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
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.
Gee, what's the one thing that bugs more people than anything else?
Is it paying taxes? Nope. Is it the commercials on tv? Nope. It's some poor SOB calling you while your eating, or on saturday at 8 in the morning trying to offer you some stupid service or credit card you A)don't want and B) didn't sign up for.
I hope and pray those telemarketing bastards get shot down. I have a phone, yes, but it's not so you can peddle your shit to me.
Sent from your iPad.
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
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.
How long before political committees start leasing out space?
"Hello, will you be voting for Bush in the next election?"
"No."
"Well then, would you like to have the the Daily Liberal newspaper delivered to your door?"
Jason.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
If nonprofits are exempt then can't they just solicit everyone on the do-not-call list?
Suppose I have an unlisted number, then it's unlikely that a charity will be able to get my number (unless someone sells it to them). But if I register with the do-not-call list then I've basically published my phone number for every nonprofit and political party to add to their call list.
Why the HELL are nonprofits and politicians, of all things, exempt?
...I'm not stupid. Perhaps I shouldn't be asking "why." I know why. I should be asking "who let them?" There are three categories of people I don't want calling my house and they've exempted two of them.
I mean
I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.
My
Limekiller
Legitimate marketing companies have maintained and adhered to Do Not Solicit lists for years. Companies that broke the rules will continue to break the rules--including ignoring these lists. Heck, the company I worked for maintained a list of over 3,000,000 Do Not Solicits that it had accumulated over the years.
The law allows political calls, charity calls and calls from someone you do business with or have done business with. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that a majority of the telemarketing calls I receive fall into one of these very broad catagories.
If a company breaks the rules, how are you going to track them down? And if you track them down, what can you do? In the past, all a company has had to do was show that they were making every effort to adhere to the established rules.
If nothing else, perhaps we should all think about the amount of time and money invested in something like this and realize that it's just a phone call. I mean, my phone has a special anti-telemarketer button that came with it--it's that one you press to hang up.
These are the kinds of ideas I'm looking for, like the "Project Mayhem" stuff from the film Fight Club. I used to get junk faxes, and after awhile I'd copy them and tape them together in a loop, and feed it in on a friday night, late. Other times I'd reply, one very large letter to a page. A friend used to return all faxes in black.
"The Federal Trade Commission is planning on creating a new "national do-not-call" list which could greatly diminish the number of potential call recipients. Should the federal government be in the business of tearing down this industry? Make your voices heard."
"tearing down this industry" I love it. When the "industry" is calling people in their homes and annoying them with your "amazing new offer," then I say yes! This summer, at my job, Verizon actually called us 3 times in the same day! Seriously. I liked my boss' approach. As soon as they started talking: "I can tell already that I don't want to talk to you." *click"
I think my favorite though is my friend who, when called by some bank being offered a credit card responded with something along the lines of: "That's great! This is just what I need right now. All 6 of my other cards are maxed out, and I had to take out a second mortgage on my house. I was really wondering what I was goign to do!" I think that they actually hung up on her.
Do not read this sig.
The whole direct marketing by phone issue seems to be an area where, with regard to those qualities, you can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. If the corprations are unregulated, they'll try and flog stuff to you down the phone day and night. The Market wouldn't seem to work in thia case, as even if 99% of us hang up immediately and boycott the company, the remaining 1% will still provide a customer base the company can get by on. However, if the Feds step in, the companies' freedom goes out the window.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Libertarianism (My views have been pretty well up in the air since Tommy Sheridan destroyed my faith in socialism by being a prick), I was just wondering if any Libertarians here could tell me what their position on this is.
Cheers.
You Mass people must like the telemarketers.
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?
I live in CO which implimented a do-not-call list about a year ago. I can say it works damn well. I get almost no unsolicited calls. This is compared to when I visited the family over christmas and was having to hang up on 3-4 telemarketers each day. There were no calls during the elections this year so either there is a difference in the law between states or this stipulation has little impact. The only thing I get are calls from the firefighter and Police fraturaties which are delt with with a simple, "Please put me on your 'do not call' list. Thankyou"
I do security
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.
you had to list your cell phone number? It'll be a very sad day when solicitors start calling my cell using my minutes that I pay for
$cat
The system is generally paid for by charging the telemarketers a fee to give them the list of people they arn't allowed to call. Don't want to pay for the list? Then the state attorny's office just makes you pay with fines instead.
WI has one of these that JUST went effective Jan 1. I signed up in October, when I was getting 2-3 calls between 8 and 11 am every morning and another 2-5 every night. I have received 3 calls since Jan 1 total, 2 hangups and 1 person from the trooper's association. (I don't do contributions on the phone, too many scams where 10% of the money goes to the organization.)
It took me a week to realize I wasn't getting the calls anymore, hard to notice silence, but it is a tremendous difference. Yay for productive legislation.
Now, if anyone can tell me where to sign up for the NO SPAM list, I'll be even happier.
paintball
I know I'll get modded down for this :)
I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.
Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family.
Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
The worldwide federation of unsolicted email has just provided a do-not-spam email list. The list will provide an easy way for spammers to check and see if your email address is on the list, so that you will not receive their wonderful deals! When asked if spammers would use the list to send you anonymous advertising, the federation replied, "Spammers are good honest citizens of society and would never do such a thing."
The futexes are also cursed!
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
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."
I've been using the NY Do-Not-Call List for a bit and it works pretty well, so far. There are, however, a few loopholes. I don't know about the ones outside the state, but for the NY one the company is allowed to call you if you've already done business with it, are doing business with it or either one of those for a parent company or subdivision. That's pretty broad so a few still get through.
Ours is damn expensive. Check this out:
I wanna know where the hell all that money is going!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I live in Texas, and not only does it cost ~$2 to sign up, but there's a bunch of confusing exemptions, roughly 6 months delay of activation, and is only available for residential phones. I can get more than $2 enjoyment out of telling off a telemarketer, or out of speaking nothing but German till they get confused and hang up. They generally don't call back after that one. So unless it's going to be free as in beer, and without exemption, I'm not gonna bother unless, as the parent post says, it becomes similarly easy to Mass.'s program, with a plus for no exemptions.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
when telemarketers are such a great form of entertainment. When telemarketers call me, I don't just hang up- I prank them. I pretend to have a heart attack, or to kill someone, or ask them what they're wearing. Bonus points for the more you can scare/piss them off.
Hell, they're wasting my time by bugging me, providing a ource of amusement is the least they can do.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It hurts the economy by devoting captial to harassing people during dinner. Every person not paid to do this is a person who can be paid to do soemthing else - or just a slightly lower interest rate on credit cards so people can spend that money on other products.
We shouldn't be paying people to waste other people's time when we could be paying them to do something productive. Hell, it would be better for the economy if we just paid those people not to do anything, like we do with farmers.
paintball
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]
Once, when I had just turned 18 and there was a political election of some sort in my town, I got a phone call from a political faction who asked me how I intended to vote on bill X (which I don't remember anyway). I angrily told him never to call again and hung up, and my mom went off on me for a good ten minutes yelling about how political calls are different from telemarketers. Is she, as I think, merely poisoned by society's expectations, or was I in the wrong?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I think telemarketing is one such breach of that boundary, as well as any other type of unsolicited communication, including e-mails and snail mail. As miniscule the amount of time it wastes, dealing with these intrusions is an unwanted effort that people shouldn't have to expend for the sake of someone else's need.
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.
How many of the numbers do you think are actually in Massechusettes?
All you out of staters /.ers get off the server!! I'm trying to sign up, dammit!!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
When will the script be ported to Perl?
paintball
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
They want to make it harder for people with no money to get (re)elected.
paintball
We did this about a year ago here, and its cut down a LOT on the calls.
A few suits have been filed for violators too.
They institued both a call in line to sign up and a web page.
its funded by the companies purchasing the list so they dont violate the law.. a bit shady i think, but something had to be done.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Nearly all of the calls I get (in Australia BTW) are of the form "Would you like to come to our free seminar" or something like that. Mainly real estate or investment groups. All the others tend to be "non-profits" soliciting donations.
Since they're not trying to complete a sale in the call, they wouldn't be excluded.
A pretty piss-weak "do not call" list if you ask me. This legislation makes about as much sense as US foreign policy.
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.
Phone calls are two-way instantaneous connections.
Phone connections are maintained by a very small set of "centralized", domestic companies.
So:
1) You can tell where the phone call is coming from
2) You can subpeona a phone company to find out who its customers called and when
3) You can "easily" change the rules by enforcing them on a relatively small number of organizations
4) Everyone on the phone network has an identity - there are no "open relays" on the phone network where you can make 1 million calls in a day.
paintball
The Tennessee Do Not Call Program is funded by the telemarketers, which is exactly how it should be. Soliciters must submit an application and pay a $500 fee every year. Violations are subject to $2,000 fines per incident.
bah, they did the same thing CT did a long long time ago
http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/PDF/nocallcp.pdf has a nice little for you could fill out, or call up for, to sign up on the do not call list
this has been going on for years now.
Runnin' On Empty
Do any of the people who get these violated calls see any of that 5,500 dollars?
Banning telemarketing doesn't kill jobs. It makes the company spend their money on DIFFERENT jobs - ones that might, say, improve the product.
Or just reducing the cost of their product to compete better.
Either way, more money available for something that doesn't annoy people during dinner.
paintball
As I understand it, different types of speech are protected to greater or lesser extents by the first amendment. Political speech is the most protected, and the courts are (rightly) loath to allow restrictions on it. Hence, the parts of such a bill that restrict politicians from making unsolicited calls could well, as I understand US law, be found unconstitional.
Nonprofits are a different matter, of course.
IANAL. IANA American, either :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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
Noticed this while digging around the links. Doubtful that any sensible person would give their SSN over the phone to a stranger ... but people do continue to watch the Anna Nicole Smith show, so who knows?
a m.html
http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketsc
(Score:-1, Wrong)
I often question the wisdom of the fact I moved from California to Indiana. For once, though, Indiana is ahead of California (since our list has been available for over a year and California's won't be active until April). Once we got on the "do not call" list, the rude, obnoxious, irritating, annoying and generally stupid telemarketing calls dropped from several pre day to zero.
We don't need a national policy since most states are smart enough to handle this on their own, but I'm very appreciative of its availability here.
My favorite trick (now obsolete without any such calls):
Hello?
Slight delay while the computer determines which of several dialed calls was answered.
HI! Can I speak to Bill ******?
May I ask who is calling?
This is Martha from CitiBank calling to let him know that he has already been preapproved for $XX Million in overdraft/fraud/collision/xxxx insurance, completely guaranteed by CitiBank!
Just a moment.
{
Put down the phone. Eat/surf/watch TV;
sleep(two minutes);
Hi Martha. Sorry for the delay. He'll be right there!;
} until {beep beep beep beep beep...)
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!
I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the continuance of an industry by ignoring the concerns of the public.
At a time when the number of older Americans is going to grow tremendously, their protection from scam artists and con men is more important than providing jobs for the semi-literate scum who interrupt their dinners.
The American economy doesn't need irate consumers. It needs people to stabilize their credit and be responsible with their money. This does not include purchasing magazines, aluminum siding or family portraits from businesses they do not know.
The DMA's half-hearted attempts to appease the American public with their sorry excuse for a do-not-call list has finally been recognized for what it is - a sham. And the public has finally raised their voice and asked the government to devise a more rigorous scheme to curtail the amount of intrusions we must incur simply by having a telephone number.
As a consumer, I can only hope that the Federal goverment will continue to persue these avenues and also address the problem of unsolicited email in the future. Until that time, however, I fully expect the DMA to stand up for the thieves and spammers so that I might also increase the size of my penis by three inches while refinancing my mortgage and protecting my Windows computer from viruses. Being that I have neither a penis, a mortgage, or a computer running Windows, I will rejoice when legislation is passed to finally put an end to unsolicited email, as well.
--mandi
As a MA resident, I signed up for the DNC list. I noticed that the web site did nothing to verify my identity when I placed myself on the list. How do they know a friend or relative entered my name and address into the database for me. If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
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
Every case challenging the TCPA on constitutional grounds (1st amendment, due process clause, etc) has ultimately held the TCPA's restrictions on faxes and telemarketing calls presents noconstitutional infirmities under First Amendment grounds. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies (in terms of junk faxing) to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.
h er_cases/o lympic-1a.pdfc e/other_cases/s t-lou-1a-ua.pdfe nce/other_cases/D OJAmicusSupportingMissouri.pdf
Texas v. ABF, 121 F.Supp. 2d 1085 (W.D. Tex, 2000)(fax calls)
Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir.1995) aff'g 844 F.Supp. 632 (D. Or.1994)(fax calls)
Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995) (telemarketing calls) cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161 (1995)
Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.Ind.1995) reh'd. 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Ind. 1997)(fax calls)
Szefczek v. Hillsborough Beacon, 668 A.2d 1099 (Super. Ct. N.J. 1996) (telemarketing calls).
Come courts have decided otherwsie; an 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge recently ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. (not to be confused with Rush's cousin, Steven N. Limbaugh, Jr., who is the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court). It has been essentially attacked by every authority since. See Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew my faith in our legal system. This decision by the state court was extremely well done and is highly entertaining reading. Also take a look at the US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling. In addition, another Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.
Links:
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/reference/ot
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/referen
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/refer
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
It appears that last month, with more than a month to go before the law took effect, more than one million Wisconsinites joined the No Call List. For a state with an adult population in the area of four million, that's pretty impressive. Apparently a great deal of the state hates the calls as much as I do. If you're in Wisconsin, join the crowd and get on the No Call List, it's the cool thing to do!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Hang up the phone.
Throw away the flyers.
Ignore them on the street corner.
Don't go to the polls.
when I get telemarketing calls, I sometimes answer:
"hmm, he got kicked out of school"
"You didn't know? He was in a coma"
"He was hit by a car two weeks ago"
"Are you calling for his funeral time?"
"He was arrested for credit card fraud" (if a credit card telemarking call)
"He is at his illiteracy class" (if a magazine telemarketing call)
"He is at his telemarketing internship, let me have your number so he will call you back"
"He is at his bankruptcy hearing, who's this?"
etc, etc...
it got annoying after receiving almost one call per hour, with the occasional "hello? hello? HELLO?" on my answering machine. I was told my college is on one of those lists, and we went through several phone system changes. But we managed to get more everytime.
now I wonder if it's legal to answer phone calls that way?
Be sure to use your own zip code in the above url, so your letter gets sent to the appropriate recipients.
Instead of using the text that comes up by default, i took time to write the above. A good chunk of my letter offers counterpoints to DMA's arguments.
-------
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.
While i understand the DMA's concerns that an opt-out list would significantly reduce the number of potential residents telemarketing businesses may call, thereby potentially reducing the telemarketing work force, I would like to point out such list should dramatically increase the quality of the telemarketing business by reducing frustration among the telemarketing staff and the prospective customers, leading to more productive and successful business transactions. The multi-billion-dollar figures touted in parallel to purportedly dramatic potential losses by the DMA, should, in my opinion, be mitigated by the many beneficial aspects of a national "do-not-call" list.
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,
[MUH LAME ASS] ---------
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
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
you're welcome to re-use elements of my letter but do try and come up with your arguments and counterpoints. One thing that comes to mind right now is that someone might want to put a stronger emphasis on the intrusive nature of telemarketing, as it requires you to drop whatever you may be doing at the time, potentially build up expectations as to who may be calling you, someone you may be expecting a call from, an important call, while occupying the lines and potentially preventing another important phone call from coming in (not everybody uses call waiting, though i do heh).
Contrast that with other forms of sollicitation such as snail mail and email (spam) which, while still intrusive, enable you to easily prioritize when you will be looking at mail, what you will be looking at, what you will dismiss, where a prospective customer makes the conscious decision to set some time aside to "check the mail" before moving-on to more pleasant things in our free time.
blech.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Aren't cell phones automatically not suposed to be called ('cause it costs me airtime minutes). Why not just use a cell phone as your only voice line (telemarketers can call my computer all day... it ain't gonna answer!)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Missouri No call list
It's been nearly 100% effective!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I started meticulously asking to be put on the do not call list, and more importantly, as mentioned in the junkbusters info, ask for the telemarketing company to add me to the DNC list for all companies that they represent.
It only took about 2 months of doing that, and hardly any calls. Now after 2 years of that, it's been months since I've gotten a call.
Just today I was called by a home security marketer and asked if I was interested in a home security system. I replied...
...CLICK...
"Loo' mutha fudda... I ain't harly done paid fo' da' box I in, sos I ain't 'bout to pay fo no insurance. 'sides, I doan thank no'un is gonna try un take muh box. Nigga', how'd you ged muh cell phone numba ineways?"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I was added to the do-not-call list in Tennessee. When it took effect the calls stopped for quite a while.
Then, they began again.
However, now instead of a telemarketer on the other end when I pick up the phone, all I get is a "click" and I am disconnected.
The automated calling systems still call me - more than ever it seems (a DOZEN calls a day is a bit much, dontchathink?) - but now they do not transfer me to a telemarketer, but simply disconnect me.
Their numbers are completely blocked and I cannot find out who they are, but I'm sure even if I did, they would claim they are not actually violating the rules, as they are not talking to me.
DMA provides their own "do not call list" for consumers. Only telemarketers that are members of the DMA and elect to honor the list will actually use the list and not call you. So review their instructions for yourself on how to place yourself on their list:
DMA remove from telemarketing list information
What a scam! they CHARGE $5.00 to accept online submissions, but mail-in requests are free! Now, what acutally costs them more?!?
They actually try to scare you into using the online form by warning that registering by mail takes longer. This convinces me that they not very interested in representing consumer interests.
Bring on the nation-wide do-not-call list!
A couple people have noted the exemption made for calls to individuals whom the company represented by the telermarketer has an existing or prior buisness relationship with. These people make this loophole out to be a huge problem or glaring flaw with the legislation.
However, I contend that the loophole is really relatively minor. Think about it like this. An individual signs up for the DNC list. In doing this, he has sent a clear message that he does not want calls. Furthermore, this message is backed by a set of punitive damages for violations of his intention, as outlined by the law. Now, a company with a prior business relationship is technically exempted by the law, and is allowed to call the individual. However, it does not make sense for this company to call this individual for a number of reasons:
1) He will likely consider this call annoying, even if it is legal. Remember, the individual took the time to exempt himself from calls he considers annoying. An annoyed potential customer is unlikely to make a purchase.
2) Even if the call is legal, some percentage of these individuals will not fully understand the law, and waste the telemarketer's time trying to explain that the call is illegal. The telemarketer would then have to explain that the call is in fact legal due to the business relationship. However, at this point the sale is clearly lost.
3) As others have noted, these laws may serve to increase yield of the telemarketers by creating a statutory filtering system. In effect, the govenment is doing a great deal of filtering for the telemarketers. Now, if a company with an established business relationship still calls without respect to the list, they are practically guaranteed to lower their yield (for the reasons stated above).
Thus, I believe that there will not be rampant calls made under this category, because it just doesn't make economic sense to for the telemarketer.
Rather, this exemption exists for the protection of more legitimate calls to the customer directly related to a business relationship which the customer would most likely find agreeable otherwise . That is, even if the DNC list did not exist, the average customer would not object to these calls. Therefore, the creators of the legislation were careful to protect this.
(Note that I do NOT believe this reasoning applies to charities or other non-profits; I believe people are willing to 'cut some slack' for the charities, and put up with the calls to help our their fellow man.)
Wow! Imagine the outrage from all those people who sit through dinner every night without another valuable oportunity to buy something they are not interested in. This could be a very popular lawsuit indeed. It's a travesty, I tell you. Someone must have made a robot to call in all those numbers, it can't be that people don't really want to get carpet cleaning, siding, credit card and bankrupcy solicitations, can it?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
how about a non-transferable, time limited opt-in list that must be maintained by each and every company that would call you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I agree with those who want to put controls on telemarketing.
Until then, I use a TeleZapper (disclaimer - I have no monetary interest in this thing. I vaguely remember buying it a Radio Shack). It puts out a beep tone that sounds like a FAX answering.
At first there were a lot of hangups, as the computer dialers give up(and most telemarketers use computer dialers, even if the pitch is given by a human).
Over time, the number of calls has dropped significantly.
Unfortunately, it also blocks the computer calls from the public library which used to tell me when requested books had arrive. So its like Spam - any measure you take to deal with the a$$holes has side effects..
The only good weather is bad weather.
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
Where there is a state-defined "political" which is the only brand of legally free speech, "tyranny" cannot be "risked," because it already exists. Hence the lack of a set of "political"/"commercial"/other distinctions in the 1st Amendment. Jefferson & Co. knew what they were doing, and it has no correspondence with what you're saying.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
I'm just wondering, we're always saying that all forms of opt-out are inherently bad in the case of spamming. Why is this any different for phone-spammers?
Getting listed on a DNC list is obviously an opt-out scheme. I can't help wondering what makes this such a good thing and DM people advocating a national/worldwide opt-out list evil at the same time.
i mean in europe this is dealt far more easily with. It's just illegal to call anybody first hand to sell him something (wihtout having business with him). It does not matter if he is on a list or not. In germany/austria this law is called "unlauterer wettbewerb", the only smaller problem is that it takes a competitor of the caller to sue a violator, you personally can't, as only the competitor takes economical damadge if someone sells it's product in such illegal way.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
I do see the humour in your post but it brings up an important point. Lonely people are often the targets of telemarketers. Some people are so afraid to say no that they end up paying for things they don't want or need. The elderly are especially vulnerable to this, which is all the more reason to ban telemarketing.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The signup is broken... looks like this is the culprit:
The site www.madonotcall.govconnect.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
(From netcraft)
Then, smooth as silk, he continued, "Now, let's talk about some of your financial options in today's market."
I realized he had just scammed me out of about 5 minutes of my time, trying to set up a friendly relationship, so he could sell me investment advice. Grrrr!
"This conversation just ended," I said, and slammed the phone down. The next "pollster" who call will get that response at the beginning of the conversation.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
[DAFFY DUCK] Aha -- PRONOUN TROUBLE! [/DAFFY DUCK]
Certainly, the telemarketers have the right to use their phones as they wish. This right guarantees that they may call one another to their heart's content. However, they do not have the right to appropriate the use of my phone line.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
...except for people in Mass. I believe more people than that signed up in the first month for Oklahoma's do-not-call list, and Oklahoma only has a population of about 3.5 million.
Supposedly a bit more than half the states, representing over %75 of the US population, now have do-not-call lists.
Click here for the DMA's side of the story.
Click here for my side of the story: I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING HEAR FROM YOU!!! Fucking goddamn marketing assholes, let me live in peace in my own house!!! (No sense mentioning I've been getting telemarketing calls at work *and* on my cell phone, pigfucking Florida Vacations assholes.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
So, where's the Do-Not-Email List?
Education is the silver bullet.
Nope; my parents raised me to have some manners.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.