Slashdot Mirror
160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List
MacAndrew writes "The Boston Globe reported that over 160,000 people signed up since the first of the year for the state's new do-not-call list, which imposes penalties as high as $5,500 per violation. Nonprofit and political calls are exempt. This list is being implemented well in advance of the proposed FTC national do-not-call list. Residents can sign up by mail, phone, or online. Mass. officials predict a third of the 3 million residential lines will enroll. Legal challenge from marketers appears likely, although the Direct Marketing Association helpfully lists state do-not-call registries. Click here for the DMA's side of the story."
That's exactly what I was thinking. It seems there's an awful conflict of interest when politicians allow themselves to call people on the do-not-call list, joined only by non-profits.
Illinois doesn't have one yet... bleh
Username taken, please choose another one.
http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html
Gives them a run for their money and, best of all, if the telemarketer takes a wrong step, they open the company up to legal action.
E-mail bill
Bill # H.R.718
Original Sponsor:
Heather Wilson (R-NM 1st)
Cosponsor Total: 115
(last sponsor added 06/05/2001)
43 Democrats
72 Republicans
About This Legislation:
This bill would require accurate return addresses on unsolicited commercial e-mail. HR 718 would make it illegal to continue sending junk e-mail to a person who has asked to be removed from a distribution list, require unsolicited commercial e-mail to be labeled, and require ISP's to let their customers opt-out of receiving junk e-mail. The bill would also set a penalty for continuing to send junk e-mail after someone has asked for it to stop. HR 718 would also allow ISP's to sue spammers for $500 per message if they violate their antispam policy.
The DMA opposes HR 718 and has testified before Congress on the bill's onerous provisions.
They don't actually say what provisions they find to be onerous. Is it the fact that people can decide that they don't want to receive junk mail? Or is it the fact that they have to provide an accurate return address? Or maybe it's the fact that they would have to label their advertisements as what they are instead of trying to make people think they are something else. No... couldn't be any of those things. That would make the DMA seem evil
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I doubt that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It's not so much people signing up for the list as the state imposing penalties for politicians exercising a free speech right that we hold dear. "Commercial speech" is easier to regulate constitutionally. So (and I'm guessing) I think a court would say the intrusion is relatively mild and that less restrictive alternatives are available, such as anti-harassment law. For example, they get to call you once without penalty, something like that.
There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).
BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?
Here in Colorado, our DNC list has been taking subscribers for less than a year, and has been enforceable for about 3 months, and so far 1 million lines are on it. Not sure how many lines we have all together, but the state's total population is 4.4 mil, so I predict Mass. will probably get more than a third of their population on board in the end. And as for the legal challenges, several companies have tried to stop the list with no luck. It's actually kind of funny because it seems like they have some valid arguments sometimes, but the courts refuse to listen to them.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
If you are in California, make a fuss about this in your local press.
The AG's office website gives gives some information, but fails to mention that they've let the deadline slide.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Any transation that cannot be completed over the phone is exempt from the do-not-call list. That means most of those annoying recorded messages that end up on your answering machine -- "Sorry I missed you, but let me tell you about a great deal on clothes at..."
[insert witty comment here]
Well, a sad day unless you are happy at the prospect of suing them for violating the law. It is already illegal to make a solicitation to a cellular phone, and you can collect $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. (see here for the relevant legalese).
The trick was very simple. I sent in a post card to the Direct Marketing Association asking to be placed on their do not call list. And then, when people call, I always say to place me on their do not call list. I get less than one live phone call a month. (The thing I get are recorded messages from autodialers. Some God-damned charity thinks I want to reward their harrassment by giving them a car.)
I have read that over sixty percent of the populations purchases an item at least once a month in response to a telephone call. I know people who make these calls for a living. Certain people appreciate the opportunity to donate to their charity over the telephone, or to make theatre subscriptions. But telemarketers are not interested in wasting their time in calling people who are not going to buy, donate or subscribe.
Here is a link on the Direct Marketing Association website that explains about how to get off telephone list. I can attest that it has worked for me. And the cost was only for a postcard.
It wasn't mentioned how to do this in the article. For those who live in Pennsylvania, the website is:
http://www.nocallsplease.com
Heh. Their script probably ignores what you put in the text box and just mails their own text to the legislators. That way they don't have to worry about people accidentally saying something they don't mean. And the legislators don't have to read each email. They just see that there's 100,000 emails from the DMA site that all say the same thing. No fuss, no muss :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As my page says, what I'm hoping for is that we can all become so highly annoying to the telemarketers that the DMA will create their own national "we don't want to call" list, and put my name right on the top.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
I cut the suggested text, replaced it with "As a harassed citizen, I strongly support the proposed national do-not-call database. The DMA can go to hell", signed it and submitted it.
Phil
If you'd like some inspiration at this, you can try listening to a real pro. My favorite is still his call from the carpet cleaners, closely followed by the "cemetery salesman" routine.
Unfortunately, a alot of telemarekting is no longer done by unqualified, minimum-wage people who would otherwise be unemployed. It's outsourced to 3rd-world sweatshops, or even to US prisons.
January 7, 2003
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
I am entirely in favor of a national do-not-call list.
I find it obnoxiously intrusive to constantly receive solicitation from
telemarketers in my own home, which too often take too much of the
precious time i wish to spend with loved ones, while recovering from my
rigorous working hours.
Furthermore, while telemarketers are supposed to be trained to respect
people's right to say "no", it has been my personal experience to find it
often challenging to exercise that right, faced with somewhat resilient
telemarketers who just would not take "NO" for an answer.
Current laws already give me the right to request from the caller that
they no-longer call me. When getting 3 to 5 different telemarketing calls
in a same evening, this already represents more time than i am willing to
spend to protect a peaceful existence.
The Direct Marketing Association does have an opt-out list. No business is
*required* to become part of the DMA. While they provide strict rules for
their members to abide by, enforcing those rules and punishing offenders
strictly relies on *potential* complaints from residents, which requires a
significant amount of work from the resident to determine whether or not
the telemarketer belongs to the DMA, and for the DMA to follow-up on those
issues. While the system appears to be beneficial on the surface, I truly
believe it provides no *significant* protection to victims of telemarketer
calls.
In my view, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the
privacy of citizens who make the conscious decision to not ever be
sollicited by telemarketers while at home. I believe a federally-regulated
do-not-call list with provisions for strong sanctions against offenders is
the single, true, effective answer to a problem that has been plaguing our
society for far too many decades.
Sincerely,
[ME. HEH]
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices