Slashdot Mirror
Telemarketers Plan Counterattack
Chris Hoofnagle writes "CNN reports that companies who heavily use telemarketing are planning to counterattack consumers with a barrage of spam and junk mail in October, when the new do-not-call registry goes into effect. Slashdotters should be aware that, as well as anti-spam email software, there are tools to avoid junk snail-mail, such as Junkbusters' free Declare, Private Citizen's excellent service and the Postal Service's Prohibitory Order service, which is described at the EPIC privacy page."
please. this measure will effectively put the telemarketing business out of business. those people who don't sign up will be called so much that they will be forced to sign up for the list. telemarketing is based on the same business model that spam is, but i suspect that telemarketing hit rate is slightly higher. basically, they make 100 calls an hour and try to get 3 maybe 5 people to sign up for a magazine, order a new credit card, whatever. the actual credit card company pays the telemarketing company a bounty for each credit application/mag. subscription they make. this measure is effectively putting the pool of phone numbers that are available to be called at a very low rate. it's not going to be really a pool of people who buy stuff from telemarketers, just people who haven't signed up for the list yet.
i've said over and over, this problem space did no t and does not require legislation to resolve. in fact, i don't see any constitutional grounds for our congress to make such a law. but alas, the masses enjoy the benefits of the law, so it must be good. why not limit the freedoms of a few to benefit the masses?
you can choose when you listen to your phone for rings same as you can choose when to listen/watch the tv/radio. don't want calls, unplug the phone. comes in handy when you _really_ don't want to be disturbed.
harassment is already illegal, another law didn't need to be made because of a specific type of harassment. these specific laws also make me sick. outlawing dangerous/reckless driving is fine, but outlawing drunk driving because it _might_ also be reckless because a emotional group lobbys the congress? laws s/b simple and concise. and general enough to cover the behavior they're intended to cover.