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."
Why would political calls be exempt from this? They're trying to sell something. I might be convinced to agree that non-profit calls are alright, but political calls?
Username taken, please choose another one.
So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks!
'Erotic sushi' bar serves up tantalizing treats
It took me 5 minutes to sign up my home and cell phone numbers for being on the do-not-call list in MA. A toll-free call and 5 minutes. Not a Self-Addressed-Stamped-Envelope or some crazy address that no one can remember or write down fast enough to get signed up on the list.
As long as the other states make it similarly easy to sign up, then you'll get the same participation.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
All I'm finding on their website is these "Action Alert" things that don't really make any argument other than lots of people have jobs annoying other people over the phone. Lots of people have jobs as prostitutes too. That doesn't make it legal (although I'm much more inclined to have legalized prostitution than I am to outlaw do-not-call lists).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It's the nature of the State to allow its representatives to do what is illegal for everyone else.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re 1st Am issues...
Yes, they have a right to say things, but they don't have a right to force me to hear them.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Heinlein put it nicely:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Life is so much easier when you're not a rabid extremist about anything. Additionally, it makes life better for the rest of humanity, too.
Before you go down all alone...
.. oh wait, because she/we needed the income. I assure you she was unfailingly polite and did not have cloven feet.
My mom worked as a telemarketer for a while, doing surveys actually. She did it because she hated humanity
That said, I really think we should be able to cook up better jobs for similarly qualified people, something with some skills taught and upward mobility. If these jobs exist, believe me they'll get taken quick. I regret hearing antiquated or destructive industries defended as "providing jobs" -- most recently by a Christmas tree grower. (Good reason to buy a Christmas tree: you want one. Bad reason: to create jobs.)
Jobs and productivity are good for the economy. But not just any jobs.
They want to make it harder for people with no money to get (re)elected.
paintball
I actually enjoy calls from phone spammers for one reason...I cost them money. I never just hang up on them. That's too easy, let's them move on the next person. I stay on the line and talk to them as long as I can. I ask all kind of stupid questions and act interested in whatever crap they're pitching. Of course, I never buy anything. When I run out of questions, I just say "Not interested" and wait for them to start whining. This wastes a lot of their time and of course time is money. If more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list.
there is not a single example, arguement, excuse, etc the DMA could offer that would convince me they should be allowed to call me. Like I am really gona give to a DMA bozo my credit card number, SSN, mortgage rate, or any information on a cold call.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
This is a rather tricky issue for libertarians. Most libertarians believe in minimumal government regulation and an every-man-for-himself attitude. But, advertisers are the bad guys so it's difficult stand up for them.
As a libertarian I can give you my perspective, but I can't claim to represent most libertarians or that I hold the "purist" libertarian point of view.
Fundamentally I don't believe in anyone's right not to be hassled. If you live among or deal with society you run the risk of interacting with people. You always have the option to go be a hermit or disconnect your phone. There is no right which guarantees you that other people will not be assholes. I don't believe in any basic principle by which a company is never allowed to call you just because you don't want them to. If you make your number public (you have the option not to) you have to accept the consequences.
However, the rights of the company end when they start to invade yours. This is where it gets really tricky. When does a call trample on one of your rights?
Do you have a right not to be annoyed? I don't think so. But, I do believe you have a right every damn penny you own and if a company costs you money by calling then they have trampled on your rights. That's why I favor laws against calling cell phones for marketing purposes. Or, perhaps you receive a high volume of vital calls and sorting out the bogus ones would cost you money. Perhaps you have a line only for emergency purposes and every time it needs to be answered costs you time and money.
All of these seem like reasonable situations in which to enforce a "don't call this number" rule. But, who gets to decide which numbers qualify and when, etc? That's tricky. Perhaps it's best for everyone to evaluate their own situation. I don't know anyone who would say "yeah, it costs me nothing when I get called by a telemarketer", so by that method everyone would qualify for the "don't call" list. Is that fair? I don't know.
Ultimately, it depends on a very subjective judgement call. For now I'm perfectly happy to see a very loose interpretation of "that call cost me money/resources/time that I had the right to". But, perhaps it will need to be re-evaluated sometime in the future.
Yes.
:)
:) )
Yes, now every local candidate can compete, cheap and easy... using e-mail and phone spam.
For the cost of just THE LIST:::
1) Political candidate buys list of 1,000,000 numbers (1M expected by Mass.)
2) Candidate limits list to his/her county/district/city. (Easy--uses a phone book for area codes and the first three numbers.)
A candidate for a county of 600,000 people can expect to have 100,000 appropriate phone numbers.
(The original list represents 1 / 6th of the state's population, so we divide 600K by 6.)
3) Political candidate emails his MOST DEDICATED 2,000 supporters 50 unique phone numbers each. In the e-mail, he would say
"If you could call up these 50 people by (three days before election) and tell them to root for me, that would be great. Oh, and this way, each of us will get a call from one of the supporters. Just act sincere and don't divulge that you are taking part!
Oh, and just as a test, if you don't get a call, please let me know! Finally, if you are gonna be out of town, yada, yada, yada, please reply and let me know."
The trick?
EITHER WOULD WORK: 1) The candidate would make sure to put just ONE supporter's number into someone else's list. OR 2) If he wasn't too busy, he'd just put his cell phone number on each list.**
He would probably do both (48 real voters, 1 supporter, and himself, the latter two randomly scattered but near the bottom
This way, he will know as the deadline approaches, which person has called or not. He will count his many calls he personally got (meaning the number of lists that have gone through, and each list is 48 real people) and know if this is working or not working before the election even starts.
The dozen people who reply that they can't do the list, the politician will call that person's list personally (which is good, too.)
But for the people who never call by (three days before election), he will know by never seeing supporter "Bob'" personal phone number on caller ID. The other way is if supporter "SAMMY", who was on Bob's list, reports to the candidate like instructed and says he wasn't called. The candidate would know sammy was on Bob's list.
The lists that didn't work our or were cancelled early on due to yadayadayada, the politican would call himself (he would still have three days left.)
-
Yes I made this all up, but it is so feasible it's not funny. I could make this text look pretty, but that would take even longer than it did to make this.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
From the site you linked:
1) "Telemarketers have the fire power to make 560 calls per second (24 million per day)."
2) "The average American gets called 2 to 3 times per day by a telemarketer."
Do the math... one of those has to be wrong. If 'fact' 1 is true, then less than 1 in 10 Americans gets a call each day. If 'fact' two is true, then the telemarketers have the ability to make roughly 600-900 million calls per day. No sources either... I hate randomly generated 'facts'.
--SONET
It seems to me that you can have government regulations to improve our lives, or you can have civil lawsuits. They both acheive the same goals except one system favours the rich and encourages callous uncaring governments who want to redistribute wealth to their lawyer buddies, and the other system leaves people feeling like they're burded with an interferring and over-weight government justifying your tax burden by spending it frivolously. In one camp are socialists, in the other, libertarians (ok: I will call them the right-wing American Libertarian party followers to distinguish them from the socialist anarchists in other countries that also consider themselves libertarian).
It turns out we don't want to get called, but we still buy.
We hate TV ads, and think we go to the bathroom, but ads still affect our behavior, enough that Regis can be paid $20MM a year.
And most of us are posting using MS software. Admit it.
It's all about what we say and what we actually do.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Just switch off that brain - not like it was given to you for a reason, or anything...
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
If I've just got my baby to sleep and some arsehole phones up asking if I want a 2nd mortgage, that is costing me more than money, that is interfering in my family life.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Perhaps "fact 1" refers only to the larger individual telemarketers, not all US telemarketers as a group? Just a thought.
Based on my own experience, "fact 2" does seems realistic.
I agree, I don't have a right not to be annyed, but...
I firmly believe to have a right not to be annoyed by scum abusing my property (time / equipment / resources) in order to annoy me.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Your straw man is aggrivating my sinuses. The relevant principle is that I want telemarketers off the phone line I am paying for. If they want to offer a deal where they pay my phone bill and I let them make X number of calls per month, I'd consider it.
All of these seem like reasonable situations in which to enforce a "don't call this number" rule. But, who gets to decide which numbers qualify and when, etc? That's tricky.
It's not the slightest little bit "tricky". The person who is paying for that phone number to remain in service gets to decide.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.