can opt out of the big junk mail lists in a way that actually works. Snail mailers have an actual expense to cover, and therefore do make an effort to target their recipients even slightly, and those who don't want their mail are obviously outside their target area.
Telemarketing is a worse creature than direct mail, too, IMHO because it requires an explicit interrupt rather than a batch process to deal with it. I can ignore five pieces of daily junk mail in about ten consecutive seconds; five phone spams in one night is five interruptions to my evening. Don't like telemarketing, but sometimes I can hear the "I hate my job" in telemarketers' voices. Hey, I've been unemployed, too.
Spammers, however, are indeed a lower lifeform and must be destroyed by any means necessary.

--
This is not my sandwich.
Re:And They Charge You $5 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 02:46 · Score: 0

If I met you, I'd fuck you up simply because I don't like spam. How's that for consistent and logical?
Re:And They Charge You $5 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 02:49 · Score: 0

opt-in is the only acceptable arrangement. Fuck them and their advertising, fuck you for being an apologist for them, I don't want it. I shouldn't have to take any steps not to get it.
Re:And They Charge You $5 by theonetruekeebler · 2002-12-19 05:03 · Score: 1

opt-in is the only acceptable arrangement.
For certain things, yes. Still, I like knowing which nearby supermarket is having a sale on X, on account of I can't afford to just buy X unless it's on special.
Fuck them and their advertising, fuck you for being an apologist for them, I don't want it.
Was that a grammar troll, or are you actually that sloppy a thinker? For the sake of discourse, though, I'll just assume English is your second language. As for "fuck them", I can see your point of view. As for "fuck you", you are posting as a coward which makes your opinion of me irrelevant.
I shouldn't have to take any steps not to get it.
Possibly not, and in certain areas, such as online advertising, certainly not. However, plenty, if not most, businesses would not survive without advertising. And advertising hugely subsidizes most of the media you receive: magazines, newspapers, Slashdot, and television. Surely you don't think those services exist without advertising money?

--
This is not my sandwich.

For email and addresses by xombo · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why don't they do this with email and physical addresses so people wont mail you or email you, and maybe keeping away door to door salesmen too.

Re:For email and addresses by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:46 · Score: 0

I love snail mail junk mail! I have a cat which likes to urinate on the carpet, but he's OK with newsprint in a litter box. (Won't go in litter :-( ). With junk mail, I don't have to buy a newspaper every week or so to keep him happy :-)

Naah... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 4, Funny

You mean that the "remove me" link in spams isn't sufficient?

Re:Naah... by NineBall · 2002-12-18 10:58 · Score: 1

I think that it would probably be better to send them a couple of goatse links, and if they still don't get it, start sending lemonparty links, and set your filter to exclusive.

--
You may not agree with what I'm saying but I'll kill you for my right to say it

But.... by www.sorehands.com · 2002-12-18 10:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

It could also be made to be illegal to use spammers! Make companies that hire spammers liable for the same damages as the spammer. That will take away from the spammer's income stream.

--
Fight Spammers!

Re:But.... by multimed · 2002-12-18 11:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's exactly what I've been arguing for some time. For the most part, unsolicited spam is illegal, but it's not enforcable because the spammers change ISPs and/or are offshore, so they can't be found or punished. But there is almost always a contact of some sort in the email in order for the "customer" to give the company money. Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too. It's no different that holding a company that knowingly sells stolen goods liable. Just because they aren't the ones breaking the law doesn't mean they can profit from the crime.

--
Vote Quimby.
Re:But.... by Mac+Degger · 2002-12-18 11:50 · Score: 2

Couldn't they be gotten for conspiracy? The company and the spammer are conspiring to commit the crime of spamming (stealing network resources)?

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:58 · Score: 0

Too much Jack McCoy for you!
Re:But.... by DaveAtFraud · 2002-12-18 12:02 · Score: 2

Spam is not currently illegal except in a couple of states (e.g., Washington and maybe a couple of others). One of the things the spammers do is raise their supposed constitutional rights to spam people whenever an ISP attempts to limit incoming spam. The Washington law was only recently upheld against a spammer in Oregon (story was carried on slashdot, dig it out if your interested).

By making spam illegal this barrier is removed and ISPs can use a number of effective spam filters and blacklists without having to engage in expensive court fights over whether they are limiting the spammer's "free speech". Besides being a service to their customers, ISPs would rather not have to invest in the additional capacity to store and carry this trash which gives them a economic incentive to filter it if they're allowed. Likewise, ISPs could then require well-formed mail headers for any traffic generated by their subscribers. These two actions together would probably cut out more than 95% of all spam.

Unfortunately, it probably won't stop the loosers who continue to send things like the Nigerian money scam.

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 00:08 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, it probably won't stop the loosers who continue to send things like the Nigerian money scam.
What about "loosers" who don't know how to spell?
Re:But.... by Guppy06 · 2002-12-22 15:49 · Score: 2

"Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too."

You'd have to prove a connection between the two. Until then, the business can always say it was one of their competitors trying to slander them. Like political campaigns who have volunteers make campaign telephone solicitations for the competition.

funny but not altogether unexpected by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:30 · Score: 0

save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Lets take the analogy of internet browsing and email usage real quick. If I am browsing through various sites and I get a popup I kill it. If however I see a banner that is not imposing anything on me, then I will look at it and see if it interests me (this in turn could be compared to driving by billboards as opposed to driving and then having paper or plastic advertisements be shot at your window, coating them in multiple layers of ads in which it takes both the operation of your hands and the wipers to remove while hanging your head out the window to see. I make it a point (whenever a popup slips through) to NEVER reward the company listed on the popup with my business as this only encourages such behavior.

If I get calls by telemarketers then I tell them to send me info in the mail... rarely do they follow through.

It can by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:31 · Score: 0

It can and SHOULD be used for such a purpose! Precedents can be so much fun!

Don't mind it that much.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 0

I, for one, do not mind direct marketing as a concept or as a business practice except that their current practices SUCK. They call late. They call during the worse times (e.g. a meal--you honestly expect me to listen when there's food to be eaten?, or primetime, TV to be watched).

If there was a way for them to call 1 number and keep it separate from all the others, I'd be game. I'd rather have a separate number of voicemail for them, or rather have the FCC require all telemarketers and businesses to have a damn caller ID flag that shows it's a telemarketer calling, so they can be screened or accepted. Devices could even be made around this idea and sold (blah blah, yeah, never happen, people will abuse this, blah blah).

But I guess that's too hard. I currently use a simple self-made blocker that requires you to enter a (changeable) PIN to actually get the phones to ring, otherwise it shoves you over to the answering machine. I had written a little program that looked at the caller ID string and shoved it over to the answering machine if it came from an "unavailable" number or didn't have a 2 proper names, but then I ended up missing important calls. (I also tried only ringing if it matched known folks, but that was too stringent.)

Too bad the Direct Marketing Association is only willing to sue, not find a practical solution for its members to follow that also protects those who do not want to be targetted.

I'd prefer that *I* pay to be on the list... by mgkimsal2 · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2

It seems it'll be 'free' to consumers and paid for by fees collected from telemarketers. That'll just translate into higher prices on more goods, as companies will use those fees as justification for higher prices, and there'll be more 'justification' than I care to think about.

No, I'd rather simply pay $5/year per number, or something similar, to have my numbers registered as 'do not call'. Or damn - have the phone companies collect it - they collect dozens of other taxes already. An extra 50 cents per number per month ($6/year) would go unnoticed and help fund this system.

They could even make extra money by charging the telemarketers for the lists of DNC numbers, but the decision is up to the telemarketing companies. Keep a current list, or risk paying fines.

--
creation science book

Re:I'd prefer that *I* pay to be on the list... by HeghmoH · 2002-12-18 12:04 · Score: 1

How's this for an idea:

Every telephone company is required to add a mandatory 50cent/month fee to each of their subscribers' bills. This money goes to maintaining a national do-no-call list, consisting of every single telephone number in use. That way, telemarketers can only legally call people who don't have a phone.

Violators will be punished by shooting them into the sun with a giant slingshot.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:I'd prefer that *I* pay to be on the list... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:40 · Score: 0

ok but lets reverse it, let's make it an ok-to-call list, and if I want on it I have to pay $5 a month. So instead of anyone being fair game who doesn't sign up, only those who sign up are fair game. And instead of me having to pay to not be bothered by those I don't want calls from, I have to pay to be bothered. And if a telemarketer calls anyone who is NOT on the list, they are fined $100,000 half of which is paid to me.
Re:I'd prefer that *I* pay to be on the list... by DavidTC · 2002-12-18 15:03 · Score: 1

Violators will be punished by shooting them into the sun with a giant slingshot.
This is technically infeasible. People would catch on fire exiting the atmosphere, and then they'd die to vaccuum long before they hit the sun.
Of course, it still seems like a pretty good idea.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Constitutional rights by www.sorehands.com · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2

Hey, don't you have a constitutional right to be interrupted during sex to wait on hold with a message, "we have an important call for you," so that you may get new curtains for your house for enhanced privacy.

--
Fight Spammers!

Re:Constitutional rights by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-12-18 10:48 · Score: 2

Uh, if you answer the phone during sex, I suspect that your SO may be willing to give you "enhanced privacy" ... i.e. without his/her/its company.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Constitutional rights by allism · 2002-12-18 11:01 · Score: 1

But none of the /. crowd would know about sex, and even if they did, you're making a big assumption that it would last long enough for it to get interrupted by a phone call from a telemarketer...

--
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Re:Constitutional rights by yog · 2002-12-18 11:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Heh.

Still, it's fun to tell the telemarketer that this is precisely what you were doing, and listen to them squirm.

TM (cheerfully): Hi, Mr. Yog, I'm Fred Loser from AT&T. How are you today?

You (panting slightly): Dammit, I was just having sex with my wife!

TM: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Is there a better time when I could call you back?

You: Well, you've already interrupted me. It's going to take a while to get worked up again.

TM (sounding uncomfortable): We'll call you back tomorrow; will you be home around this time?

You: I only answered because my great-uncle is in surgery right now; we're waiting to see if he survived the operation.

TM (running out of scripted responses): I'll call back another time.

You: No, I want to hear your entire sales pitch. (start panting heavily; in the background a woman starts moaning.)

TM: Uh...

etc.

--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.

Colorado already has similar list by ThingOne · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2, Informative

I am already on a no call list here in Colorado. It has worked well. If implemented right it works. My phone never rings anymore. If someone does get through and you mention your on a statewide no call list. The apologize and hang up, never to be heard from again. They just need one for spam and all would be good

Re:Colorado already has similar list by ThingOne · 2002-12-18 10:36 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.coloradonocall.com

Massachusetts "do not call" law... by sdo1 · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2

The presumably similar Massachusetts "do not call" law becomes effective January 1st, 2003. If you're a MA resident, visit http://www.mass.gov/donotcall between January 1st and March 1st, 3002 to be added.

My iPaq is set to remind me to sign up.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:Massachusetts "do not call" law... by chinton · 2002-12-18 10:45 · Score: 2

If you're a MA resident, visit http://www.mass.gov/donotcall [mass.gov] between January 1st and March 1st, 3002 to be added.
Leave it the gub'ment to give the telemarketers 1000 years before the new regulations go into effect... ;-)
Re:Massachusetts "do not call" law... by sdo1 · 2002-12-18 10:49 · Score: 1

Damn-it! I'm usually pretty good at prouf reeding.

Pretty damn funny typo though, if I do say so myself.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Re:Massachusetts "do not call" law... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:28 · Score: 0

I hope that iPaq is running linux

won't work internationally by axxackall · 2002-12-18 10:32 · Score: 2

You cannot force international spammers to pay the fine. And you cannot force them to have a caller ID either. Unless you are ready to treat such way other goverments on behalf of their spamming residents. Or unless you are ready to disconnect whole countries from USA. Or unless you are able to change international laws for convinience of US citizens ...

I knew that only moroons are working in the govt of the country #1, but I did not know that THAT moroons.

--

Less is more !

Paging Mr. Gates... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2002-12-18 10:33 · Score: 2

"The new FTC rules also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled..."

That right there would make me want to buy a Microsoft Powered phone. Has anybody ever used Outlook's "Rules Wizard" before? Imagine being able to apply that to phone calls.

Apply this rule when the phone rings
whose phone number is not on the Contact List.
Set ringer mode to silent.
Answer with this message 'PlaceMeOnDNCList.wav'
Hang up
Set ringer mode to default
Stop processing more rules

(Actually I wouldn't care who made it, I just think MS would implement a decent version of it.)

Re:Paging Mr. Gates... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:30 · Score: 0

That right there would make me want to buy a Microsoft Powered phone

But wouldn't a MS Powered phone call you up every week or so to tell you to get the latest version? Sorry, to inform you of the exciting opportunity to enhance your phone experience with the latest technology enhancements.
Re:Paging Mr. Gates... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:37 · Score: 0

Actually a simple voice mail system would do that. As a matter of fact, the one that comes with my 56K modem did exactly that. ;)

who gets the money? by ChristTrekker · 2002-12-18 10:33 · Score: 1

I want to know who gets the $11k? I am the one being annoyed by the phone calls, but how much should I bet the government is the one that will get the windfall? The story's not clear on who files the claim.

Am I just cynical? (Yes, I've had some bad experiences with lawsuits recently, so that could explain it.)

--

Constitutionally Correct

Re:who gets the money? by flatt · 2002-12-18 12:25 · Score: 1

True you are the one who is getting annoyed, but whatever amount that would go to the government would ultimately be used against taxes any how.
A list like this sounds really nice to me.

IN GOOD OLD SINGAPORE by The+Notorious+ASP · 2002-12-18 10:33 · Score: 1

They'd cane your ass for being a friggin moron.

Re:IN GOOD OLD SINGAPORE by MortisUmbra · 2002-12-18 10:51 · Score: 1

Hehehehe, dont tell me you are sick of this gay Soviet Russia crap too? :) talk about a dead fuckin joke....

--

"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."

New York residents already have this by call+-151 · 2002-12-18 10:33 · Score: 2

If you live in the state of New York, there is already a statewide "Do not call" registry and you can sign up at the webpage at this link. It definitely reduced unsolicited calls for us dramatically.

--
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.

Re:New York residents already have this by MortisUmbra · 2002-12-18 10:58 · Score: 1

You aren't the only ones, We have it here in MO as well, and I know a couple of other states have it also (cannot remember which ones) maybe that could be used as leverage to stop the "impending" lawsuit?

And yes I must say it went from during the day while at work getting roughly 4-6 calls, and in the evening likewise 6-7 calls, to now....maybe once a week, something once a month....VERY worthwhile.... Now if only we could get a no spam and no junk mail list? :) (and a no junk mail list that doesnt charge you $5 to get on it!).

--

"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."

STUPID EXCUSE! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:34 · Score: 0

"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities" ????

THAT IS THE DUMMEST EXCUSE FOR TELEMARKETING!!!

how many people actually buy from these idiots??

In the meantime... by tiltowait · 2002-12-18 10:35 · Score: 2

There is a national DMA opt out method (voluntary adherence, tho), but several legally enforcable state do not call lists you can enroll in.

lol as soon as I read this article... by EvanTaylor · 2002-12-18 10:35 · Score: 1

AT&T called me offering me new long distance service

--
Sleep is for the weak.

Telemarketing in Iceland by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:36 · Score: 0

Here in Iceland the biggest telephone company and the one with almost all the landline business decided last year to make a ban list so a number with a red X in the phone book cant be called by a telemarketing company. What did the telemarketing guys decide to do? Ignore the red X marks. Great idea!

Translation... by pla · 2002-12-18 10:36 · Score: 4, Funny

The "charity" loophole will end up VERY abused...

"Hi, Fred here, from Fred's Aluminum Siding Non-Profit Shell Corporation and Charity. I'd like to talk to you about how 0.0001% of every purchase you make through us goes directly to feed starving, aluminum-siding-less children in South Africa..."

Why not? It works for companies that want to buy their own personal politician... Does anyone really suspect ANY sane politician (I didn't say "ethical", just "sane") would dare take a stand against a scheme that could turn around and attack their major source of campaign financing?

Re:Translation... by Nicholas+Schumacher · 2002-12-18 11:40 · Score: 2, Informative

No, it won't.

To be a charitable org one has to apply for and receive the charitable status from the IRS (which have nice guidelines like you cannot profit from the business of a charity - the proceeds must all go to the charitable uses)

I know - I used to be on the board of directors for a 501(c)(3) charity.

--
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
Re:Translation... by pjgeer · 2002-12-18 12:52 · Score: 1

I've already gotten a call like this and, yes, they fed me the starving children line. When I declined the caller actually insinuated that (like the Hitler I am) I didn't _want_ to help starving children. "But sir, don't you want to help the children of blah blah blah?" I can't remember what org it was, I get so many of these calls.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:26 · Score: 0

Schulman Rhonca and Buccavals, or SRB is who was REALLY calling, the call was on behalf of the University of PA and it was a survey. It also actually involved $10(I believe) that would be sent to you if you wished to provide a valid mailing address. It was code named "Child Poverty" and had an extremely low participation rate. It was a survey that only vaguely had to do with starving children but really was about poverty and charity in general. Basically there was a group at the university that were lobbying and hired the firm to conduct the survey.

BTW I didn't say a word of any of this *wink*. I was one of those guys calling on this survey and a few others awhile back between real jobs :(
Re:Translation... by DutchSter · 2002-12-18 15:37 · Score: 3, Informative

I really don't think that this will be an issue...

Unless the organization qualifies as an IRS-recognized tax-exempt organization (meaning they file their taxes accordingly), they must abide by the same rules as everyone else. Further, if an otherwise exempt organization uses a professional telemarketer to solicit on their behalf, the telemarketer is still bound by the regulations as if they were working for a "for profit" entity.

Many states already have existing laws regarding lying about one's taxable status, especially when there is some level of deception involved. In my state, for instance, it is illegal to even claim to be donating/collecting proceeds for a charity unless at least 85% of the GROSS RECEIPTS (not NET), go directly to the charity.

Operations like this will be quickly shutdown because a) they are violating the FTC telemarketing law b) they are claiming to be tax-exempt when the are not (helllloooo IRS and various state consumer agancies).

Devil's advocate... by 3-State+Bit · 2002-12-18 10:36 · Score: 1, Troll

Earlier this semester I'd called up prospective students, most of whom had signed up at a college fair or something, to talk with them (if they were still interested) about my college, answer any questions, etc. Almost universally they said that they remembered doing that, and then went on either to tell me they were no longer interested (in which case I told them I'd take them off the list and asked if they would tell me where they were now looking at instead, for our records -- almost everyone gave me a detailed list of where they were now looking, or in some cases had been accepted), or else to talk to me about the college, ask questions, etc.
How would this system affect "telemarketers" who get their numbers from something other than phone books. Every single time I've ever given out my phone number to any organization, it was with the understanding that I'd be willing to receive calls from that organization in the future, had enough interest that I'd say "hello" if they called and introduced themselves, and listened to what they had to say.
That's how opt-in works.
It's probably already illegal for such organizations to share my number (or should be), and if I were being terribly bothered by people calling me from the phone book, I'd have my number unlisted. (This is actually not much of a problem, in spite of my living in a large city.)
So, is it really necessary to have a do-not-call list, over it being necessary to have a "not legal to share opt-ins"? Basically, if it takes as much effort for me to opt-out of a single organization's list as it ever took me to opt-in (because there's no number-sharing), why is it bad to call people? What's the need for this national DNC list?

Re:Devil's advocate... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:52 · Score: 0

I understand that some autodialers just go in sequence, so not being in the phone book doesn't help
Re:Devil's advocate... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:05 · Score: 0

About six months ago I moved into a new apartment and got a new phone number. The very day that my phone line was activated, I got three telemarketer calls. The only people I gave my number to were my parents.

It is most definitely not illegal to share my phone number, or I would have taken the phone company to court. And while I agree that it should be illegal, there's too much lobbying power (i.e. money) saying that it shouldn't. A national DNC list has much more chance of succeeding. I'm not a big fan of opt-out, but in this case you only have to opt-out once, not once for each company trying to sell you something.
Re:Devil's advocate... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:06 · Score: 0

obviously not if you use 2.80735 bit private number. (3.32192 if you count the area code).

Class Action DMA lawsuit by Anonymous+Custard · 2002-12-18 10:37 · Score: 2

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Well in order for them to take any legal action on my behalf (along with the millions of other Americans with phones), I'd have to join their class action lawsuit. Which I wouldn't do even if it were the last class action lawsuit in the world, or even if me and their class action lawsuit were stranded on a desert island together.

--
$8.95/mo web hosting

Re:Class Action DMA lawsuit by jazman_777 · 2002-12-18 11:24 · Score: 1

Well in order for them to take any legal action on my behalf (along with the millions of other Americans with phones), I'd have to join their class action lawsuit. Which I wouldn't do even if it were the last class action lawsuit in the world, or even if me and their class action lawsuit were stranded on a desert island together.
There are lots of people who would join. The 12 jurors on the OJ Simpson case come to mind.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.

W bunch can't do much about it... by raehl · 2002-12-18 10:37 · Score: 2

The FTC (and the FCC) are independent commissions. The Executive trying to mess with what they do is, if not illegal, not ethical.

I'm surprised nobody campaigned in 2000 on no-call lists. What's more likely to get a vote: "I will save education!" or "I will stop the telemarketer from calling you!" ??

--
paintball

Re:W bunch can't do much about it... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-12-18 10:55 · Score: 2

I'm surprised nobody campaigned in 2000 on no-call lists. What's more likely to get a vote: "I will save education!" or "I will stop the telemarketer from calling you!" ??

Because then they couldn't call you to tell you to vote for them!

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:W bunch can't do much about it... by Happy+Monkey · 2002-12-18 11:18 · Score: 2

Well, they'll exempt themselves, of course.

--
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Re:W bunch can't do much about it... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 15:26 · Score: 0

and at what point exactly was bush troubled by not ethical?

everything has loopholes by greymond · 2002-12-18 10:37 · Score: 1

from the sound of the article tho - IMHO - this is a step in the right direction. Legit companies won't lose business, I won't lose sleep.

If a company has a product worth selling/marketing word of mouth will ALWAYS work best, as well as having booths at trade shows.

And as for credit card companies - irrisponsible people shouldn;t use any more credit advances or increases.

--
Ave Molech Setting

It is *NOT* a Free Speech Issue by zentec · 2002-12-18 10:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Free speech gives you the right to go out on the corner, stand on the soap box and have at it.

Free speech does not give you the right to enter onto private propery and spout whatever it is you want to spout. Malls, theatres, business, they all apply and it applies equally when you _call_ my private property on _my_ phone. It's nice how the greatest share of cost in telemarketing is heaped upon the person that pays for the incoming line.

I hope this goes before the Supreme Court. It won't because the argument that it restricts free speech is patently absurd.

The time has come by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:38 · Score: 0

We need to take back the net, back to the point where commercial useage was forbidden. Only one way to do this, sign up every US Senator and Representative to massive SPAM senders. OPT-IN these clueless fools! Home addresses and office. Mail SPAM, email SPAM, pron! Then after a short while send a snail mail letter describing how inconvienent SPAM is. They should get the point! HAir of the dog...so to speak. Naturally this will get modded into oblivion, the commercial mode the net now depends upon is threatened by my words. Censorship lives!

Has anyone anywhere by happyhippy · 2002-12-18 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

actually bought anything from a telemarketer?

"Yes, I would like to buy life insurance/cemorative plates/double glazing/magazine subscription from some company Ive known about a whole 30 seconds!

Re:Has anyone anywhere by danitor · 2002-12-18 10:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, actually a lot more people buy from telemarketers than you might think. I used to work for a telemarketing firm, I'd sell about 3 or four credit card insurance packages an hour. The really nefarious stuff was the Metris 66+ hour, selling to the elderly. Needless to say, I've switched "careers" I'm now Danitor, museum Janitor.

it's kinda like people buying penis pumps from the spam king, I guess.
Danitor
Re:Has anyone anywhere by poofyhairguy82 · 2002-12-18 17:35 · Score: 1

Of course people buy things from telemarketers, or they would not still be in business. I recently quit my job at a telemarketing firm (which I will not mention to avoid trouble) and I sold about 14 products a day which is worth $100+ for me from commission. A lot of the stuff is sold to drunk, drugged up people who will say yes to anything, or elderly that are so happy to talk to a human that they will buy anything. I made the most of my money pretending to be a customer service rep (as telemarketers are naturally hated) so I could sell the products to people who thought they were customers, as a lot of people really have no idea until bill time whose services they used. Anyone who wasn't a customer got a weak sales pitch from me and a hang-up. This pissed off my managers enough that I was forced to quit to avoid punishment.
A lot of my coworkers resorted to outright lying (called slamming) to sell products. They would tell them wrong information or leave out important information. These people usually didn't get caught , but if they did they didn't care as they got the commission anyway.
In the end I'm glad I left. The job left me with a dirty feeling because of how we were encouraged to pick on the elderly, plus since the company lacked a drug policy (and had high pay) every low-life in town was using the place as their "legit" job. But before I left, I sold over 2000 products. I know that's better than some brick and mortar salesmen!

--
Open Source Sushi

WIPO must be spinning in his cum soaked grave by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:38 · Score: 0

I blame CmdrCockroll for his suicide!

fuck "opt-out" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:40 · Score: 0

Something like this should be OPT-IN.

"We're going to harass you with advertisements and unwanted phone calls unless you tell us NOT to"?

It should be "please indicate that you wish to receive phone calls and advertisements for misc stuff".

Besides, charities and political stuff and pollsters aren't touched by this law. Fuck it.

if you want to have fun with the telemarketers by stagl · 2002-12-18 10:40 · Score: 1

try out the counterscript the next time you get a call.

it's a fun little script that is similar to what the telemarketers use when they call you.

--

R.I.P.

FTC timeline by nuntius · 2002-12-18 10:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

From the FTC site: (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/)

"Once the Commission gets Congressional approval for funding, it will begin implementing the registry. Consumers will be able to begin signing up for the national "do not call" registry about four months later. About three months after that, the FTC will begin enforcing the registry, and consumers who have signed up will start receiving fewer calls. Consumers will be able to register for free online or by calling a toll-free number. The Web address and phone number for registration will be posted on this site when they are determined."

the "go away" mat by mr.+methane · 2002-12-18 10:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not sure if other companies are offering it, but my local telco offers a service which intercepts any calls with invalid caller ID ("out of area") and requests that the person identify themself, and then calls me up to ask whether I want the call or not.

Before I got it, even with unlisted numbers, I was getting 2-3 calls a day. Now, if I get one per month, it's unusual. The rest hang up when they get the intercept. (The rare in-duh-vidual who does persist gets an earful that will hopefully make them quit on the spot)

(I can also create PIN numbers for myself, spouse, etc. that allow us to bypass the system when we're calling from out of the country or the like)

I think it's about six bucks a month.

Re:the "go away" mat by yog · 2002-12-18 11:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Verizon offers call intercept for $5/month, which sounds like what you have. I wonder however if it's really worth $60/year.

I've had pretty good luck by politely requesting: "Add this number to your no-call list"; so far, every telemarketer has understood this request. Some of them have read me a warning that it will take X weeks to propagate.

My 2-3 telemarketing calls per day have decreased to perhaps one or two per month, mostly these recorded pitches for satellite dish sales and Disneyland vacations. I have taken to writing down the toll free numbers, calling them up and making the no-call request.

One problem I've heard mentioned about a national no-solicitation law is that non-profits will get lumped in. Also, during election season I got a million recorded and live calls; I don't like'em but I can understand why they do them. Perhaps there should be a check-box for what kind of organizations you want excluded.

--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Re:the "go away" mat by b0r1s · 2002-12-18 11:31 · Score: 1

I've had pretty good luck by politely requesting: "Add this number to your no-call list"; so far, every telemarketer has understood this request. Some of them have read me a warning that it will take X weeks to propagate.

Odd. I keep getting telemarkets calling on my cell phone, and as a college student, that gets expensive (relatively) quite quickly.

Usually, the "please put me on your do-not-call list" works well, but a few times, I've had to ask for supervisors, and deal with "please do what?" type questions. There was even one man who worked for a newspaper who called me four days in a row, and finally, I ended up cussing at both him and his manager. The calls stopped immediately after that.

--
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Re:the "go away" mat by gmack · 2002-12-18 11:31 · Score: 2

I know that service.. Ironically enough Alan Ralsky uses it. One would think somone sending as much spam as he does would enjoy sales calls.
Re:the "go away" mat by pcidevel · 2002-12-18 11:34 · Score: 2

I've had pretty good luck by politely requesting: "Add this number to your no-call list"; so far, every telemarketer has understood this request. Some of them have read me a warning that it will take X weeks to propagate.

I had a call a few months ago, supposedly from one of those "Radio Market Survey" companies, where they ask you about the songs that you like and you don't like. Well this guy calls, I sit patiently while he expalins why he is calling and asks if I'll take his survey. After his initial diatribe I respond that I don't listen to the radio and I would like for him to add my name to his companies "no-call list".

The guy literally went insane. Started yelling that he doesn't know what "no-call" list I'm talking about and that he doesn't have to add my name to any lists and was quite verbally abusive. I have never had anyone react so negatively to me asking to be removed from their list.

One other bad telemarketing experience I've had is the "hang-up" call things, or whatever they are called. Starting at 8 in the morning, and lasting until 8 at night, I would get a hang up call every hour (12 a day). This lasted for weeks. It got to the point that I called the police to see if there was anything that could be done (they told me to change my number, which I was close to doing). Apparently the new thing in the telemarketting biz is to call 5 or 6 numbers all at once, the first one that answers gets the telemarketer, the rest get silence.

Finally, after dealing with this for weeks, I guess I was the lucky guy who picked up first because I finally got a telemarketer on the other end. I asked to be added to their "no-call" list and I never got another call from that company again. If this is the direction that telemarketing is moving in, then something MUST be done to stop it. It's quite scary to get an "out of area" silence call every hour for days at a time.

--
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Re:the "go away" mat by dissy · 2002-12-18 11:38 · Score: 2

(From a previous post i made)

Its pretty funny they are selling you a service, to prevent certain people from calling you who are just paying them for a service (caller ID blocking) who are only paying for that service because you are paying them for a service (caller ID) in the first place.

Ahh what a racket :)
Re:the "go away" mat by jarrell · 2002-12-18 11:39 · Score: 1

Yea, I love my call intercept. But did you notice in the proposal the requirement that all telemarketers will have to provide caller-id information? There goes call intercept. That's what it *keys* on. It'll let through all the calls it's been blocking (my telemarketing calls went from 50-60 month to about 2) because they'll all be "known" callers.

It would be better to require that they all have something identifiable in their caller id that indicates "telemarketing".. That way services and cheap gadgets could see "incoming marketer" and decide for you if you wanted the call.
Re:the "go away" mat by mr.+methane · 2002-12-18 11:46 · Score: 1

I would think just the opposite. People in the advertising business (especially the sleazier end of it) know that ads are useless, annoying, and expensive (to consumers)
Re:the "go away" mat by Arcturax · 2002-12-18 12:01 · Score: 2

Simple fix. Get an anwering machine. If its important, they will leave a message. If they don't and its important, tell them well, you should have left a message!

That simple. I just let it ring anymore and if I hear a voice, then its probably not a telemarketer. If its one of those computers which tried to leave messages, I'll hang up on it.

--

--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Re:the "go away" mat by rootX · 2002-12-18 12:02 · Score: 1

Except some telemarketers have circumvented this technology with recordings. I use the Qwurst 'no solicitation' service ($6.95/month) and I have not had any unwanted telemarketer calls. Until, that is, about 3 months ago when we started getting called by a recording. Damn annoying.

--
-- sed s/liberty/profit/g US.Constitution
Re:the "go away" mat by Mac+Degger · 2002-12-18 12:03 · Score: 2

Doing that with spam however only allerts the spamnmer to the fact that he has a live email adress in his hands, which only leads to more spam.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:the "go away" mat by Blkdeath · 2002-12-18 12:20 · Score: 2

Odd. I keep getting telemarkets calling on my cell phone, and as a college student, that gets expensive (relatively) quite quickly.

I do believe that in Canada, and quite probably America, that is already illegal. Long and short of it is; they can't force you to utilize your per-minute airtime to listen to their sales pitch. It's legal with the telephone because these services are typically flat-rate unlimited.
Speak with their supervisor, and request compensation.
BTW - while I haven't received these calls myself (I've had three cell phones in the past six years), I've got friends who've received them while I've been around. You'd be surprised at how quickly they'll hang-up with the utterance of these five words;
"This is a cell phone."
CLICK! They can lose their shirts for ever having called you in the first place, and a lot of them damn-well know it.

--
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Re:the "go away" mat by mr.+methane · 2002-12-18 12:35 · Score: 1

Ah, but if you're a twisted nut like me, you almost enjoy seeing a telemarketer come up on your caller id box. It presents endless possibilities, the simplest of which is just to pick up the phone, scream loudly into it, and hang up.
Re:the "go away" mat by slamb · 2002-12-18 12:35 · Score: 2

I've had pretty good luck by politely requesting: "Add this number to your no-call list"; so far, every telemarketer has understood this request. Some of them have read me a warning that it will take X weeks to propagate.
The correct response to this is "it had better not" or "sucks to be you then" as the legislation makes no such allowance. They are allowed one mistake per year. After that it's $500/call. Even if the request, the mistake, and the first violation happen in the same day.
Re:the "go away" mat by AntiNorm · 2002-12-18 13:34 · Score: 2

Odd. I keep getting telemarkets calling on my cell phone, and as a college student, that gets expensive (relatively) quite quickly.

#include <ianal.h>

Want to offset some of that expense? Take legal action, even if it is against just one of the companies that is doing this to you. Telemarketing to a cellphone is a violation of FCC regulations. See here, Subpart L, section a.1.iii, and notice the words "cellular telephone service."

--

I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Re:the "go away" mat by AntiNorm · 2002-12-18 13:41 · Score: 2

Ah, but if you're a twisted nut like me, you almost enjoy seeing a telemarketer come up on your caller id box. It presents endless possibilities, the simplest of which is just to pick up the phone, scream loudly into it, and hang up.

Better idea: Do some of the stuff that Jim Florentine does to telemarketers. This guy is a PRO.

--

I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...

You WANT snail mail spam. by raehl · 2002-12-18 10:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Ok, maybe you don't actually want the spam, but you want that included with your regular mail. The incremental costs to the postal service of processing the spam snail mail is small, allowing it to tackle high fixed costs of maintaining daily delivery. Unlike email spam, which RAISES the costs of your service, snail mail spam DECREASES the costs of your service. No spam snail mail and first class postage would cost a lot more.

--
paintball

Re:You WANT snail mail spam. by misterhaan · 2002-12-18 10:51 · Score: 3, Funny

and besides, junk mail saved my life . . .
anybody watch _kids in the hall_?

--
track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!
Re:You WANT snail mail spam. by thgreatoz · 2002-12-19 04:43 · Score: 0

When I read the topic of your post, I thought at first it was some sort of Jedi Mind trick...

--
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.

It works in Texas by bongholio · 2002-12-18 10:43 · Score: 3, Informative

This is a great idea. Texas did something like this a year or 2 ago, and I signed up. It cost a couple bucks, but it was worth it. We used to get at least half a dozen calls a day from telemarketers, and now we only get maybe 2 or 3 a week. And those are from charities, time-warner cable (since we already have a "business relationship" with them), and good ol' Gee Dubya (during election time).

I don't want call from those people either, but at least it's a hell of a lot better now than before. And definitely worth the $2.

Re:It works in Texas by BeBoxer · 2002-12-18 12:08 · Score: 2

And those are from charities, time-warner cable (since we already have a "business relationship" with them)

Just tell time-warner to put you on their do not call list, and that if they call again you're going to cancel your service and get DirectTV or something. I used to get calls from both Qwest (my phone company) and MBNA (credit card), but neither one has called for quite some time after I told them that they would lose me as a customer if they called again. FWIW, I'm also on Colorado's do not call list. I think I've gotten maybe one commercial telemarketer call since the list went into effect about six months ago. I'm actually hoping one will call so I can sue 'em. I still get the occasional charity and politial call (around election time), but not very many.

Huh? Oh I see. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:44 · Score: 0

Oh, you prefer to have his dick in your hand. You're a forward one, aren't you!

Re:Will this become the new "click here to opt out by csnydermvpsoft · 2002-12-18 10:44 · Score: 2

Except that 4 (or 5) would be "Pay ridiculous long distance fees," so 5 (or 6) would never happen.

*Hell* no. by No+Such+Agency · 2002-12-18 10:45 · Score: 2

Why should I have to pay to be on a "do not annoy me at dinnertime" list? Should I have to pay for people to not stand outside my house and shout advertisements at me through a bullhorn? Of course not, that would be silly. They chose this obnoxious marketing strategy, I say they pay for the damn thing. The CEO's $2000 blow jobs and eventual severance package are as likely to be "passed on to the consumer" as this, so there's no point in worrying about that aspect.

--
Freedom: "I won't!"

Re:*Hell* no. by Skater · 2002-12-18 11:02 · Score: 1

I agree 100%. I can't believe people think the citizens should pay for these lists--let's charge the people that are making the money off annoying us!

Telemarketers' cost will go up, the parent claimed. So what? I don't buy things from companies that telemarket anyway. I don't even commit to contributing to my alma mater when they call me; I send a check after they send me information in the mail.

The only way telemarketing will go away is if no one buys from them. Maybe this list will help!

(I'd mod you up, but only because I agree with you. I'm replying instead!)

--RJ
Re:*Hell* no. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:10 · Score: 0

The DMA now charge $5 for them to have their users stop harassing you. This is ridiculous, pay? Me ? So that YOU don't call me ?

Fuckem.

I normally just tell the person on the other end of the phone to "fuck off and stop bothering me" I hope I offend some of the scum. They annoy me.

Not according to the court system by missing000 · 2002-12-18 10:50 · Score: 1

One example

Re:Not according to the court system by craenor · 2002-12-18 10:55 · Score: 1, Troll

Thanks for posting that. The fact that someone has considered the legality of it, at least makes me think I'm not nuts.

Personally I'd be all for it, it was the legality of a government sponsored no call list that I found questionable.
Re:Not according to the court system by afidel · 2002-12-18 11:18 · Score: 2

Actually this is just an extension of the FCC's rules on do not call lists. If you tell a telemarketer "Please add me to your do not call list" They have X amount of time to process your request and then any additional calls withing 5 years to you can result in a $10,000 fine per incident this means if they call you three times in one week and you can prove you asked to be added to their do not call list sometime before X and 5 years has not expired they could be fined $30,000. My understanding is that commercial speech is considered one of the less protected forms of speach and that an individuals rights to privacy supercedes that right. The general premise under which this program is being created is not new, it dates back to at least the 80's and probably farther back.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Not according to the court system by DavidTC · 2002-12-18 14:50 · Score: 1

No, actually, they don't have any time to process your request, they have to immediately stop calling you.
They're just sprouting BS when they say 'It may take a week or two to add you.'. When they say that, respond, 'Oh, that would be great, because then I can sue you when you call.'.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Not according to the court system by afidel · 2002-12-18 16:16 · Score: 2

ok we are both wrong, the period the lists are supposed to be called is 10 years not 5, and they have to call you twice in a 12 month period after you have requested to be removed for it to be actionable. For more info see the fcc's page on do not call lists Here I guess if they call you twice after you have requested but before they add you to their list it could be actionable. I personally would be lenient as it does take time for them to do the database add and then re-filter their call lists.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

your list already is in place by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:51 · Score: 1, Informative

Place me on your do not call list, and if you're calling for an agency, place me on their do not call list, also.

That's all you have to say to a telemarketer. Then hang up. After a couple of weeks, your call volume should decrease to less than 1 a month. Right now, I haven't had but 2 calls in the last year. This really works.

It's on junkbusters.com. You may have heard of it.

ok but how much phonespam is international? by websensei · 2002-12-18 10:53 · Score: 2

I don't get much phonespam b/c I have not had a land-line for the last 3 years (lived on a sailboat, used mobile phone exclusively) ...

but I don't imagine the costs of international calls would offset the cost savings of a cheap offshore call center?

I wonder if anyone knows what percentage of U.S. household phonespam is international?

--

La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno

Re:ok but how much phonespam is international? by aardwulf · 2002-12-19 04:48 · Score: 1

Not sure on any exact figures, but I know that it IS indeed a lot cheaper to ship phone calls offshore. For example, one of my good friends is the manager of a Penske rent-a-truck store. Their 800 number that you call for reserving trucks, getting directions, etc is out-sourced to India. It is cheaper to pay overseas long distance, and pay an Indian cents an hour than it is to have cheaper local phone, but pay them minimum wage. Just fantastic when you have to call for directions, and you have someone who doesn't speak great english and doesn't know our country try to give directions...

heh...actually, the way their schools go, they are probably BETTER at our geography than we are :)

I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list for by SacredNaCl · 2002-12-18 10:54 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm from Missouri, we've had a do not call list for a couple of years. It has some exceptions in it, for instance charities, the local phone company, and businesses you've done business with before (banks abuse this provision a lot).

On the whole it works pretty good. The State Attorney General takes on a few abusers every year and almost completely recovers the cost of the service. In my opinion, it's one of the better government programs out there. I'm satisfied with the results.

--
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

"Your Rights Online" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 10:57 · Score: 0

who was the genius that considerd this an "online rights" issue?

a new kind of telemarketing by dAzED1 · 2002-12-18 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

ok, I skimmed through, and saw that while there were lots of redundant posts on other things, I couldn't find one bringing up this particular point. So here goes:

to quote the article, A company can call someone on the list if that person has bought, leased or rented something from the seller within 18 months. Telemarketers also can call consumers if they have inquired or applied for something during the last three months.

If you read between the lines, you might find that there are certain companies that can easily still call you, even if you register. I bet, for instance, that AOL/TW can simply restructure their telemarketting, and get away with calling anyone still. Do you really think you can casually go without buying anything from AOL/TW for 18 months? That's a long time, for such a large company.

seems to me this will mean that larger corporations will still be able to call you, since they will have sold you something in the last 18 months, whereas smaller companies that do not have the product diversity or proliferation will not be able to. I would not at all be suprized to find AOL/TW, Disney, Micrsoft, or folks along those lines behind this regulation.

of course, I'm feeling pretty conspiracy-theoristic (like that word?) today.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by theperplepigg · 2002-12-18 11:00 · Score: 1

this is interesting, i'm from Missouri, and I could have used that back when I had a land line. Do you have information on this? I'm sure I know a lot of people who would be interested.

--paul

--
-- Every time you kill a kitten, God masturbates.

National DO NOT EMAIL list by emptybody · 2002-12-18 11:01 · Score: 2

violators would be similarly punished if they sent spam to an email address found on this list.

--
comment directly in my journal

Senile parents loophole? by Gorimek · 2002-12-18 11:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe it's that children would put their senile and easily defrauded parents on the list, and thus remove the easiest prey from the game.

Worse than spam by okmijnuhb · 2002-12-18 11:01 · Score: 1

Yes, telemarketing is worse than spam, this is long overdue. Spam sucks, but it won't wake you up in the morning with a commercial or recording of some inane gibberish trying to extract money from you. (Or more likely try and take advantage of some gullible elderly person).

The concept of free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:02 · Score: 0

Apparently, the Direct Marketers Association is taking the position that they have the Natural Right (on the same level of free speech, which is the context in which the constitution was written) to use a resource they do not own to convey what they have to say.

Make no mistake, if a person leases a telephone line from the phone company, and is being solicited for their attention from a third party they do not know, it is a form of trespass. Why? Because telemarketing is a form of point to point communication, not broadcast. In a broadcast communication scenario, there is a way for me as a consumer to avoid the broadcast - turn off the TV, turn the page on the newspaper, refuse to buy the newspaper at all.

Telemarketing uses one person to contact another person directly, without any (national level) way for me to tell them to kindly shut up, go away, and never come back. Since telemarketers are hardly 'friends', I don't think I can count on their word alone.

Free speech means the right to speak freely, not the intrinsic right to force people to listen.

There IS a concept of 'please go away' in our laws. They are called criminal trespass, and harassment. I assume the FTC isn't interested in millions of these complaints, so has come up with a broader solution.

--

On another note, the Direct Marketers Association could do by noting a truth about telephone calls, particularly since one news report I heard suggested that the Direct Marketers Association would like people to have to pay to be on a national do-not-call list (even better, where would that money go? The 'Waaaah! We didn't make money off this guy!' fund?):

Telemarketers are wasting MY time by calling me. My refusing to open a door or answer a phone for them to begin a sales pitch is NOT a 'fault' of mine - it is my RIGHT.

Idaho's State Opt-Out law by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

The Republican dominated pols here passed an opt-out law re telemarketers. You have to pay $10 to get your name on the list and it's good for 3 years. Then you get to pay out again.

All so a telemarketer won't call you on your phone and cost you time and aggravation.

Thanks a lot for nothing. Best watch the FTC/FCC carefully 'cause you know the pols on both sides of the aisles are gonna really water this one down too.

Caller ID reqs will screw up Privacy Manager by invckb · 2002-12-18 11:04 · Score: 2

I use SBC's Privacy Manager service, which makes any caller without good Caller ID go through a voice menu to reach me. It has stopped 99.7% of telemarketing, charity, and poll calls from even ringing my phone.

I really doubt that anything implemented by the government would be that effective. I would hate to go back to screening Caller ID before answering the phone.

You're funny by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:05 · Score: 0

This is the "write me a program for free" crowd. You're asking this bunch to do something for themselves. Besides, remembering that many words requires a triple digit IQ.

They need the legislation.

I should hope so. by bmetzler · 2002-12-18 11:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

The new rules have some loopholes, allowing calls from charities and businesses that have somehow gotten your permission or have done business with you before.

Don't you think that having permission somehow implies consent? Why should a company be sued because you told them they could call you? If you told me I had permission to take your old Athlon 1600+ because you upgraded to an Athlon 2800+, and I took it, do you think that a court would rule that giving permission wasn't the same as actually saying I could take it?

Furthermore, if you were a customer before, don't think that has value to a company? They would want to be able to keep in touch with you in the future. I certainly know that as a consultant my business is heavily dependent on calling previous customers to find out if they have new projects.

-Brent

Re:I should hope so. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:58 · Score: 0

The problem is not that you sign something giving permission. It's the "We won't give you your money from your bank account until you say we can share our relationship with you with other interested companies" and "We're a big megacorporation, and you bought a DVD in a store, so now you're getting calls from our cable company". It's a loophole that the really big corporations which presently exist can drive any amount of telemarketing through. Signed up for cable? You're eligible for telemarketing from credit card companies, vacation resorts, magazines, mortgages, loans, cars, etc -- because somewhere some division overlaps.

Steve Martin's All Natural Penis Beauty Cream by SweetAndSourJesus · 2002-12-18 11:06 · Score: 1

New Formula. You know it's safe. Why? Because it's tested on animals. And if you order by mail, don't worry, it's shipped in a plain brown wrapper with the words "Not Penis Cream" stamped all over it big red letters.

--

--
the strongest word is still the word "free"

In Connecticut by KevinIsOwn · 2002-12-18 11:07 · Score: 2, Informative

We have had a "No Call List" for a while now. I think it has been a couple years. It was a free signup, and once you sign up the telemarketing calls just stop. (A few months after of course)

I still get calls from charities and non-profits occasionally, but I have only received ONE telemarketer phone call ever since I signed up. And I informed them that I was on the do not call list, and they just hung up since they can be fined.

A national one would be great. It really wouldn't matter here in CT that much, but hey, nothing wrong with another barrier against telemarketers!

Already on one list.. no help by destiney · 2002-12-18 11:07 · Score: 2, Informative

My home phone is already listed on my state's "Do Not Call" list, I'm in Tennessee. The problem is that we still get a lot of calls.

When we confront the caller about us being on the Do Not Call list, they almost always say that they are a "phone company" and that the list does not apply to them. How do I battle that kind of intrusion? I tell them that as they can clearly see I already have a phone, and to please not call me again.. click.

What's even worse than that is the other day we found ourselves unexplainably subscribed to MCI as our "new" long distance carrier. I have had an outgoing long distance block on my phone for going on 5 years now. I never make any long distance calls from my home phone, I always make those calls on my cellphone cause I get better rates. Who the hell is MCI to just up and subscribe me to a service that I already purposely block?

Phone companies suck.

Great tones, crap Real Audio format by swb · 2002-12-18 11:08 · Score: 2

Ick. I refuse to run that spyware, I'd love some of those messages..

Re:Great tones, crap Real Audio format by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:23 · Score: 0

Here's how to play RealAudio/Video stuff without installing RealPlayer:

Grab the Tara plugin for Winamp: http://www.musiclivesonline.com/software/watara.ht ml

Copy a few files from a working RealPlayer install and import a couple registry keys:
http://www.lockergnome.com/issues/daily/20011228.h tml (scroll down to the bottom GnomeTIP) ..that's it.
Re:Great tones, crap Real Audio format by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:08 · Score: 0

crap Real Audio format

Yeah, there's some Newspeak for ya. "Real" audio, and it's the shittiest format there is.
Re:Great tones, crap Real Audio format by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:13 · Score: 0

Um, and for us normal people. How to do this on Linux?

Windows, just say no.
Re:Great tones, crap Real Audio format by C32 · 2002-12-18 12:29 · Score: 1

mplayer does this on *nix/bsd (and more, it plays all windows media and quicktime files as well!)

Very good service does NOT cost $5 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:08 · Score: 0

First of all it only costs a stamp if you submit your information by snail mail, as the guy above me said. It costs $5 to use the online system. The same goes with the other services offered by the DMA. http://www.dmaconsumers.org/consumerassistance.htm l offers antijunk lists for snail mail, telephone and email. You have to mail the snail mail and telephone ones in to do it free, but the email list you can sign up for online, or could 6 months ago.

THESE SERVICES WORK. Six months ago I got 3-4 telemarketing calls a day. Now I get one a week, if that. I have also changed my tone with telemarketers, instantly telling them I am on a Direct Marketing Association National do not call list, etc. Almost every time without demanding it, I am asked if I would like to speak to a supervisor. I always say no but you better believe they are pulling me from their lists.

I get such a small amount of junk snail mail that when I watch neighbors check their boxes I am caught off gaurd. I actually only get the mail I want now.

The email list works too. It doesn't stop all spam, but it cut the amount I get in half. Being as how it's free and online I say go for it!

I hope you take advantage of these services and that they work out for you as well as they did for me.

Missouri already has this. 99.9% effective! by Mustang+Matt · 2002-12-18 11:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Missouri Do not call list

This has been in effect for a while and they even follow up on complaints.

I VERY rarely get unsolicited calls anymore. Usually when I do, they are charities asking for money.

I still get junk faxes at 2am on occassion and according to this I'm screwed.

--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Missouri already has this. 99.9% effective! by DiveX · 2002-12-18 12:53 · Score: 2

Yes, the jusge for the court is the cousin of radio personality Rush Limbaugh. There is already being handled to get this struck down since it does go against the findings of 4 other federal districts, not to mention numerous appeals, circuit, and state supreme courts.

--
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by po_boy · 2002-12-18 11:13 · Score: 2

try http://www.ago.state.mo.us/nocalllaw.htm
It works well for me. The only exceptions so far have been Jean Carnahan recording during the elections and SBC. I would have gladly sued either.

Do not call, do not sue, do not pass go... by mttlg · 2002-12-18 11:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

So now we need to get a national "do not sue on my behalf" list before we can get a national "I don't want a fucking Disney vacation, you worthless low-life answering machine spamming piece of scum" list? Yeah, I know, then the lawyers will sue because of the "potential loss of lawsuit opportunities." How about just a "Go to hell, DMA!" list? "Potential loss of buying opportunities?" Wouldn't that apply to the time that is wasted by telemarketers trying to sell me something I don't want when I could be researching or buying something I do want? Can I sue the DMA for causing this "potential loss of buying opportunities?"

Asking the Telemarketer by crow23 · 2002-12-18 11:16 · Score: 1

I've actually had luck asking the telemarketer to stop calling me. I know that sounds like a wierd plan, but it works. I actually had a friend who worked at telemarketer in OK, and they will stop calling you if you ask them although most people I ask say it will take at least 30 days. I have yet to have anyone hang up on this request. AT&T actually sent me a letter explaining the whole situation since I asked them to stop calling, and I use their long distance. -- Knowledge is the answer, but answers require more knowledge than you think...

Looks good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:17 · Score: 0

I used to work at a telemarketing place, in fact, most of the people I know have. It isn't their profession, but it is what is paying their way through college. Isn't this kind of shooting ourselves in the foot? This might cut a lot of peoples jobs. (The place I used to work for employs over 100 people on the phones in just one town, not even a city.)

Re:Will this become the new "click here to opt out by venomkid · 2002-12-18 11:19 · Score: 1

3) Set up in some spam-friendly Bumcrackovia

I have thought of starting a country for rogue telemarketers called "Outavaria"

--
vk.

Does anyone actually buy anything over the phone? by ffatTony · 2002-12-18 11:19 · Score: 2

On the rare case that a telemarketer has something interesting to sell, my response is: "send me something in writing" <click>

Usually I am not interested in anything they are selling. Credit card? If I needed another one I'd answer one of the unopened credit card offers I receive every day via the mail. Cable? Internet Access? I already have both. And usually it is the company I purchase from (TW) who is calling to sell it to me again. Phone service? That is the very device that has gotten me into this mess.

What I'd like to know is who, if anyone, buys merchandise/services over the phone? Anyone? Or are they just referring to the potential profits they would lose.

Has this ever happened? by PyroX_Pro · 2002-12-18 11:19 · Score: 1

"The new rules also prohibit telemarketers from charging someone without permission, especially when the seller already knows the person's billing information."

Wow, has this ever happened to anyone? I am surprised that this was not already a law or rule.

I can not even imagine how mad I would be.

Re:Has this ever happened? by AntiNorm · 2002-12-18 14:33 · Score: 2

I know people that have had this happen to them -- the charges were somewhere around $70 if I remember right -- and yes, it falls under credit card fraud. Companies can get in a *lot* of trouble for doing this.

--

I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...

It's free via Snail Mail by Flamesplash · 2002-12-18 11:20 · Score: 2

The $5 is only to submit it through the web, for the price of a stamp you can mail it to them, its what I did.

--
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson

Market Research Analysists by Amiasian · 2002-12-18 11:20 · Score: 1

Currently, you can still be called to take surveys. I work as a Market Research Associate and, as far as I know, the FCC does not regulate this industry, yet. However, companies will provide Do Not Call lists as a courtesy.

this is awesome! by schematix · 2002-12-18 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since i work from home i am lucky enough to answer just about every call I receive. I really hope this do not call list gets implemented. It is annoying as hell to receive 10+ calls a day, and even worse is that 9 of those times it is just a machine recording! If they can waste my work day i'd like some sort of compensation for it, or at least a way to opt-out of it.

--
Scott

Yes they do. by www.sorehands.com · 2002-12-18 11:20 · Score: 1

Haven't the /. crowd RTFM'd

--
Fight Spammers!

Good way to deal with Telemarkers. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:22 · Score: 0, Insightful

When they call, if they ask to speak with you or anyone else in the house, just say "Hold please, let me go get him/her", at that point, simply set the phone down and resume doing whatever it was you were doing.

It runs up their telephone costs..I've had the morons sit there for upwards of 2-3 minutes before they hung up.

They usually don't call back.

NOOOOO! by tuxlove · 2002-12-18 11:24 · Score: 1

Help! This law would kill the effectiveness of my Privacy Manager feature. Because telemarketers currently are not visible to caller ID, which Privacy Manager requires you to have before you can call me, I haven't gotten a single telemarketer call in a year. It's the best $4/month I've ever spent!

If this law passes, those bastards will get through, and I'll have to go back to screening calls again. Certainly, I'll get myself put on the "do not call" list. But calls from charities and "companies I've dealt with before" make up a very large portion of the phone spam I used to get, and those jokers would no doubt love to start buzzing me again if this law passes.

They don't have to by Synn · 2002-12-18 11:24 · Score: 2

If they regulated US companies then all I'd have to do is block all non-US email. This would also work fine for a considerable number of businesses in the US as well.

Re:They don't have to by pjrc · 2002-12-18 11:48 · Score: 2

.... all I'd have to do is block all non-US email. This would also work fine for a considerable number of businesses in the US as well.
Unless, of course, you have a website on the World Wide Web, with contact information for people interested in whatever you've put on it (read "prospective customers" for any business).

--
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools

But what about the carrier battle groups?? by myowntrueself · 2002-12-18 11:27 · Score: 1

The American taxpayer pours money into such things as carrier battle groups and cruise missiles etc all of which are designed for the purpose of ignoring international borders and the lack of compliance of foreign countries with US law.

I'm surprised that Donny R. would pass up the opportunity to blow things up, especially if they are overseas and irritating good, honest, hard working Americans!

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

my phone by Johnny5000 · 2002-12-18 11:29 · Score: 2, Funny

My phone is there for my convenience, not for the telemarketers.

--
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.

We may actually be able to help them by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:30 · Score: 1, Funny

With so many here who are currently out of work or freelancing and barely making ends meet, why not see if you can provide them with IT services? I'm sure that they wouldn't want to miss out on the opportunity to receive such top notch services at very reasonable costs, so give them a call, email or fax. It doesn't hurt to ask ya know. Headquarters 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6700 Telephone: 212.768.7277 Fax: 212.302.6714 Washington D. C. Office 1111 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-3603 Telephone: 202.955.5030 Fax: 202.955.0085 Contact List by Subject Accounts Payable webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1353 Advertising - Print webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1423 Advertising - Web Site kebeling@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1554 Awards - ECHO echo@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1397 Benefits Program twalsh@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1423 DMA Store - Books & More lrc@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1930 Chapters chapters@the-dma.org 212.768.7277 Conference Registration customerservice@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1500 Conference Programming conference@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1513 Conference Exhibitors conference@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2469 Conference Speakers conference@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1528 Consumer Assistance consumer@the-dma.org 212.790.1488 Councils councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277 Council Membership councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277 Council Events councils@the-dma.org 212.768.7277 DMA Interactive webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext.1629 directvoice mmicali@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2422 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation dmef@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1817 The DMA Government Affairs Online Member Outreach Program Governme@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2405 Government Affairs Governme@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2405 Human Resources hr@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1338 International Services Internat@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1786 Library lrc@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1930 Membership - Joining DMA membership@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1155 Membership - Renewal membership@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1155 Seminar Information customerservice@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1500 Seminar Registration customerservice@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1500 President's Office Presiden@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1604 Press Contact Privacy privacy@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2408 Research lrc@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1637 Sweepstakes Sweep@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2475 Web Site (Passwords) webmaster@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1629

Remember the good old days... by 4/3PI*R^3 · 2002-12-18 11:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rember when the phone system was only a simple person-to-person communication system?
1. In came the telemarketers
2. Next came legislation restriction the time of calls
3. Then came Caller-ID (for a fee) to allow you to know who was calling before you answered
4. Then came Caller-ID block (per use or permanently on your line for a fee) to allow you to block your Caller-ID information.
5. Then came Anonymous Call Block (for a fee) so that anonymous telemarketers could not call your number.

Let's recap:
1. The phone company charges you and the telemarketer for person-to-person communication.
2. The phone company sells your phone number to telemarketers.
3. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method to identify who is calling before you answer.
4. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method of hiding who you are.
5. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method to block calls that are blocked.
6. We have to spend our tax dollars to compile a list of numbers that telemarketers can't call.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this system? Isn't this like creating a war and then selling arms to both sides?

Re:Remember the good old days... by phriedom · 2002-12-18 13:16 · Score: 1

"6. We have to spend our tax dollars to compile a list of numbers that telemarketers can't call."

In the great State of Oregon, all telemarketers MUST purchase the No Call List 4 times a year, IIRC at $250 each, while I pay $3 per year to be on the list. So the cost of the program is mostly paid by the telemarketers rather than the taxpayers or the users. The State has to pony up for enforcement, but they get $25,000 per infraction from the guilty to cover those costs.

You are correct that the phone companies are like arms dealers selling to both sides of a war, but I think a national No Call List sidesteps this trap.

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Re:Remember the good old days... by fanpoe · 2002-12-19 02:22 · Score: 1

Rember when the phone system was only a simple person-to-person communication system?

Remember when email was only a simple person-to-person communication system?

--
A Prayer to the Omnipotent FSM
Re:Remember the good old days... by dbitter1 · 2002-12-19 02:39 · Score: 1

Or, alternatively, you could exit the fight by just dropping your home connection...
I trust my cell company explicitly (and could get one of their competitor's phones w/in 24 hours) and don't miss paying my Bell $35+ just to have a line with the arms-race additions...

--
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
Re:Remember the good old days... by Obfuscant · 2002-12-19 06:44 · Score: 1

5. Then came Anonymous Call Block (for a fee) so that anonymous telemarketers could not call your number.
Almost correct. The call blocking only blocks calls from people who have opted to block their caller ID. Telescum buy phone lines from the telco that don't have caller id at all, so they aren't technically blocking their caller id, they just don't have any.
So, to continue your list:
6. Phone company sells telescum phone service with caller ID unavailable so it won't be blocked by the service they've just sold the user.
7. Phone company sells user a new service to block calls from lines where caller id is unavailable, which drops the caller into a voice message telling them how to get around the block. *
8. Phone company sells telescum updated software for their predictive dialers that dials the digit "1" as soon as the call is answered. #
* -- Qwest offered this a few months ago. Were I not so trusting, I'd assume that the huge increase in telescum calls that were abandoned after I answered the phone, which happened just after the announcement of this new service, were from Qwest trying to convince me I needed the service.
# -- Yes, all you needed to do to get around the block is dial "1". I have no idea if Qwest is selling this or not.

mod up parent! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:31 · Score: 0

I think you should mod up the parent to this post!

Re:mod up parent! by donutz · 2002-12-18 11:33 · Score: 2

I think you should mod up the parent to this post!

me too!

Colorado do-not-call list by Eric+Smith · 2002-12-18 11:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

The telemarketers sued over the recently created Colorado do-not-call list, too. They apparently don't even act in their own rational self interest! Surely it would be a benefit to them, saving them time and money, to be able to easily avoid calling people who they know will not buy the products or services they are selling.

Or do telemarketers get paid based on the number of calls made, without regard to the number of actual sales? I can't imagine any of their clients would be willing to pay on such a basis, but I guess stranger things have happened.

Re:Colorado do-not-call list by Junta · 2002-12-18 11:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

It isn't in their best interest though. Everyone would jump on the do-not-call list. A lot of people say they never would buy from a telemarketer, but they sometimes cave, and that is what they would stand to lose. Don't like telemarketers, and I honestly don't listen to anyone, but I can see their logic.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Colorado do-not-call list by thgreatoz · 2002-12-19 04:36 · Score: 0

AFAIK, The companies themselves get paid based on actual sales. The low-on-the-totem telemarketers, the ones that actually hit the phones, get paid based on how long they can keep you on the phone. What I like to do is drag them out...
TM: Hi there!! Do you enjoy magazines?
Me: Why, yes! Yes I do!!
TM: Well, we have this great offer...blah blah blah
Me: Wow! That's impressive!
TM: So would you agree that you could save a substantial amount of money by subscribing?
Me: I sure do!!!
TM:Well, let me just get some information from you, and we can start the subscription process!
Me:No! *click*

Sometimes, when they ask for my fiancee or something, I'll tell them to hang on, then give the phone to her 3 year old. I have to admire the tenacity of them, tho! One of them actually talked to the kid for about 5 minutes!!

--
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.

Here's the legit way. by Alethes · 2002-12-18 11:35 · Score: 3, Funny

We can just give'em a good slashdottin'.

I always say -- by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2002-12-18 11:35 · Score: 5, Funny

I always say "I do not do business with people who call my house." This even goes for charities. I do not donate to organizations that call me.

At first I thought this wouldn't work, but I've actually had a reduction in calls (that is, no repeats) and I almost always get apologies.

Here as of late I've just been having fun with the telemarketers, since they're not as frequent as they used to be.

RING
RING

ME: Hello?
HER: Yes, I'm with (she said the name of some glasswork and door company) and we're calling to see if you would be interested in new windows for your home. Have you considered having new windows installed?
ME: I don't have windows. I live in a dog house.
HER: *giggle* Very funny, sir.
ME: I don't think it's very funny at all.
HER: ...
ME: You think being homeless is funny?
HER: *CLICK*

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.

Re:I always say -- by Sycraft-fu · 2002-12-18 15:08 · Score: 3, Funny

I've told Qwest (the phone company) that I don't have a phone before.

See, normally I ask to be placed on their do not call list. All companies have to maintain one and are required to obey it. Works pretty well. However, any company you have a bussiness relationship is exempt from that (since they may have legitimate reasons to call you) so hence asking Qwest would do no good.

Well Qwest had a big push for their DSL service and was calling everyone trying to get them to sign up. Fine, except I already HAVE DSL from them. Not only that, I have the expensive professional grade stuff and I've had it for like 3 YEARS now. It's not like they were trying to sell me an upgrade to it or anything (I pretty much have the best I can get), they were trying to sell me the service itself.

I had told them a couple of times before that I already had this and to please stop calling me about it as it was really pointless. So at any rate, I got sick of it and decided to have fun and told one guy that I didn't have a hpone line. He stared with teh typical "ok well thank you" speech for when teh customer has said no and then kinda trailed off when he processed what I had actually said.

They stopped calling about it :)
Re:I always say -- by G27+Radio · 2002-12-18 15:23 · Score: 2

Reminds me of one of my favorites:

RING
RING

ME: Hello?
HER: Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the Star Ledger to let you know that you can have the paper delivered right to your door.
ME: But I don't know how to read.
HER: [ponders for a moment whether I might actually be telling the truth.]
ME: [lets the silence drag out.]
HER: Oh, ok sir, sorry to have bothered you.

This one's a bit off-topic, but I figured I'd mention it because it turns an otherwise annoying situation in something a bit humorous: I've had unfortunately bad luck with getting phone numbers that are one digit off from 24 hour businesses (cab companies, locksmiths.)

Phone rings at 2:30AM:
ME: Hello?
HIM: [drunkenly] I locked my keys in the car and I need you to get them out.
ME: No problem sir, we can be there in 30 minutes or less--guaranteed or your money back.
HIM: Cool, I'm outside the Gold Club. I'm the only car here because everyone left.
ME: Great, we'll have someone there to help you shortly.
HIM: Thanks.
ME: [ends call, shuts off ringer, goes back to sleep.]

This may seem a little cruel, but if you are going to drunkenly mis-dial and wake me up at 2:30am, too friggin bad buddy.
Re:I always say -- by Final+Sacrifice · 2002-12-18 16:59 · Score: 1

Who doesn't love screwing with the bastards. Here's one of my favorites: Me: Hello? TM (Telemarketer): Hello is this Mr. (butcherd last name) Me: Yes (from this point on in a weird combo Christopher Walken/strained neck voice) TM: blah blah blah, cellphone and service, blah blah me: what does it come with? tm: blah blah, hands free kit, blah, leather cell phone holder me: (cuts her off) phone holder? i like phone holders. what kind of leather? tm: black leather me: i mean what KIND? cow leather? tm: i dont know, blak leather me: cow leather? goat leather? people leather? tm: just black leather me: well what else does it come with? tm: blah blah, belt clip me:(cutting her off) I dont need a belt clip, because I don't wear pants. tm:(flabbergasted) uh, uh, excuse me? me: I said I don't need a belt clip, because I don't wear pants tm hangs up, and I start cracking up.
Re:I always say -- by LupusUF · 2002-12-18 17:43 · Score: 1

I generally tell credit card companies that I am alergic to plastic.

usually they get flustered and hang up...but the other day I had a guy ask if that ment I could not drink from coke bottles.

Out of all the things he could have thought of that would make having a plastic alergy bad...the best he could come up was drinking coke.

So I said...its Ok...I can still use the glass bottles. He then said "I'm sorry" about ten times and hung up.

Sadly...it does not always work. Today I used the same comment...and the woman from discover just said...But there is no annual fee.
Re:I always say -- by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2002-12-19 07:50 · Score: 1

Actually, Discover was one of the biggest ass-kissers. When they called me and I told them I do not do business with companies that call me, they put me on the phone with a manager who proceeded to suck up, beg for forgiveness, and made promises to have me removed because Discover "only wants to serve it's customers, not annoy them."

I have not heard one word from them since, nor have I recieved any junk mail from them. It's been almost a year.

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.

Peeball! by Wee · 2002-12-18 11:36 · Score: 2

When I was in London last month, I saw A TON or displays for this "game" called Peeball. The tagline "Do a wee bit for charity" caught my eye.

I wound up buying one for a buddy back home. I had to as I couldn't stop staring at the big yellow sign every time I got another round. I was curious to see what it was, and thought it was inordinately amusing. And I had had a few too many Kronenbourgs. It was only one pound so no big loss as far as "drunken purchases discovered the morning after" go.

I never did open it, but apparently you wiz on these little yellows balls and they disintegrate. Supposed to help your aim, I guess, or keep you from playing Fire Brigade whilst in the loo. Helps a charity as well. I shoulda bought a couple of them.

-B

--

Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

Peep The National You-Get-Slapped-List: by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:38 · Score: 0

If they call again... refer them to this link!

No, you didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:40 · Score: 0

He prefers to turn his back to the other guy and spread his own cheeks.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by nomadic · 2002-12-18 11:41 · Score: 1

The New York state Do Not Call list works splendidly. Get maybe one or two unsolicited calls a week, and sometimes none.

get their name first by Esion+Modnar · 2002-12-18 11:45 · Score: 1

Be sure you know who you're speaking to, before you play the "DO-NOT-CALL" card. Otherwise, your conversation might be like: TELEMARKETER: May I speak to Mr. or Mrs. Smith? YOU: This is Mr. Smith. TELEMARKETER: I would like to sell you--- YOU: Excuse me, just put me on your DO-NOT--- TELEMARKETER:

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Re:get their name first by ManoMarks · 2002-12-18 12:56 · Score: 1

Tried that. Didn't work. I started getting more and more calls. As more of my purchases go on-line and fewer in-person, there's a more frequent requirement that I give a phone number. So no matter what, a far greater number of people are getting my number. Asking to be taken off the list has reduced my calls from about 2 a night to about 4 a week. Still too much, but an improvement, especially during the holiday season.

--
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

List of State Do-Not-Call Lists by mashie · 2002-12-18 11:47 · Score: 1

The AARP has done a nice little summary of state do-not-call lists.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:48 · Score: 0

I'm from Indiana, and we have the same thing. In fact, I work for the Atty Gen'l (although in a nother area), who introduced and maintains the list, suing violators. The exceptions are really very reasonable, and the number of calls is dramatically lower.

There are three main problems with the FTC regulation:
1. It will likely be written to preempt state laws, meaning the MO and IN laws will no longer be in effect. This causes theoretical problems from a federalism/state's rights standpoint, not to mention the hassles of having federal employees administering and running the program.
2. At the federal level, interest groups are much more powerful, and with lobbying, we would likely end up with many more loopholes carved out for those groups, making the regulation virtually useless, or at least less effective than state level regulation.
3. While the state laws have already been challenged constitutionally, and been upheld, a federal law in the same area is a totally different animal. There is a risk of the law being found unconstitutional, and eliminated, leaving us without either state or federal protection.

Generally, the federal level "no call list" is a really bad idea.

Just my .02, and yes, IAAL.

BTW - Can't stop the political calls. Political speech is _very_ hard to regulate, as opposed to commercial speech, as political speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment was written to protect. So live with the political calls, there aren't that many.

I'd love to see them sue... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 11:49 · Score: 0

Then all we have to do is make some fake telemarketing calls to the judge!

The worst telemarketters ever... by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-12-18 11:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

are the cops.

Some local foundation for police benefits was calling around asking for donations. Since they're a nonprofit, and perhaps government linked, they've got all kinds of special legal leeway with telemarketting. I think.

They called me four fucking times in two days:

"In these troubling times, do you feel that it's important to give our police officers all the support they need?"
"Uh. I guess. Could you please put me on your do not call list?"
"Oh. Sure."
"Thanks." [click]

The next day, I got an identical call (different voice every time). Ten minutes later, another guy called.

"I've asked you to put me on your do not call list twice already. How come you keep calling me?"
"I'm sorry sir, I see you as a new number on my computer."
"Well, I'm not. Is there something you can do about this? Clearly something is the matter with your computer system."
"Well, I'll mark your number this time."
"Thanks, But I'd..." [click] (cut off)

Then, a half an hour later, I got another new voice. I interrupted him in middle of his pitch:

"I'm sorry, this is the fourth time someone has called me for your fundraiser, and every single time I've told them to put me on the do not call list. I understand that your computer says that I'm a new number, but it's wrong. At this point, I'm concerned that you're operating your fundraiser in violation of FCC regulation..." (cut off)

"Well. I can see why they didn't put your name on the no call list, asshole." [click]

There were no more calls, though. I think the fundraiser ended. All the voices were men, so I guess it was off duty cops that were doing the calling. That would explain the attitude. I swear, I was perfectly polite with every single call. Until the last one, I guess. Thugs.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Re:The worst telemarketters ever... by adb · 2002-12-18 12:07 · Score: 2

You were perfectly polite on the last one, too, as far as I can tell. Take 'em to court, win some money, donate it to the ACLU.
Re:The worst telemarketters ever... by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-12-18 12:17 · Score: 2

I never figured out who exactly was calling me. It wasn't the cops, it was some cop-related not for profit. Probably located in the high school gymnasium. I would have, had I received another call. Until that last one, I wasn't interested in fux0ring my local cops, despite their despicable opening line. Jesus, that was nasty.

And I can earn more money than I'd win by going to work every day.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:The worst telemarketters ever... by petgiraffe · 2002-12-18 14:14 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm pretty sure all those "Police Fundraiser" calls are scams

--
-- The reader anything less than completely failing to not misunderstand this sig is cursed.
Re:The worst telemarketters ever... by adb · 2002-12-18 15:33 · Score: 2

Yeah, that's why you always extract a name, organization, and contact info before you ask to be put on the don't call list.
Re:The worst telemarketters ever... by kobotronic · 2002-12-18 16:33 · Score: 2

I had a very similar experience about a year ago with someone calling around 6pm identifying himself as 'affiliated' with the local police - Fairfax, VA - you tend to focus your attention when the police calls you at home... Well, his pitch was, he wanted me to donate twenty dollars to buy teddy bears for kids or something. I said no. Then he said, how about 10 dollars? I said no. Five? ... so pushy!

I coulda spared twenty bucks sure, but as a matter of policy I flat out refuse unsolicited pitches over the phone. I'm really deep down a very nice person so I'm sometimes not good at cutting the pesky telemarkters off and going through the whole "put me on your do-not-call list" routine.

I happened to have read about the teddybears scheme in a local area newsgroup, and some posters claimed that the 'charity' in fact collected funds that went primarily to the police retirement fund and only part of the cash went to the teddybears program, so I flat out asked the caller if 100% of the funds collected went to buy teddy bears.

He said no, there was some administration overhead and some of the monies went to the local police. I asked why this information was not part of the pitch and he apparently became annoyed. He was wasting time and probably not making quota.

I asked him to put me on his do not call, and only asking him at this point after he was already annoyed, was probably a tactical error. The call was terminated, and (predictably?) I was put on the CALL THIS FUCKER FROM NOW UNTIL CHRISTMAS list.

In the next four days I received the same pitch twice a day from different male voices. Finally I put my minidisc recorder on the headset and captured a myself asking to be put on the the do not call list and got the caller's annoyed response, and explained that I had such a recording, and that I was going to pursue legal action and local news coverage if these calls did not cease immediately. The caller said fine, you're off the list, and hung up. And I didn't receive any more such pitches.

Thugs.

Where I live now, there are laws protecting the sanctitity of one's home, and telemarketing, for charities or not, is strictly forbidden. I'm very pleased with this liberty, which also extends to postal carriers by law respecting a sticker on my mailbox which excempts me from receiving junkmail.
Re:The worst telemarketters ever... by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-12-19 04:45 · Score: 2

Huh. Where's that? Are all the other laws sane? I can't think of a single place on the planet with a uniformly healthy legal environment, so I doubt it I guess...

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

White list by Gmerk · 2002-12-18 11:56 · Score: 1

Would it be possible, given call display and other technology, to restrict incoming calls to those numbers you specify. Of course certain organizations would have the power to overide your list when necesary.

I'm from Pennsylvania. We have a DON'T CALL list by edgarde · 2002-12-18 12:03 · Score: 1

State Attorney General Mike Fisher started a Do Not Call list prior to a (failed) run for Governor. I used to get telemarketing calls every day -- I'm down to zero. Good law.

I'd've voted for the guy if he were even slightly not a Republican.

snail mail opt-out... by zentigger · 2002-12-18 12:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually in Canada you can opt-out of spam quite simply. All you have to do is drop by your local post office. Tell them that you do not wish to receive bulk mail and give them your address.

--

the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

Why "of course"? by adb · 2002-12-18 12:05 · Score: 2

Of course certain organizations would have the power to overide your list when necesary.

Sez you.

Nobody but the government and the phone company has any business overriding my phone preferences under any circumstances.
The government can fucking well knock on my door.
The phone company can fucking well send me a letter (or shut off my service if it's lack of payment they're calling about).

That's about why I leave my phone unplugged and set my cell phone not to ring except in response to a whitelist. I'm much happier that way.

If I wanted to implement a whitelist on my landline, I would buy a telephony card and run Asterisk.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by asparagus · 2002-12-18 12:06 · Score: 1, Troll

Missouri in the house!

Yeah, it does cut down on the unsolicted stuff, but the fire department/policeman's ball/political groups are not considered to be telemarketers. Yet.

My grandma gets harassed daily by various organizations (give a single dollar to enviromentalism, you'll be hounded into the grave). I'm gonna persuade her to sign up, eventually.

If you're from MO, sign up. It's pretty nice.

-Brett

I was a sysadmin for a predictive dialer in CO by Sir+Tandeth · 2002-12-18 12:06 · Score: 1

..When the do-not-call list went into effect. What's strange is that almost 50% of our "money" calls (cold calls who bought) were ON the do not call list, for the week before it went into effect! So just because a person is on the do not call list does not mean they are not a buyer! The reason marketers don't want the do-not-call lists is because it costs them sales, plain and simple. This particular company placed roughly ten thousand hangup (nuisance) calls a day using a technology called NOBLE dialer. (http://www.noblesys.com)

Re:I was a sysadmin for a predictive dialer in CO by Mr.+Sketch · 2002-12-18 12:47 · Score: 2

Just because one person out of the two people you sold products to put their number on the do not call list is no basis to make that kind of claim.

--
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.

just hang up immediately, and don't say anything! by ChadN · 2002-12-18 12:07 · Score: 2

When I get a marketing call (which is now very rare), as soon as I determine (or suspect) what it is, I just hang up. I don't say a word. Once you get over the 'rudeness' of it, it feels quite liberating. And since I adopted that policy, cold calls basically just stopped.

Unlike spam, there is a not-insignificant cost to phone solicitations, and they will cull the phone-lists themselves (I'm assuming) for bad-numbers or callees. They may even sell the info to others.

--
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward

Taking bids.. Here's mine! by ivan256 · 2002-12-18 12:11 · Score: 2

Officials said the agency is taking bids from companies interesting in creating the registry.

The registry will likely cost about $16 million in its first year and would be paid for with fees collected from telemarketers, officials said. The agency has not decided how those fees will be imposed and still needs congressional approval to collect them.

I'll do it. I want $2.5 million to set it up and $1 million a year to run it. They can keep the rest of the $16 million.

Seriously, what's going to cost $16 million? All you need is a half million in equipment, 3 to 5 people, and some good software. With that you could easily handle a half billion phone numbers and thousands of requests a month for a copy of the list. Maybe I found my next business opportunity.

Why the fuck is this marked funny? Idiots. by adb · 2002-12-18 12:11 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Slashdot moderators dumber than rocks. Film at 11.

Total Information Awareness by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:28 · Score: 0

If I was running the TIA office I would drool over this opportunity so badly I would probably slip on the puddle and crack my head open!

Imagine! We now have an unchallenged national database linking citizens with the types of businesses attracted by their behavior. The profilers will be lining up for dip into this pool of liquid gold.

This is a case of a good idea in the wrong place. State-based lists do the job and offer some basic level of decentralization that serves to protect the public from those that would misuse the information.

It doesn't always work... by Buran · 2002-12-18 12:29 · Score: 2

Back before election day, the phone would ring nonstop with political bullshit calls. Was I on the DNC list? Yes. Did it help? No. The following was printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; I'd link to it but the paper recently reorganized its site, and so links to the old stories are now dead.

NEXT weekend's going to be awfully dull. No chatty phone calls from Kit or Jack, Jean or Jim. No direct mail on guns and abortion. No more candidates scaring seniors and jeopardizing national security. Campaign 2002 wound down to a surreal close this weekend. On Saturday, computerized telephone calls inundated homes, waking babies from naps, rousing people from their after-breakfast coffee and irritating the hell out of voters who thought the no-call list would guard their serenity. (No, you can't use the Missouri attorney general's no-call list to block political calls. But don't blame Jay Nixon, blame the First Amendment.) No sooner had Jack hung up on his pitch for raising the tobacco tax, than Kit was on the line railing about how the Democrats stole the 2000 election. Kit mentioned his favorite dog, Ritzy, the voting spaniel. We wanted to remind him that Ritzy was registered in 1994 and did NOT vote in 2000, but we couldn't get a word in edgewise. The line between reality and parody was especially murky Saturday evening when "Saturday Night Live" spoofs of campaign ads were mixed in with attack ads by Rep. David Phelps, D-Ill., against Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. The spoofs satirized one form of the attack ad that has been common in Missouri: "Call Jim Talent and tell him his vote shattered lives," or "Call Jean Carnahan. Tell her to put our security interest first." The geniuses who parsed these "Call Joe Blow" ads are - surprise - lawyers. The wording, "Call Joe Blow," makes them "issue ads" that can be paid for with unlimited amounts of soft money. "Vote against Joe Blow," would make the ad into express advocacy of the defeat of a candidate, which must be funded by restricted hard money contributions. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was supposed to fix that by outlawing soft money and limiting "sham" issue ads. Ha ha. Even before the law takes effect today, pols of both parties have already figured out how to skirt it: funnel soft money to new party groups and state party committees. Make your blood boil? Call Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell it to stop damaging democracy. And while you're at it, call Joe Blow and tell him to stop calling us.

This is a fairly large part of why I have only a cell phone now. I don't appear in any directories, and telemarketers aren't allowed to call me (as far as I know).

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

Here it is! by The+Bungi · 2002-12-18 12:30 · Score: 1

The first completely off-topic 'Micro$soft' mash of this article. Mad propz to you sir!

CALLER ID Requirements by fyoory · 2002-12-18 12:39 · Score: 1

While there at it, make the telco's exchange Caller id data. Shrug, I have bellsouth's privacy director, and its worth every penny, not that Im plugging. ;D Still it flags moms calls from out of state as a telemarketer so I have to still answer it, it would be nice to see caller id say "XX Telemarketing co." or something along those lines.

Re:CALLER ID Requirements by Sabalon · 2002-12-18 17:23 · Score: 2

I'm on bellsouth, and as far as I know, we've never gotten an out-of-state call listed as "Out of Area".

We won't answer it if it says Out of Area, and no one has ever left a message when the machine picks up - well, not true - some moron telemarketters actually leave messages - but no legit calls.

However, the Ga No call list has pretty much cut those down to nil
Re:CALLER ID Requirements by fyoory · 2002-12-22 03:23 · Score: 1

Hrmm. Must be hardware here in Louisiana. GA no call list pretty much defeats "Privacy Director" if I understand it properly not being a GA resident.

Re:Will this become the new "click here to opt out by Blkdeath · 2002-12-18 12:40 · Score: 2

Step 5 should read;

5. Annoyed customers listen to sales pitch, claim interest, request 1-800 number and company name, report US based company so that fines may be levied.

Since you'll eventualy have to contact them for the sale to go through, they can't win that game.

--
BD Phone Home!

Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

Spam? I don't get spam? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 12:43 · Score: 0

If your not in my address book; your mail doesn't even get d/l'd to my box. It deleted off the server. yes this takes some work. Sometimes it involves having people send me a message to a (gag) hotmail account, just to get their e-mail addy accurate. It seems to work very well for me.

YAY! 'Bout friggin time! by DigitalDad · 2002-12-18 12:55 · Score: 1

I've been on the New York Do Not Call list for about 2 years now and it's fan-damn-tastic! I used to get at least 2 marketing calls PER DAY and that's dropped to *maybe* 1 a month from a charity. Where do I sign up?

--

My good sig is in the laundry

Works both ways by antis0c · 2002-12-18 12:55 · Score: 2

Then the telephone companies turns around and sells the telemarker a method of by-passing the Telezappers, and the cycle continues. If I'm not mistaken someone finally caught onto these shenanigans and filed a lawsuit.

--

..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'

Has anybody noticed. . . by Lagrange5 · 2002-12-18 13:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Has anybody noticed that telemarketers are already making evasive maneuvers to elude the "please do not call me again" warning?

Sample:

[phone rings]
Me: "Hello?"
Telemarketer: "Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y."
M: "Sorry--"
T: [interrupts] "OkaythenI'llcallbacksomeothertimethankyouforyourt imegoodbye."
[click]

As long as they can "complete the call" and hang up before you can identify them and make that "do not call" demand, they simply put you back in the call carousel for the next round of pitches. They want to preserve you as a potential resource. All they're looking for is the tiniest negative reaction to trigger that defensive response.

A good countermove is to engage the caller first. Make them jump through your hoops.

Sample:

[phone rings]
Me: "Hello?"
Telemarketer: ""Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y."
M: "Can I ask you two questions?"
T: "Sure."
M: "What company do you represent?"
T: "Company X."
M: [quickly] "Put me on your do-not-call list immediately. Can you do that for me? I do not want to receive any more calls from your company."

Write the company name down and the time of the call. Get the caller to spell it out if you're not sure. Keep a list of these calls available whenever the phone rings.

Solicitors are required by law to identify themselves clearly, and to comply with any "do not call" demand. One by one, they can be made to comply.

--
"Folks just call him Buckethead." -- Les Claypool

Re:Has anybody noticed. . . by istartedi · 2002-12-18 16:28 · Score: 2

My approach:

T: Is (whoever) home?

M: Who shall I say is calling?

T: (virtually always identifies company)

M: We would like to be placed on your DNC list please. (or) He has a policy of not responding to telephone solicitations and would like to be placed on your do not call list.

T: (sometimes they will try to continue pitch/patter, etc.)

M: (re-assert request and hang up no matter what).

The only problem with this is that I need to add "this is he" regardless of who they are trying to reach. That way they can't weazel out that I'm not really the guy. Obviously this doesn't work if you're a guy and they are trying to reach a female, but fortunately (or rather, unfortunately) that's not a problem in my house. Otherwise I think this script is pretty good for 1. expending a minimum ammout of my precious time, and 2. accomplishing the purpose of asserting DNC rights.

Now, what I really need to do is put a recorder on my line because companies are still calling back; especially United Air Temps (a local HVAC contractor). They are the worst offenders. With a recording, you can maybe nab them with that legendary $500 judgement.

Sometimes I get cheeky and ask to hear their pitch, then just leave the line open to see how long the T speils without realizing that I've walked away. On rare occasions, you can come back a minute later and they are still speiling, but usually it's not too long before the phone makes that bzz-bzz-bzz noise indicating you are off hook.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Has anybody noticed. . . by quintessent · 2002-12-18 18:21 · Score: 2

You should also ask them to put you on the do-not-call list of any affiliated companies.

Also, you have the right to have them send you a copy of their do-not-call-list policy. If they don't send it, you can sue them for an easy $500.

IANAL, and the usual disclaimers apply.

--
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Re:Has anybody noticed. . . by rob_from_ca · 2002-12-19 04:49 · Score: 1

There are also some stories about people not getting put on the list if they don't use the correct wording. "Do not call here again." is not necessarily correct. "Please put me on your do-not-call list" is what the law says, and the only thing some telemarketers are going to accept. It's a loophole that might or might not hold up (probably not), but since the object is reduce phone calls, might as well go with it.

I've been doing this religiously with all telemarketers for about 2 months now, and the volume has gone _way_, _way_ down. From 1-2 day to 1 a week or so.

International calls are cheap! by grahamsz · 2002-12-18 13:08 · Score: 2

I'm in scotland and thanks to vonage i'm paying $40 a month for all the calls to the US i can handle.

Before that i was paying 3 pence (US 5c) a minute for calls to the us - hardly expensive compared to the other costs involved in telemarketting.

Re:International calls are cheap! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 16:29 · Score: 0

Sometimes they cost less than domestic calls. I live in Memphis, TN and it costs me more to call Olive Branch, MS (about 5 miles from my home) than it does to call London (the one in England).

This is backwards... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

Instead of a Do-not-call list, any unsolicited calls or emails should be illegal. There should be an OK-TO-CALL list. If called by a buisness that at any point tries to solicit your interest in an "opportunity" "survey" or "product", a "contribution" or information related to any of the above. I should have to explicitly say it's ok to call me, not the other way around.

Re:This is backwards... by shaitand · 2002-12-18 14:41 · Score: 2

should be interesting

Define free... by douglips · 2002-12-18 13:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't you pay for Caller ID? If this is a "free" part of Caller ID, you're still paying for it.

--
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M

Dom't forget that YOU need to be careful. by _LORAX_ · 2002-12-18 13:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

1) Never give your phone number out at the cash register. I can't beleive the number of people that will give thier number, that makes a legitimate buisness relationship and they can call for another year and harass you.

2) "Take me off your list" and "I don't ever want to receive a call from this marketing company either"

3) They are required to provide you with name and contact information if asked. If you are on a DNC list demade the info and tkae the 2 minutes to fill out the web form that most states have.

As for the charities and political calls. Sorry, the Supreme Court has always help political and non-commercial speeach with high reguard ( as we all would hope ).

Since I have been on the NY DNC list I have received only a few annoying telemarketing calls and those were from people that disreguarded my previous attempt to legaly make them stop calling. They have since stoped since I filed a protest with NYS. Now if I could only get the Damm Red Cross to stop calling.

Re:Dom't forget that YOU need to be careful. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 01:22 · Score: 0

Learn to spell!

Charity by mqduck · 2002-12-18 13:28 · Score: 1

What exactly is a "charity?" Is it any legal nonprofit organization? If not, I can think of a number of groups that might lose ALOT of funding if they can't call people and beg for donations, and that would be Very Bad.

--
Property is theft.

Many alternatives by werdna · 2002-12-18 13:28 · Score: 2

Self-help is inadequate to solve this problem -- spam filters are never going to be good enough. There will always be false positives and false negatives. The spammer thus reduces the effectiveness of my e-mail process, without giving me any benefit. The limit of your right to move your fist ends at my face, and I have no problem with regulation to the extent it does not overreach.

But you are right to ask if less invasive means are possible -- too much regulation is as bad as too little. I believe there is.

Rather than requiring people to mark spam, or worse, to refrain from spamming, I would prefer to prevent them from making false representations about their spam. In particular, I would like to harshly punish someone who represents their e-mail to be non-spam, when in fact it is. Then, I can simply filter for people who DO NOT represent themselves as non-spammers, and have a remedy against the liars.

For this purpose, I would simply define spam liberally, as a form of broadcast. In particular, as any message which was sent (or substantially similar messages) within a reasonable period of time (few days) to more than a reasonable number of persons (say, 200) who did not previously subscribe to the broadcast.

Virtually every e-mail client can responsibly be changed to represent as non-broadcast all e-mails without long lists of recipients, and easily, and with 100% accuracy filter such mail. If folks need spam protection, this will become a standard and the network effect will take care of broadcast e-mail completely. If not, then the whole issue will blow over, and further regulation isn't necessary.

As to the spammer, their incentive to spam will be reduced, and thus the impact of the spam (which still is getting sent through the net, albeit filtered) will be reduced.

That is just one of several less invasive means for addressing the problem. The virtue of this one is that it doesn't require anything of the spammer, doesn't prohibit anything except misrepresntations and lies about clear factual issues, and doesn't require content-based analysis of what is spam.

That's not how the government works... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:30 · Score: 0

it wouldn't be used AGAINST taxes, it would be kept in ADDITION to taxes.

Re:That's not how the government works... by ChristTrekker · 2002-12-19 02:33 · Score: 1

it wouldn't be used AGAINST taxes, it would be kept in ADDITION to taxes.

Mod that up. It's totally true. When government has the idea that tax cuts are a government expenditure, it's pretty obvious that the citizens' best interests are not really in mind.

--
Constitutionally Correct

Re:Wrong not like DMCA by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:32 · Score: 0

This is not just a technical problem. The problem is that, it is illegal to telemarket to someone who doesn't want to receive telemarketing, but currently there is no clear mechanism for a telemarketer to know who wishes to receive telemarketing. This is not like the approach taken by the DMCA. The DMCA seeks to limit the Manufacture or distribution of all methods of getting around copyright protections. A 'do not telemarket' list is simple allowing users to indicate whether they wish to allow direct marketers to access them through the phone service. A DMCA approach to the phone system would be to ban phone books because they could be use to allow ready access to people. Overlooking that there are legitimate reasons for using a phone book. (For the DMCA, exercising fare use rights) Remember these lists don't stop telemarketers from calling you; they just make it clear when it is legal/illegal. You could compare them to copyright law. They don't stop you copying the work they just tell you whether you can do it legally.

oops, wrong address by gumbi+west · 2002-12-18 13:32 · Score: 1

http://www.spamhaus.com/addressverifier.asp?adress = cmdrtaco@slashdot.org

Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:36 · Score: 0

Just like everything else, we'll make the other countries implement similar laws and setup international treaties. When they say no, we'll just frown, then they'll all comply. Surely there isn't any country foolish enough to upset the US except perhaps China who would stomp us into a very deep mudhole?

Sure it is, and the point is well-settled by werdna · 2002-12-18 13:37 · Score: 2

Its not absurd merely because you say so. For the most part, the courts have long rejected your very narrow perspective on what are the limits of government regulated speech. My suggestion is that, while you don't like the argument, you may be skating on fairly thin legal ice to assert that the argument is wholly without merit.

Your mailbox and telephone are held out to the public as means to reach you. Nobody can know before they send you messages whether or not they are desired, and if it were impermissible to send undesired mails, nobody would get any bills. In practice, your use of the mail and connection with it relies on the public weal, and you are unlikely to have an action for someone sending an unwelcome message, although certain stuff --lying misrepresentation actual harassment and the like-- can be actionable.

However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. It is also why most anti-spam legislation is pretty meek, because forced speech and undue limitations can well invalidate these laws.

Re:Sure it is, and the point is well-settled by MacAndrew · 2002-12-18 13:46 · Score: 2

You're right on your first point, commercial speech is "speech" and protected, though less so than other categories of speech.

However

However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. It is also why most anti-spam legislation is pretty meek, because forced speech and undue limitations can well invalidate these laws. ...is not correct. Commercial speech is "the lowest form of life" in free speech and relatively easy to regulate, and is quite regulated as it is. The reason the gov't has had "difficulty" has been lack of public interest (it's taken a while) and industry lobbying. The laws are in their infancy, and the FCCC proposal is completely novel on the federal level. give it time, and your support. (Much of the state anti-spam problems have to do with getting their hands on the perpetrators; I chatted with the Washington AAG involved in one of the first cases, who said they had to hire 3 private PI's for help finding the spammer! He was setting up fake corporations, moving every week, etc.)

Free speech is an issue here, but not a dominant one. An outright ban on commercial solicitations would be an outrage, but asking people their preferences is not. If you tell the marketers to leave your door, they have to go; and if you simply mount a "No Solictors" sign that should be the end of the matter for door-to-door brush salesmen. Same here.
Re:Sure it is, and the point is well-settled by Just+Jim · 2002-12-18 16:13 · Score: 1

"However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. "

This *has* been decided in the Supreme Court re your snailmailbox. (See ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970) 397 U.S. 728)

The Free Speech argument went down in flames.

Some relevant quotes:

The essence of appellants' argument is that the statute violates their constitutional right to communicate. One sentence in appellants' brief perhaps characterizes their entire position:

'The freedom to communicate orally and by the written word and, indeed, in every manner whatsoever in imperative to a free and sane society.'

Brief for Appellants 15. [397 U.S. 728 , 736] Without doubt the public postal system is an indispensable adjunct of every civilized society and communication is imperative to a healthy social order. But the right of every person 'to be let alone' must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate.

'it seems to us that a mailer's [397 U.S. 728 , 737] right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.

'Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit

'The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another.

'In effect, Congress has erected a wall-or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall-that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence.

'We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.

I think that the reasoning behind this decision applies equally as well to telephone solicitation.

I hope the DMA spends a fortune on this suit, and that it crashes and burns simply by the defendents reference of Rowan vs US Post Office.
Re:Sure it is, and the point is well-settled by Happy+go+Lucky · 2002-12-18 20:55 · Score: 1

Your mailbox and telephone are held out to the public as means to reach you.
No, they're not. Neither my mailing address nor my home phone number are publicly available. I don't WANT the public to reach me. When I go off-duty, I want the public to leave me the hell alone.
And I don't get telemarketing calls much at work either. Being able to answer the phone "BlahBlah Police, this is Senior Officer Knucklehead." gets me added to no-call lists fairly quickly, it being slightly illegal to telespam public safety numbers.
Re:Sure it is, and the point is well-settled by werdna · 2002-12-19 13:26 · Score: 2

Another way to get on a no-call list is to interrupt the solicitor, and to direct them to place you on their no-call list.

Re:The exceptions make this far to weak by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 13:43 · Score: 0

Did we miss the exceptions! This "no telemarket list" says telemarketers can't make random calls. That is all. Even if you are on a no telemarketing list they can still call you if they have your phone number. Read another way, if you have bought anything with a credit card/Banks card, a telemarketer with an association with the shop you purchased the item from can telemarket to you even though you have indicated you don't want to be telemarketed to.

Do Not Call List by scifiber_phil · 2002-12-18 13:46 · Score: 1

Part of my right of free speech is my right to walk away from other's speech.Others have the right to speak. They do not have the right to make me listen. If I subscribe to a "Do Not Call" list, I am in fact saying that I walk away from your speech that I find boring, repugnant, or a waste of my time. I am a captive audience in my own home to the unwanted rantings of the telemarketters. The "Do Not Call" list does not vialate the telemarketer's rights, it just restores my right to walk away from that to which I do not want to listen.

Why the exemption for charities? by jbayes · 2002-12-18 13:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why is it that these things always contain a loophole for charities? Is it really that important that charities be able to harrass people who have already expressed a preference not to be interrupted during dinner?

While I would much rather see a law saying that telemarketing lists must be opt-in only, I'm willing to settle for an enforced opt-out list, as long as that list has:

A very long expiry period. Five years is acceptable; one year is not.
Companies with which I have done business are allowed to call me, as long as I have not requested that they not do so. Other than those, no other companies are allowed to call.
No exemption for charities. As another poster pointed out, these loopholes just invite calls from "Bob's Aluminum Siding, Oh And We Feed The Orphans Too" companies. Besides, charity calls are no less distracting than other telemarketers; they should be treated similarly.
Substantial penalties for violating the rules. If private citizens are expected to take care of enforcement, then they should be awarded sums sufficient to make it worth their while to prosecute.

I've tried suing under California's telemarketing laws before, and I found out that they are next to useless. So, legislators, please pass useful, enforceable anti-telemarketing laws, or don't pass any at all.

--

"It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

How will the Telemarketer Caller ID Work? by spigi · 2002-12-18 13:53 · Score: 1

I subscribe to my phone company's anti-telemarketer plan (yes, I know they are the ones that sold the bastards my number in the first place). The plan works by intercepting calls with an unknown caller-id. If the new regulations force telemarketers to provide a valid caller id, how do we block them? I don't have much faith in the national "do not call list". There seem to be too many loop holes. If they made all telemarketer id's begin with a set prefix, say "TM" or "Rude Bastard" then it would easy to set up a filter to block them.

Yes by Tuxinatorium · 2002-12-18 14:07 · Score: 1

Suppose there were never any ambiguous or good uses for circumventing copy protection. Would the DMCA be a good thing in that case?

Yes. The one thing that makes the DMCA intolerable is that it abolishes various forms of constitutionally protected fair use that sometimes require the circumvention of ill-concieved copy protection schemes. If the DMCA had no such side effects, it would be fine.

--
Repeal the DMCA!

DMA & do-not-call by MacAndrew · 2002-12-18 14:10 · Score: 2

The DMA has parallel do-not-mail and do-not-call lists. As noted elesewhere, you may sign on free by mail. Why it is $5 over the net, I can't imagine. It must cost $ to process all that mail. Perhaps they want to discourage people.

Your name is purged after 5 years I believe.

There is also a free service run by the (3?) credit reporting services that will prevent any credit-card solicitations from being sent to you. I suppose it puts a flag on your credit report. You probably know that solicitations can be stolen and filled out fraudulently by a 3rd party. This is a good thing, and can be done over the phone with an automated system.

Back to the DMA -- I don't think they're evil, exactly, but don't think they set up the don't bother me lists out of public-mindedness. Like the movie industry with its self-imposed ratings, I believe they set it up to try to head off federal regulation. Better to self-regulate they figured, and benefit from the fact most people will never sign up.

Re:Mostly correct but "Barrier to Entry" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 14:11 · Score: 0

Lots of companies are putting there call centers and technical support in third world countries. The reasion that this is cheap is because they are not runing through the phone system. Think ip phone. In theory it costs more for an international phone calls but if you are just paying a fixed price for an international link then the cost of paying salaries becomes more signifigant.

Properly slashdot them... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 14:23 · Score: 0

paste this into a text editor...

Now save it as refresh.html. Open in browser (just double click the sucker.) then minimize the browser window. Note if your a 56k user don't do this until your done browsing, then just leave it connected and leave it up. Anyone on a faster connection will barely notice. But if enough people do this... the dma will.

Re:Properly slashdot them... by shaitand · 2002-12-18 14:39 · Score: 2

This should be modded +5 insightful ;)

err paste this... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 14:35 · Score: 0

ok annoying slashdot still interprets "Plain Old Text" as html overcome!

<META HTTP-EQUIV=Refresh CONTENT="5; URL=" ./refresh.htm " >

<frameset rows=" 50%, 50% " >
<frame src=" http://www.the-dma.org/ " title= " first " >
<frame src= " http://www.the-dma.org/ " title= " second " >
</frameset>

Pennsylvania's list by /dev/trash · 2002-12-18 14:54 · Score: 2

I signed up for it when it came out. Calls dropped considerably. I did get a local call that popped up on the Caller ID. Reported them to the state.

Re:Pennsylvania's list by nahdude812 · 2002-12-19 02:15 · Score: 2

I also am on PA's do not call list. It's sweet, 3-4 calls a night has turned in to ~1 a week. Those tend to be from charities (the guy who had our number before us must have been quite the philanthropist, two years later and we still get fairly regular charity calls for him). Actually since the list became active, we haven't had a single non-charity, non-fraternal phone call (both of which are legal under the PA law). The silence is golden. No more annoying hang-up calls from predictive dialers, and honestly, I really am happy with my rug shampooer, thank you very much.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Pennsylvania's list by /dev/trash · 2002-12-19 06:32 · Score: 2

Yes the predictive calling crap has stopped ( and always showed up as UNKNOWN anyway). I only get one UNKNOWN call these days and that's from DISH network. The call I just reported was for a rug shampooer, too. Oh well, I hope they get that list soon because at 1500 bucks a pop, they'll be out of business soon.

A part of the law I'd like cleared up though is whether or not a call from DISH is still illegal. The phone is not in my name, but I am a DISH customer. So can DISH call the number?

Thoughts from an insider by etoh · 2002-12-18 14:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Not sure what to make of this. I work in the telecommunications industry installing and programming Predictive Dialers and CTI systems for call centers. I can however give thoughts on whether or not a no-call list will do much.

I am on the no call list in Georgia and it has helped some with the reputable marketers. Where this isn't going to help is the small mom and pop shops calling you (which is the majority).

The way it works is there are hundreds of fly by night call centers that rent out their agents on a per call basis. Most of these call centers are cheap, poorly run, follow no laws, and in general bill the business for each call. They set up shop, hire out 30 redneck house wives, run for a few months, then shut down and do it again elsewhere.

Whether or not this will help will depend on a few things.

1: The ability of the policing body to act quickly. If there is a 2 month delay the offending call center is probrably changed or gone and will never get fined.

2: The ability to obtain the records of who the call centers customers are and which customer the call was placed for. If they never fine the companies that actually "purchased" the call then the practice will go unabated.

The other problem is the part about if they have already done business with you. If the call center has 20 customers they are placing calls for, and you have bought something from 1 of them, they may claim that status. I know most of you are thinking "I haven't bought anything from these small places". Keep in mind that a call center may have customers ranging from the Mortgage company trying to get your business all the way to the Phone Company you use (and yes, 90% of BabyBell calls are outsourced to outside call centers).

So chances are this No Call list won't make as much difference as most people think.

Oh Yeah, this should appease the people here.....99% of Call Centers are Windows based. Databases, Web Servers, Phone Systems, Desktops, You name it. No Linux at all!

EtOH

(hope this doesn't get me fired)

Re:Thoughts from an insider by shaitand · 2002-12-18 16:14 · Score: 2

Odd the opposite is true of survey centers, on the OS issue, they may not be linux based, but *nix based without a doubt. *nix is the only platform that decent software for this purpose exists on.

The last thing these places want to do is give users a desktop, they want a fast efficient terminal that can handle volume, and truely gives users access to nothing.
Re:Thoughts from an insider by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2002-12-18 17:38 · Score: 2

I work in the telecommunications industry installing and programming Predictive Dialers...I am on the no call list in Georgia

Umm? I guess that demonstrates belief in your product...

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Thoughts from an insider by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 04:58 · Score: 0

I work in the telecommunications industry installing and programming Predictive Dialers and CTI systems for call centers.
Die, scumbag!

telephone squeegee men by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 15:07 · Score: 0

That's all telemarketers are, telephone squeegee men, taking advantage of you. You have to stop at a traffic signal, so a squeegee man nails you. You have to have a phone for various reasons, so the telemarketers nail you. Minnesota recently started a no-call-list, and had about 190,000 sign up immediately. Only problem with "online websites" is that only those that have pc's will get on the list. Your typical aarp old person won't have a pc, and they get the calls, and get taken to the cleaners by telemarketers. This national list, with it's faults, will be very popular, and might just put the telephone squeegee men out of business. Oh, btw, years ago, when we had door-to-door salemen (outlawed in my town), a good Dog took care of that. Now everyone has a &%*@)! dog barking at the moon, etc. Anyone have any "downsides" to the National List? Anyone?

Good put me on the list! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 15:32 · Score: 0

My phone number is 616 24......... DOH! Wait a minute. Pretty tricky telemarkters :/ !

Re:Old people can be dangerous for Telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 15:52 · Score: 0

Talking about old people being taken advantage of by telemarketers reminded me of my late grandmother who had the perfect solution.

Don't let them hand up, keep talking until they hang-up. While talking to them cover such topics as products you know of that they might be interested in buying, the weather, the grandchildren, the state of the world, when I was a boy/girl, the war, the kids of today, or anything else that comes to mind on the spur of the moment. If they call back continue where you left off and you can add "I was telling the other guy who rang from your company"

I disagree by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 15:57 · Score: 0

The first call made to an individual cannot be considered harrassment (unless the content of the call is intended to be harrassing of course).

It takes time by Flamesplash · 2002-12-18 16:18 · Score: 2

Typically you will see the amount of mail you receive begin to decrease approximately three months after your name is entered onto the quarterly file

As the form says, it can take up to 3 months.

--
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson

Re:It takes time by standards · 2002-12-19 00:19 · Score: 1

Why?

When I ask to get my phone disconnected, it takes about 5 minutes.

When I ask to get a new passport, it takes about 6 weeks.

When I ask to be put on a do-not-spam list, it takes 3 months???

In this electronic age, where only 20 bytes of information needs to be passed around and nothing physical needs to change hands, and no humans need to be involved in the process, 3 months is lazy and unreasonable.

The industry association has, once again, let everyone down in order to service it's own needs.
Re:It takes time by Flamesplash · 2002-12-19 01:27 · Score: 2

It takes time because the member companies only get updates of the list every 3 months. That's the actual reason.

Why they don't have a much much better system? I have no clue. I've often wondered this of any company that has a mailing list they all say it will take time. I see no reason that a central database can't be consulted everythime a mass mailing is sent out from a company or why the member companies can't get weekly updates.

--
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson

An explanation (from a someone who worked on this) by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 16:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

- First off - It was years ago, I'm a better person now and the technology has changed a little.

1 - The company has a large database with your name, address, phone no., financial stuff etc.

2 - They decide to run a campaign - so a bunch of marketing type boffins come up with a profile. You run the profile through a database with the info and come back with 100 "close" matches - The marketing people then relax the formerly tight profile until you get about 10,000.

3 - The dataset is loaded into another table (btw this was all Oracle and something called "Genesys", RS6000 and AIX (yuck) back in the day when I did it)

4 - Drag in 20 drones and then dial 25 numbers (because idle drones are a waste) - If you get 21 "pick ups" then route 20 calls to the 20 drones and keep the "pick up" for a few seconds - If one of the drones gets disconnected - route it.

5 - EVERYTHING is recorded - the software can tell with 90% certainty it has reached a machine and then drops that call (cant remember how that one works) - but if you answer the call and get dropped (no drone avail) - You WILL go back in the queue next day - and chances are will be called around the same time. (You were in after all)

6 - Drones rattle through a script and will quite gladly hang up if you say you are not interested.

- Oh, I did all this with a financial company which never cold called and only "re-contacted" previous customers.

Lost Opportunity by rfg · 2002-12-18 17:00 · Score: 1

OK, they are going to sue on behalf of americans that do not get this marketing opportunity.

They can't have it both ways. This means, if they DO NOT call me, then I can sue me for discrimination in not giving me the opportunity. I am PuertoRican and married to an eskimo, so I can triple sue them.
Ha!

What really needs to be done. by ksemlerK · 2002-12-18 17:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is to ban all forms of telephone solicitiation by any company, for profit of not. Instead of having a national DNC list, we should have an OICL nation wide. (DNC is DO Not Call, OICL is Opt-In Caller List) Anyone who is not on the OICL should not be called. I used to telemarket, so I know what they do, and the lies they tell. I will tell you this: No matter what they say, never buy a program called: Mainstreet Savings, Galleria, Premier Health Plus, Simple Escapes, or 24 Protect Plus. Even if it is only $9.95/Mo. They are scams. They are money traps. Let everyone know. Write your congressman, lets get this bill passed!

--
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!

My approach by int69h · 2002-12-18 17:34 · Score: 2, Funny

T: Hello, is Mr. Foo in?

M: You're speaking w/ him

T: I'd like to tell you about our XYZ product...

M: This XYZ product sounds very interesting.
I'm a little busy at the moment though. Could I get your home number so I can call you back later to talk about it?

T: We can't give that information out sir.

M: Is it because you don't like being called at home by complete strangers?

T: *silence*

M: (click)

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by Bald+Wookie · 2002-12-18 19:39 · Score: 2

It has some exceptions in it ... and businesses you've done business with before (banks abuse this provision a lot).

Oh great. I can't wait for the "special partnership" between $YOUR_BANK and $SELLER_OF_CRAP. I bet some banking VP is sitting around dreaming about synergy and leveraged relationships.

Fun thing to do to telemarketers... by dagg · 2002-12-18 19:42 · Score: 2

K5 Diary Entry

--
Sex - Find It

Act dumb. by Sotto_Zero · 2002-12-18 19:49 · Score: 1

TM: Hello, may I speak with (my wife's name)?
Me: She is not here. She is at home. This is my office number.
TM: I see. As a business owner, (business credit card pitch)...
Me: I don't own any business.
TM: Does your wife own a business?
Me: No she doesn't.
TM: Well, you may use your credit card for business expenses, this is fine, but with your card... (interrupted)
Me: I don't have an expense account.
TM: Then I don't know why we are calling you.
Me: Me neither.

--

--- Surfing the web on my ZX-81.

Don't worry... by mypalmike · 2002-12-18 20:39 · Score: 1

AT&T will still be calling you.

"The FTC also has limited authority to police certain industries -- such as telephone companies -- that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission."

-_-_-

--
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.

UK is a step ahead on this one... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 20:55 · Score: 0

In the UK, we already have a service called the Telephone Preference Service which does this.

Telemarketers never get me by Ninjacam · 2002-12-18 22:20 · Score: 1

I never get solicitation phone calls...I only get phone calls from people I want to have call me. No, I'm serious! And I don't have to pay the phone company for the privilege of not being disturbed.

How? Well, I bought a little box a few years back that "answers" the call with a demand for a passcode. If the person puts in the correct passcode (I got to choose the passcode), then the phone rings through. If the person does NOT put in the correct passcode, the machine hangs up on them and I'm not disturbed. To me, that's much better than the telezappers.

My main reason for getting it in the first place was because I worked night shifts and had to be able to sleep undisturbed by the phone, but wanted to still allow my friends to be able to reach me if they had an emergency. It was a perfect solution for me, and still is.

Where can you get one? Well, last time I looked at the catalog from the place I purchased it they no longer carried them. However, I recently saw a catalog for a security-type of store (sells pepper spray, alarms, spy-camera stuff, etc.) that sells them. Probably have them local to anyone who wants them, just look in your local phone directory. It cost me $35 several years ago, probably a bit more now, but even so, it's much better than paying the telco a monthly fee for selective blocking!

--
-- Some people live life in the fast lane. I live life in oncoming traffic.

Just another tracking system by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 23:05 · Score: 0

If it works anything like my state's do not call list, you have to give your name plus phone number to register. So the feds now have another tracking tool. Is this list going to be used by the states to argue for raising the census count results? Or by the feds for... How about just inputting your phone number without name? Do you have to put every family member on the list with the same phone number, or will businesses emerge that use the list to find others in family who aren't on the list with the same phone number, therefore giving the companies a defense for calling your number?

Or by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 23:19 · Score: 0

Shoot them on the spot. 13 bullets in my clip, my hand rests heavy on my pistol grip.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by jez9999 · 2002-12-18 23:21 · Score: 1

The only exceptions so far have been Jean Carnahan recording during the elections

Wait wait, I'm getting something wrong here. You picked up the phone and got a recording of a politician??? Or something else?

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Works fine in the UK by HuskyDog · 2002-12-18 23:23 · Score: 3, Informative

About a year ago I signed up with the Telephone Preference Service. I was a bit skeptical at first, but it works just fine.

You can sign up online for free (they send a letter of acknowledgement in the post) and it is backed by legislation. It isn't perfect, but I reckon that after a few months the number of unwanted calls dropped by more than 90%.

Charities are not excempt, and the only people who can legitimately still call you are companies with whom you have previously done business.

There are similar schemes for snail mail and fax junk which also seem to work well. They also have an email one, but that's a bit pointless since most spam comes from outside the UK.

In summary, I'm very happy with the system and I hope that those of you in more backward countries get a similar system soon ;-).

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by jez9999 · 2002-12-18 23:24 · Score: 2

Oh my...

If you call that good, you really have a bad telemarketting spam problem :-)

I'm amazed at the amount of telemarketing that goes on in the US, for one Simple reason; it doesn't seem to happen AT ALL in the UK. I mean, I think I'm 'ex-directory', not sure if that's possible in the US? If it is, how do they get your phone number? But I mean, I've NEVER in my life had a phone call from a company I haven't dealt with before, maybe just 1 or 2 in my LIFE from companies (like banks) telling me about some new service or something. My mum had about 1 or 2 in her LIFE from local merchants offering to do some refurbishment to the house or something, but all in all, it doesn't really happen. And you call 1 or 2 calls a WEEK good??

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Try this by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-18 23:39 · Score: 0

Write the law to be loophole free, just a plain and simple definitive statement. Provide harsh punsihment for even trying to interpret the law in any manner other than the manner it is written.
"It is illegal to send any unsolicited commercial communication to any person/entity without prior written permission to do so. Said permission MUST be a handwritten letter, delivered by the legitimate postal authorities of the originating country. The letter must contain a legitimate return address and be postmarked, in addition it must request the communication and give a valid name, and address of the entity/individual requesting the communication. Soliciting such permission is illegal and carries a minimum of 5 years prison term and a $100,000.00 dollar fine per occurance. Any attempt to interpret this act as anything other than what it was enacted for, shall constitute a violation of the act and shall be punishible by an immediate incarceration of 5 years and a $100,000.00 dollar fine per instance of attempting to interpret this act. Sharing of permissions is not possible. Each entity who desires to communicate with another must have their own written permission to do so. Permission letters are not transferrable. Letters of request must be available for public inspection for a period of not less than 50 years. Any deficiencies in records retention shall constitute a violation of this act, punishible by 5 years imprisonment, or in the case of a corporation violating the act, the total assets of the corporation and all it's officers are forfeit immediately as penalty for violating the act. This shall include wages, salaries and any and all material, monetary and real properties whether the act is violated by individual or corporate entities."

This way, only idiots who can write and desire such crap can be mailed. Now for foreign countries who allow such violations, simply cut their net access in a concerted effort to let those clueless fools know we will not tolerate such actions that aide and abet crimes in this country. Blocking is not a hard task.

Do not call list? Huh? by DirkDaring · 2002-12-19 02:10 · Score: 1

Don't they have this backwards? Shouldn't this be a DO call list? These companies can only call the numbers on this list that people sign up for wanting these telemarketing calls.

The Perfect Counter-Script by zettabyte · 2002-12-19 02:20 · Score: 1

This telemarketing Counter-Script was linked to back in October over at Blue's News. It seemed to be relevant to this discussion. I keep a copy next to my phone, but alas, I haven't had a telemarketer get through to me yet.

Also, the cops have busted my chops during their yearly grab for cash, as a poster mentioned earlier (pre-emptive hang-ups and general McGruff-ness). I just write it off to them having to do a shitty and thankless job.

Just say NO! by leinhos · 2002-12-19 02:28 · Score: 1

It's hard for me to believe that people actually buy stuff pitched to them over the phone, but there must be a good number of them to make telemarketing economically viable.

In our household we have a standard speech/line: "In this household, we do not respond to phone solicitations. Could you please take me off your call list? Thankyou. Have a nice day/night".

Seriously, if no one bought anything from telemarketers, they'd very quickly go out of business.

Re:Just say NO! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 03:04 · Score: 0

Could you please take me off your call list?
It is better to say "please put me on your do-not-call list". Legally, that means they shouldn't call you again. The other way just drops you off of a list that will be tossed at the end of the day anyway.

Politicians' loophole by scottfitch · 2002-12-19 02:30 · Score: 1

Don't forget the least suprizing loop hole of all. Politicians are still allowed to call to beg for your money and your vote. I wonder how that made it in!

Re:Politicians' loophole by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 03:01 · Score: 0

Why that is FREE speech! It is POLITICAL speech! You don't want to stand in the way of DEMOCRACY do you?

P.S. Vote for me!

Penis enlargements ? by freaker_TuC · 2002-12-19 02:31 · Score: 1

As long they do not call me "to need" a penis enlargement, natural viagra or tits-o/t-net I am very satisfied. Now the same for spam-mail thankyou!

Actually I never had any problems with telemarketeers and the one that had bothered me never called me back after some words we had exchanged... Could be because I am living in Europe.

The most spammail I get is from the USA and the Asian countries ...

--
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..

Thank you for shopping with GloboChem by bareman · 2002-12-19 02:42 · Score: 2

GloboChem
"If you bought something, you bought it from us".

When only a few mega-corps own everything they'll all be able to call you.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by po_boy · 2002-12-19 04:11 · Score: 2

Yeah. It was pretty common around here to get recordings of political messages during the elections. People got called from both Clintons, GW Bush, and Jean Carnahan (and probably Jim Talent, too, though I never heard that). The recording I got urged me to vote, not necessarily for her or anything, but the point was clear.

Politicians, the local phone company, and some others are immune to the Missouri no-call law. I'm not sure if the fact that her message wasn't a direct plea for me to vote for her helps her in the no-call law, but it really seems like it was deliberately done for some reason.

Yeah.... by thgreatoz · 2002-12-19 04:17 · Score: 0

"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities."

...and blocking pop up ads is stealing.

--
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.

Re:Will this become the new "click here to opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-19 05:04 · Score: 0

Set up in some spam-friendly Bumcrackovia

<voice mode="'60s singing">All we are saying / Is "nuke spamistan"</voice>

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by nomadic · 2002-12-19 06:16 · Score: 2

Compared to how many we used to get, YES. Also keep in mind the vast majority of the ones we do get are from autodiallers. Pick up the phone, say hello, get no response, immediately hang up. So you only have to talk to some annoying telemarketer maybe once every few weeks.

It's not paradise, but it's close to it.

Consumer is a propaganda term by ka9dgx · 2002-12-19 07:16 · Score: 2

A "consumer" is a sheep that does nothing other than buy things. I am not a consumer, and never will be.

I object to this, and all other use of the term.

I also object to "Intellectual Property"

</RANT>

I bill telemarketers by gnarly · 2002-12-19 07:53 · Score: 2

Before telemarketers can start their schpeel, I begin the conversation with this quote:

"All commerial solicitation phone calls to this number will be changed at a rate of $1 per word spoken by the caller, do you accept these charges?"

I did this to MCI this morning. It really makes telemarking calls end quickly.

Incidentally, Have you noticed that almost all telemarketers use an automatic dialing system nowadays? Instead of a normal phone call:

Me: "Hello"
Caller: "Hello, I'm so and so and the reason I'm calling is..... "

We get:

Me: "Hello."
Telemarketer, just now picking up the phone: "Hello" ...(pause)

The fact that they are waiting for a 2nd Hello from me gives me the perfect chance to start the conversation with the question above.

--
:-( is a registered trademark of Despair.com

Exemptions are going to remove most of the teeth by DiveX · 2002-12-19 09:19 · Score: 2

Here is a listinging of the new requirments and exemptions.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/12/tsrfina lrule.pdf . This is going to offer a whole new box of BS for TCPA violators to confuse the judges with?

For example, 310.4(b)(4)(iii) says the telemarketer is not liable for abandonment violations if "whenever a sales representative is not available to speak with the person answering the call within two (2) seconds after
the person's completed greeting, the seller or telemarketer promptly plays a recorded message that states the name and telephone number of the seller on whose behalf the call was placed".

So, they play a recording that says "Hi, this is Bambi with No-Brain Funding. We have exciting news about your mortgage, but unfortunately, our
customer service agents" -- which may or may not exist -- "are assisting other customers. If you would like to hear information about how we can
lower your mortgage rates to blah blah blah, press 'one' now! Or you can hang up and go *bleep* yourself."

Then when you sue them under the TCPA, they claim the call wasn't a prerecord, it was actually a live solicitation with the prerecorded message *required* by FTC regs.

And jeez! Did they offer enough exemptions?

The new rule doesn't apply to charities. -- 310.6(a)
It doesn't apply to any company which takes payment after a face to face meeting (such as a carpet cleaning estimate, cable TV installation, alarm equipment estimate, etc.) -- 310.6(b)(3)
It doesn't apply to inbound calls, specifically ones originating as a response to junk faxes. -- 310.6(b)(4-6)
It doesn't apply to calls resulting from junk faxes. -- 310.6(b)(6)
It doesn't apply to calls to businesses. -- 310.6(b)(7)

Companies are not in violation of the DNC rules if:
They say they have procedures for DNC compliance in place. -- 310.4(b)(3)
They say "Oops, we goofed!" -- 310.4(b)(3)

It looks like it is going to be hard to figure out for whom this bill is intended to block.

--
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.

Re:I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list by Zeinfeld · 2002-12-19 12:56 · Score: 2

I'm amazed at the amount of telemarketing that goes on in the US, for one Simple reason; it doesn't seem to happen AT ALL in the UK.

I have had junk calls in the UK, usually trying to sell double glazing.

My usual tactic was to tell them that no, we did not have double glazing but it could not be fitted to the building. After the idiot canvaser assured me it was possible I would tell her that she had called the underground pumping station for the water works.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

No surprise there... by ratamacue · 2002-12-20 00:41 · Score: 1

Gambling, in most states, is a criminalized business endeavor for everyone but government. (I'm talking about the lottery.) Somehow, when gambling is conducted by private business, it represents a threat to society so great that it requires prohibition, yet when gambling is conducted by government, it represents a legitimate fund-raising scheme. I can only assume this is because government officials are more trustworthy than individuals operating in the private sector. Would anyone care to prove this?

National and State DO NOT CALL registries by lent · 2002-12-20 05:59 · Score: 1

The Federal Trade Commission's National Do Not Call Registry will be found at
www.ftc.gov/dotnotcall according to this.

Reasonably good lists were available, but are being revised. Luckily cache's are available here goes:

Google Cache of State Do Not Call lists which has been relaced by FTC List of State Registries
The DMA's list Useful cache versus the Real soon now revised list

Interestingly in 1995 the FCC

require[s] that [telemarketer's] do-not-call request records must be maintained for 10 years after a request is
made.

even more stringent restrictions were thought of by Congress in 1991.

Back in 1991, Congress instructed the FCC to investigate providing a National Do-Not-Call database,
According to the 1991 law, US Code

The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the
establishment and operation of a single national database to compile
a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to
receiving telephone solicitations,

Unfortunately, the FCC decided the National Database was too difficult/expensive to implement, though they are all for it now.

Fun whining and some valid concerns about the new rules by telemarkers, phone and computer companies can be viewed at New Rules would hurt us

For Paper Directories, my favorite is Alaska's Blackdotwhich allows

"Do Not Call Law"(Alaska's Black Dot Law)
AS 45.50.475 prohibits telephone solicitation of persons identified in a telephone directory as not wishing to receive telephone solicitations. These telephone customers have a "black dot" by their name in the directory. The statute also requires local telephone companies to provide a list of "black dot" customers to telephone solicitors who request one.
For a small fee, your local telephone company will identify your residential listing in your telephone directory with a

black dot.

This informs telephone solicitors that you do not want to receive telephone solicitations.

I talk to all of them... by krinsh · 2002-12-23 11:24 · Score: 2

I love to tell stories; I love to flirt with the little minimum-wage earning college girls and housewives; and I keep them on the phone for fifteen to twenty minutes at a time and DON'T BUY A DAMN THING. I immediately control the conversation [a very bad habit of mine in person *LOL*] and at the end of my little yak session "I'm sorry, I just don't buy stuff like that." I think that's why I have gotten fewer and fewer calls recently.

--
I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.

Slashdot Mirror

FTC Moves Forward With National Do-Not-Call List

483 comments