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.
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
Illinois doesn't have one yet... bleh
Username taken, please choose another one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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
That's $500 if you can get their contact info. If you ask for the name and address of the legal dept of the company placing the call, the guy will likely hang up.
Then you have to convince a court to take the case. From what I remember, this involves time, a filing fee, and more time.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
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.
Professional telemarketers are trained to respect people's right to say "no," hang up, or be permanently taken off of a calling list
Don't you ever say 'professional' and 'telemarketer' in the same sentence.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
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.
[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.