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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.