Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Washington Judge Overturns Privacy Law

Posted by michael on from the corporate-free-speech dept.

joeflies writes "Washington state regulations were enacted to protect phone customer privacy. The opt-in policy regulation was overturned by a judge who found in favor of Verizon, seeing it as a potential violation of free speech."

10 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh! by Asprin · · Score: 4, Informative


    The law wasn't overturned, a preliminary injuction was granted suspending the law while the case is pending.

    RTFA!

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  2. And later this week... by JHMirage · · Score: 2, Funny


    All US residents should expect a copy of the Judge's ruling to be mailed to their homes unless they contact the court by phone to "opt-out."

    --

    A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself.
  3. So, would it be... by FroMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, would it be free speech to sign the Judge up for every mailing list and phone call list we can find?

    <knee-jerk-without-reading-article>

    Oh well... What seems to bother me the most is not the phone calls that I can tell someone, "don't call me!" What really bothers me is when you get like 5 phone calls a night and no one is there when you pick up. You can't tell them to remove you from the calling list if you don't get to talk to them.

    --
    Norris/Palin 2012
    Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    1. Re:So, would it be... by dschuetz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What really bothers me is when you get like 5 phone calls a night and no one is there when you pick up. You can't tell them to remove you from the calling list if you don't get to talk to them.

      Sure you can. They called you, they've got a responsibility to allow the call to complete. Otherwise, I'd say, you could sue them not only for ignoring your legally delivered "do not call" request (just because they don't listen doesn't mean you didn't ask), but also could charge them with telephone harassment (last I heard, repeated hang-ups could get you in trouble). I'd argue that they have a reasonable expectation that someone they call might ask to be put on a list, and by using an auto-dialer that hangs up on 4 out of 5 simultaneously-dialed calls 'cause one of them answered first shouldn't be an excuse to shirk that responsibility. At least, I'd love to see a smart lawyer argue that.

      Of course, if they don't provide any CID information, then you'll never be able to figure out who to sue.

      It's interesting that this story comes the same day that the Congress decided to fund the FTC's opt-out list.

      I still say, as I have many, many times before, that none of these remedies will help, in the long run. I get more tape-recorded calls now (which are illegal in the first place) than normal telemarketers. If they're ignoring the law prohibiting taped messages, they'll just ignore opt-in or opt-out laws, too. It all comes down to knowing who called you (which you can't because the FCC crippled caller-id regs), and having the time to bother with suing them (which nobody does).

    2. Re:So, would it be... by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Until /. has a built-in spell checker, I reserve the right to have a typo or 4.
      Yes, I know how to spell speech, but sometimes my fingers don't.

      In other words, you were being picky.

  4. Or would it be free speach to... by 0x69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Would it also be 1st-Amendment-protected free speach to call the Judge at home to inform her of one's own opinions on the right to privacy?

    Or would that be harassment, since the victim would be one of the more-equal-than-us rich & powerful class, not a peon (like most of the folks suffering from endless telemarketing calls)?

    --
    It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
  5. It might violate free speech but... by Steve+Cox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this isn't about free speech. Its about free listening.

    People are just as free to speak as they are to listen, and should not be FORCED to listen to what they don't want.

    Steve.

    1. Re:It might violate free speech but... by Asprin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Put another way, the right to free speech is not a right to be heard.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
  6. Re:Or would it be free speech to... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you suggesting we /. the telephone switchboards?

    Can they phone companies handle that?

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  7. Juxtoposition by parliboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone else see a problem with Verizon taking this stance here, but taking the opposing stff when third parties request their records to pursue piracy concerns?

    Verizon has no problem divulging your records. They just don't want to do it for free.

    --
    "You're never ready, just less unprepared."