Slashdot Mirror


Dave Barry Strikes Back Against Telemarketers

ikkonoishi writes "The Miami humor columnist Dave Barry in his column here encouraged his readers to exercise their constitutional rights to call a telemarketing firm which had declared the National Do Not Call List unconstitutional. Well it seems to have worked." Needless to say, the targets of the prank were none so keen on being called themselves.

586 comments

  1. Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by acarr0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have oftened wished that I could do what Dave Barry has done. Particularly annoying are the recorded messages that I continue to get on m business line. On occasion I have called the 800 numbers to express my displeasure. Simply calling in ones and twos isn't going to work. What we really need is for someone to organize a web site where people can report these incidents. If we all band together and call these companies 800 numbers simply to express our viewpoint then maybe this activity will become too expensive for companies to exploit anymore. Anyone up for it?

    1. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by buttahead · · Score: 4, Funny

      that is a great idea. we'll call it slashdot.

    2. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by EvilAlien · · Score: 1

      While you are at it, make sure the website address, or email address of the annoying company is posted too. A whole crapload of legitimate traffic to their webserver isn't really a DoS, is it? ;)

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    3. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Last year, when I was unemployed, I got sick and tired of a spammer. So I called the company and chewed out the employee then went up the chain until I hit the director. I threatened lawsuit and pointed out that I spent 2 hours on the phone. I never gave them my e-mail, but I noticed that the company's spam never came around again.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Epistax · · Score: 1

      except people will actually frequent this site

    5. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd

      /etc/init.d/ternd start?

    6. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortuantely, they'll start doing what some companies do here in Germany: they can ONLY be reached via expensive phone numbers.. Bah.

    7. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Imagine if you had a Beowulf cluster of those things!

    8. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      make sure the website address, or email address of the annoying company is posted too

      That's actually a really good idea. We could use Web Crawlers (or pigeons... :-) ) to our advantage. They follow HREF's to find other pages on our sites. Perhaps we should start putting some of these assholes somewhere on our index.html pages. Hidden, of course (text color the same as the background).

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    9. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the current "Flash Mob" trend can be expanded to phones.

    10. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      What we really need is for someone to organize a web site where people can report these incidents. If we all band together and call these companies 800 numbers simply to express our viewpoint then maybe this activity will become too expensive for companies to exploit anymore. Anyone up for it?

      I hope you remembered to file for a patent before you posted.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    11. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Even better than making it the same colour as the background, is using CSS to hide it under something else :D
      I know its possible, because I've seen far too many ass CSS pages where the person THINKS he knows how to use it, but is mistaken.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    12. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      That's actually a really good idea. We could use Web Crawlers (or pigeons... :-) ) to our advantage.

      IANAUH (I am not a uber hacker) but I enjoy doing stupid shit that pisses others off. I have been having lots of fun with wget lately, including the little script I call 'hammer'.

      #!/bin/bash
      # Hammer script.
      if [ "$1" = "" ]; then
      echo "You must pass the website as an option."
      echo "IE: hammer http://www.sco.com"
      exit 1
      fi
      wget -p -r -l 5 -b --cache=off --delete-after --no-http-keep-alive $1
      #end of script.

      -p gets zip, jpg, gifs. (prerequisites to view)
      -r is recursive. (go deep)
      -l 5 says go 5 levels deep, raise as necessary.
      -b backgrounds it quietly.
      --delete-after deletes files as you go.
      --cache=off tells it "Pragma: no-cache" so it reads from hard drive, not from cache.
      --no-http-keep-alive tells it to not keep the connection alive, but to make a seperate http connection for each request.

      This is an improvement from my previous scripts at using wget to rape webservers, but you need to start each instance manually. It was fully testing on www.sco.com to insure it works.

      Assuming you have a T1, and assuming they have 1 web server using default setting at 150 connections, and they try to keep alive for 15 seconds (apache default) then by backgrounding 10 to 15 copies of this, you can generate enough traffic to peg it out by virtue of too many clients. Now, multiply by enough other people doing this, and you can take down a small farm. This works by creating too many clients, not too much bandwidth. If you have the ram, you can probably start 50 instances of this script pretty easily on a p3/1.0 and still have cpu to spare.

      Be sure to send a "killall -9 hammer; killall -9 wget" to stop this madness, since it is quietly running in the background. There is probably many different ways to do this, I just so happen to use wget ALOT for legitimate uses, so it's handy. I suggest you read the man for wget for other very cool options.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    13. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A beowulf cluster of pissed off consumers :)

    14. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK ok, this is what we do, we get everyone who has switched to broadband donate their modems and turn them all into this giant modem back that will continously call telemarketers and then read them spam e-mail non-stop till they hang up at which point the modem will redial the same number again and start the process over, now only to find and huge amount of spam...oh wait...

    15. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by WNight · · Score: 1

      The value of this posting is that it illustrates how little technical knowledge is really needed for a DoS attack and how widespread anti-SCO sentiment is. They paint it as if ESR must have been in contact with an uber-hacker, someone who takes out Gibsons for fun while skateboarding around school, when the reality is that a thousand people pissed off with SCO's lies are all independently taking their revenge, everything from a simple wget bomb to more advanced attacks.

      This isn't some huge coordinated effort that requires one of our "leaders" to perform, it's a trivial hack that anyone pissed off at McBrides latest lies can implement in a minute or two.

    16. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by instarx · · Score: 1

      So go for it. What's keeping you?

    17. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by PMuse · · Score: 1

      that is a great idea. we'll call it slashdot.

      The most interesting part of Mr. Barry's article is not that it's been heard here before. The interesting part is what happened when it was heard from Mr. Barry's bully pulpit. What happened? The narod rose up and asserted themselves.

      We can rant here among ourselves all we want, but we need them to make the changes we want actually happen.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    18. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      Particularly annoying are the recorded messages

      I've noticed this trend recently, too.

      Since I've let my answering machine and Caller ID screen my calls, most telemarketers go to /dev/null.

      But some of them leave messages, with crafty wording to delay the time interval before you'll recognize that it's just voicemail spam.

      At one point I thought there were laws againts leaving unsolicited messages, but perhaps there's a loophole.

      Maybe my outbound message needs to include some legal boilerplate?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    19. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > This isn't some huge coordinated effort that requires one of our "leaders" to perform

      Oh how I don't like making this parallel, but I will anyway:

      This statement can also be used in understanding "terrorist" activities (esp. Palestinian/Isreali) and how they won't stop just because some fake government agreed on a "roadmap" to peace. Individuals attack others because they want to sometimes, not because they were told to.

      I'm not calling hackers terrorists or making any assumptions about either; I'm just making an observation on human motivation.

    20. Re:Maybe Dave Barry could start a ternd. by WNight · · Score: 1

      A very good comparison I think. By their very nature, guerilla (and terrorist) groups are distributed in nature. They share goals, but only loosely.

  2. Revenge by Christoff84 · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Maybe we can simply get a dialing machine and have it call the telemarketers non-stop.

    1. Re:Revenge by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 3, Informative
      Maybe we can simply get a dialing machine and have it call the telemarketers non-stop

      In most every state, dialing machines are illegal except when used by non-profits -- this might even be federal law now. This is why the occasional commercial message you get from a dialing machine is usually "[Sleazy company who does this and offers this] is calling to be sure you know about some charity event! [Sleazy company continues pitch about their products]"

      Good luck even finding a dialing machine, by the way. I don't think they're even being produced anymore, but rather being traded and sold second-hand. You'll see them go for upward of $10k on ebay now and again.

    2. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Alas, I fail to see how calling someone non-stop could be anything but non-profit. It's not cheap to call nowadays.

    3. Re:Revenge by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You'll see them go for upward of $10k on ebay now and again.

      Easy enough to do if you still have an old dialup modem hanging around, though, and the time to write a little script...

    4. Re:Revenge by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      Um, any external modem with an RS232 interface is effectively a dialling machine, surely? Here is a code fragment offered as proof of concept: {meant for use in UK hence 6-digit numbers between 200000 - 899999. 1 is used for special services, 9 is mostly not used, 0 is used for STD codes.}

      for ($n=200000; $n < 900000; ++$n) {
      print RS232 "ATDT$n\r"; # send no.
      print "Just dialled $city $n ..... [L]ater / [T]alking now / [N]o good ?";
      $_ = <>;
      print RS232 "ATH\r" # phone will keep line open
      $query = "UPDATE `$city.responses` SET `response` = \"$_\" WHERE `number` = \"$n\"";
      &send_query;
      };
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Revenge by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the average PC with a "voice modem" have the capability to become an autodialer these days?

    6. Re:Revenge by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten that this is Slashdot?

      We have geeks here who can cobble together a dialing machine from an old 2400bps modem and a telephone handset.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    7. Re:Revenge by E_elven · · Score: 1

      I saw one of those 'dial-up modems' on eBay once but it was, like, $3500. What were they used for, anyway?

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    8. Re:Revenge by azav · · Score: 1

      So we create a non profit for the purpose of protecting the "privacy of the individual against intrusive marketers" and call to our heart's content.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    9. Re:Revenge by E_elven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you ever been to the donotcall website? It just asks for the phone # and then sends a 'click-to-confirm' email. How hard would it be to write a script to submit all possible phone numbers?

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    10. Re:Revenge by Glonoinha · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a few. They are used for :

      Identifying who is old (remembers using them) and who is young.
      Identifying who is really old (can identify connection speed by listening to it connect.)
      Holding down papers in a stack.
      Keeping books on the shelf from falling over.
      The blinkenlights are pretty in a dark room.
      Soliciting complaints from a spouse who thinks they need to be thrown away.
      Cursing new PC manufacturers for not putting serial ports on new computers.
      and less commonly : connecting to another computer at an unGodly slow speed, making it faster to travel across country by Greyhound bus to pick up three DVD's worth of data than to actually transmit them across that data connection.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    11. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this suggestion up...

    12. Re:Revenge by Hellkitten · · Score: 1

      Soliciting complaints from a spouse who thinks they need to be thrown away.

      And when the spouse complaints get too much that old 2400 modem can be sacrificed. "What, you mean I should throw out any more of my stuff" (that probablydoesn't work and wouldn't be used even if it did) "I already threw out a perfectly good modem to clear some space, do you have any idea how much those are worth" (or rather were worth when they were new and actually worked).

      A true nerd doesn't even throw away malfunctioning equipment since it can come in handy to have something you can part with to appease that significant other

      --
      - We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
    13. Re:Revenge by ethaz · · Score: 1

      I wish. I still get "your official long distance notification" calls at least once a month in Arizona. I believe that's pushing mortgages.

    14. Re:Revenge by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 1
      Good luck even finding a dialing machine, by the way. I don't think they're even being produced anymore, but rather being traded and sold second-hand. You'll see them go for upward of $10k on ebay now and again.
      Bah! Find a dialing machine...?

      The first computer I used with a modem was a TRS-80 model 1. The modem was 300 baud and didn't have a tone generator -- once I had it off the hook, I had to call a set of delay loops that would click the connection on and off the required number of pulses for each digit. I wrote my own address book to keep track of the various BBSes I would call.

      And yes, I did consider writing a script to automatically dial blocks of numbers in series to find other BBSes that I might not know about. It wasn't difficult; just seven registers and a handler to determine whether a connection would be valid or not, and I would've had it there. It should not technically be more difficult now to do something similar. Legally, absolutely, and rightly so, but if one weren't to be bothered by such trivialities like the law, technically it's not that hard, even today.

      Oh, and that old wardialer I'd conceived of? I never did run it, because I figured that even one hang-up call might be considered annoying. Years later, it turns out that I'd be right. Moreover, it turns out that I then knew more than many people working in the telemarketing industry know now.

      --
      You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
    15. Re:Revenge by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Only slightly harder than it will be for telemarketers to ignore the do not call list.

    16. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 11k per violation, I think it would be difficult to ignore federal law.

    17. Re:Revenge by emurphy42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Have you ever been to the donotcall website? It just asks for the phone # and then sends a 'click-to-confirm' email. How hard would it be to write a script to submit all possible phone numbers?

      Don't do that! Some telemarketing scumbag would point it out, and argue for the whole list to be thrown out-- on the grounds that you could no longer tell which numbers on the list were entered by individuals, and which ones were fed in by automated scripts.

    18. Re:Revenge by E_elven · · Score: 1

      Not if all the e-mail addresses used were on the same domain -then the gov't could easily delete those entries.

      I wasn't suggesting anything, just pointing out the odd system. I suppose it's a privacy thing.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    19. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'm 19 and can tell the connect speed of the modem my listening. Mind you, I don't know the 7200s and lower, but those were before my time. :) And the obligatory "forgot one": annoying the hell out of people by dialing voice lines with them. (telemarketers anyone?)

    20. Re:Revenge by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      300 : sounds like static, no actual tones.
      1200 : static followed by a single tone for about two seconds.
      2400 : static followed by the same tone you heard at 1200, after about a second the pitch of that tone gets higher and lasts about a second.

      There are no 4800 or 7200 connections under the most commonly used (that I am aware of) protocols, with the exception of a few off-color fax machine emulations.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  3. They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is cool, and beautifully ironic, but...

    Telemarketers don't make money answering phones, they make money calling people. They don't have to answer phones to make money. So this probably didn't actually put a dent in thier operation.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    1. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by TomSawyer · · Score: 0

      Of course, because as everybody knows who read either of the two articles linked, telemarkets don't have to pay tolls on their toll-free incoming office lines.

      --
      If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
    2. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they also have phone answering robots that don't draw salary on answering calls

    3. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by buttahead · · Score: 0

      nah... they had to make the voice recording to tell people to f*** off. that probably cost, like, $200.

    4. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is marked insightfull?

      Sigh, okay if they spend their time answering the phone that can't spend it calling/making money. If they answer the phone for an outraged citizen they can't take a sales call. When there lines are getting inbound traffic they cannot do outbound traffic.

      So this did hurt them. How much depends on what profit margins these companies have. I know there are plenty of business were one lost day of work can make the difference between a loss and a profit. So keep it up.

      Oh and the claim about lost jobs doesn't work. These telephone sales people are taking the jobs of shop sales people.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    5. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by fermion · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know about this. I get many calls from advertising vacations and time shares. I am sure that these get some of thier income from people calling back.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by jester · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not do like I do ... when a telesales person calls you just put the phone on speaker with volume down and put the handset down ... they can talk as much as they like, to themselves. The call is costing them money, not you. Its actually more enjoyable to leave the volume up a little, and you can hear them as they realise that you aren't listening :-)

    7. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they have more than one phone line.

      I don't think many people call them to buy stuff, so this probably isn't much of a problem.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    8. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      vi is the best.

      My vi is much better than your vi. I'm sorry to make this a vi VS vi issue, but your claims forced me to speak up.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    9. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Skater · · Score: 4, Funny

      you can hear them as they realise that you aren't listening

      Uh...but then wouldn't you be, well, listening?

      --RJ

    10. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing a few key points.

      One, it wasn't the telemarketing companies that were getting the calls, it was the association that represents them. While industries are huge, the associations behind them often employ less than a dozen people, and rarely more than fifty. So if thousands of people start calling, it's a hell of a telecom slashdot effect.

      Two, whether they normall make money answering the phones or not is immaterial. We don't make money answering the phone when at home, but we still find it disruptive and annoying to get calls from telemarketers; this is the same concept. The goal wasn't to keep them from getting profitable calls, but rather to turn the tables on them, using their proposed "First Amendement" model of justified harrassment.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    11. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by blibbleblobble · · Score: 3, Funny

      "when a telesales person calls you just put the phone on speaker with volume down and put the handset down ... they can talk as much as they like, to themselves."

      To extend the fun, you should try the magical phrase before putting the phone down:

      "Jester? Yes, I'll just get him for you..."

    12. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Phleg · · Score: 1

      You do know who pays for 800 numbers, right?

      --
      No comment.
    13. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by drcln · · Score: 2, Funny

      Toll-free calls cost the recipient money. Every time that anwering machine picks up, its money down the tubes.

      Don't forget to return (empty or containing a nice message to the poor guy that is paid to process the replies) all prepaid business reply envelopes that get sent to you in junk mail.

      --
      your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
    14. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by minion · · Score: 1

      Telemarketers don't make money answering phones, they make money calling people. They don't have to answer phones to make money. So this probably didn't actually put a dent in thier operation.

      It does put a dent in their operations, considering that 800 numbers cost more per minute than a standard long distance rate for a residential phone line. So, if thousands of people started calling an 800 number, it not only reduces available phone lines, but it also costs them money for phone bills.

      --

      -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
    15. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that the business lines (such as the 800 #) and the sales lines would be seperate. The salesscum would just keep making their calls, and the receptionist would be annoyed as hell.

    16. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh and the claim about lost jobs doesn't work. These telephone sales people are taking the jobs of shop sales people."

      You could say exactly the opposite. The shop sales people are taking the jobs of the telephone sales people.

      Also, people usually forget the entire reason that telemarketers are still in business. If they werent successful, they wouldnt still be calling. The thing is, a lot of people buy the stuff they are selling, which generates a lot of revenue for the little amount of money it takes to telemarket, and companies like that. Dont take it out on the telemarketers, take it out on the companies they are calling on behalf of, as they usually are NOT one in the same

      Everyone is always willing to back anything that may benefit them, but they dont think about how it affects anyone else. What if people started getting angry because of all the ads on TV and they were banned, or only sent to those who werent on a national do-not-advertise-through-tv list? Much like the DNC list, its a bad situation, and millions of jobs would be lost.

      Everyone seems to take this so nonchalantly, however does anyone realize what happens to the economy if all of a sudden 2 MILLION jobs are lost, never to be regained?

    17. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by the_mad_poster · · Score: 3, Funny

      I got a call from a TM one time. They started into their rubbish so I set the phone down and walked away without a word. I came back about 5 or 6 minutes later to hang it up and realized they were just wrapping up the speil, so I listened to the last 10 seconds or so.

      At the end, she said "So, which credit card can I put that on" to which I immediately replied:

      "Put what on?"

      SHE hung up on ME!

      There's also the Discover card guy who said to me "You currently have an introductory APR of 0% on balance transfers. Do you have any cards that have better than 0% APR?" to which I calmly replied "Yes."

      Boy did that screw up his pitch.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    18. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the telemarketer says: So should I switch your long distance carrier?
      you say: Are your horny for me right now?
      they: I do not understand your question sir.
      you say: Are your horny for me right now? ....

    19. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by frdmfghtr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's also the Discover card guy who said to me "You currently have an introductory APR of 0% on balance transfers. Do you have any cards that have better than 0% APR?" to which I calmly replied "Yes."

      Boy did that screw up his pitch.


      Depends on the telemarketing firm...one thing I have learned from the news stories and "Action News" investigations is never to answer anything in the positive when a telemarketer calls.

      Consider this: The telemarketer now has a recording of you saying "yes"...a unscrupled firm could now start billing you for all sorts of stuff, even for products and services that you never heard of, or they called about. You take them to court. They come to court armed with faux recordings of you saying "yes" to all sorts of bogus purchases.

      Can you afford an expensive analyst who can prove the recordings to be fake?

      OK, it may take more than a simple "yes" to start the ball rolling, but I'm not one to take a chance. I just hang up.

      Thankfully it is illegal (so I've heard) to telemarket to a cellphone. I haven't gotten a telemarket call in years.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    20. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>Don't forget to return (empty or containing a nice message to the poor guy that is paid to process the replies) all prepaid business reply envelopes that get sent to you in junk mail.

      I just recently started doing this. Now whenever I get a credit card application or anything at all with a business reply envelope, I send back everything that came to me, minus the stuff that has my name or identifying information on it.

      It doesn't take up too much of my time to stuff the envelopes, and I usually have a couple of them queued up by the time I'm ready to go to the post office to drop off my regular mail. :)

      I don't think there's anything illegal about this. I justify it as sending them back materials that I don't want. Perhaps they can reuse the materials that I've returned.

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    21. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by wtansill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ummm you do understand that the ATA is the telemrketing trade association. They don't make the actual calls, right?

      --
      The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
    22. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      Most call center type places buy a block of phone numbers in a row, for example 555-4700 through 555-4775. They then have a number of phone lines (or perhaps a big fat pipe and their own relay circuits?) to the office. Anyways, the way it's usually set up, if you call the 555-4700 number and it's busy, you're automatically transfered to 555-4701, and if that's busy 555-4702, and so an and so forth. If people where calling, you'd only need as many people as there are telemarketers calling at once to jam the lines. It's not like just their secretary's number was ringing and all the sales people continued to make calls.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    23. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like they will not learn to make two different services, one for answering,and the other to call....

    24. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      A place I work at has a call center and a bill processing/junk mail reply processing center.

      The mail processing center generates between 9 and 20 fifty-five gallon trash bags of paper waste, every single day. They don't re-use a thing.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    25. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe that this was marked insightful too. The number given was not for the "telemarketers", but for an association representing them. It had absolutely no effect on any telemarketing operation other than to give the lobbying association a nice phone bill for the month. And tie up thie lobbying business by saturating one of their business lines. I am sure that because they represent telemarketers that they had another number point to them the next day and had the network play the message you hear now before it even got to their office.

      All that this did is call attention to the lobbying efforts of the telemarketing association.

    26. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Woggle · · Score: 1

      Actually they have this. I worked for one for less than a week(and after more than a year, I still feel dirty), and one side of the room was inbound, mostly support calls of various types, and the other side was outbound.

      --
      Wogs "Freedom's just another word for having nothing left to lose."
    27. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by c4Ff3In3+4ddiC+ · · Score: 1
      If they answer the phone for an outraged citizen they can't take a sales call. When there lines are getting inbound traffic they cannot do outbound traffic.
      The telemarking company I work at has a seperate T1 for outbound calling, which, by the way doesn't accept any incoming telephone calls. Duh.
      --
      *twitch*
    28. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by princewally · · Score: 1

      I also do this with all of the subscription cards that fall out of my magazines.

      --

      -
      "Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
    29. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm... yea. Not that I'm saying it hasn't happened to .0001% of all the people on Earth... but really. "Action News" translates almost directly into "WATCH ME NOW OR YOU'RE GONNA DIE SOME HORRIBLE HALF-IMAGINED DEATH AS A RESULT OF THIS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PEN CAP THAT EXPLODES WHEN PLACED IN A COFFEE CAN, IS COVERED WITH 40 POUNDS OF GUNPOWDER AND CAPS AND IS LIT ON FIRE!!!!!! OHMYGODNOTHEHUMANITY!!!!"

      I'll take my chances. Besides, if they start billing me for shit I didn't buy I'll invoke the "$50 rule", or, if I'm billed, I'll meticulously document the fact that it all somehow wound up in the bottom of a ravine on the other side of town rather than at my doorstep.

      I work in direct marketing (programming... not actually involved in any of the PHB-ish decisions, thanks - I'm clean in all aspects except association). The laws are pretty well-stacked in favor of full-disclosure yet sleazy marketing tactics (e.g. "fine print" hidden under 36pt. bold sales pitches), but if you're just sending shit out to people it's pretty hard to collect. We do "negative option" selling where people agree beforehand to get stuff unless they say otherwise. We COULD, legally, hold them responsible for any bills they incur via negative op stuff they didn't refuse beforehand, but it's such a hassle and so hard to do that we don't. Basically, if they claim they didn't get it - we can't bill them unless we can prove otherwise. And unless you send the stuff with receipt confirmation, that's near impossible. If they start sending junk to me reciept confirmation, I'll just turn it away.

      It's not as easy to scam that way as you might think...

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    30. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by UncleFluffy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to return (empty or containing a nice message to the poor guy that is paid to process the replies) all prepaid business reply envelopes that get sent to you in junk mail.



      Remember to staple the envelope closed. It jams the machines they use to automatically open and process them.



      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    31. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "SHE hung up on ME!"

      That's when you have to phone them back and complain to her manager that the telemarketer rudely hung up on you ;-)

    32. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      "And would you prefer sand or hot sauce in the lube?"

    33. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Funny
      I just love it when I get a call where the telemarketer only has a last name listed in their system,
      and so has to alternately ask for a "Mr." followed by a "Mrs." to attempt to find the right person.
      I'm not married, so there is no "Mrs." in the house, and my girlfriend, taking advantage of this fact,
      chose to torture the telemaketer this way one day when I wasn't home:
      Telemarketer: May I please speak with Mr. Smith?
      My Girlfriend: He's not here right now.
      Telemarketer: May I please speak with Mrs. Smith?
      My Girlfriend: He's married?!? *uncontrolled sobbing*
      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    34. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And they also don't have to pay for the phone lines and equipment.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    35. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I could make an silly comment about policemen putting thieves out of a job, but instead I will say:

      They're damn lucky most people in this country are so apathic they are still alive.

      A person who's so lowered themselves to work a job where the point is to basically annoy a hundred people a day deserves zero sympathy. They'd probably be out raping grandmothers if they could figure out a way for it to pay the bills.

      Like in a fucking shelter if you can't find any work. Become a begger and carry around a sign that says 'Too moral to be a telemarketer.', I bet people will give you money.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    36. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by odose · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely ridiculous. The point of the job isn't to annoy a few hundred people a day, its to sell a product to people. The annoyance is merely a side effect of the whole thing.

      "They'd probably be out raping grandmothers if they could figure out a way for it to pay the bills." I don't see how you drew this conclusion. I work in a call center (IT department, not sales) and I can vouch that most of the sales people are, in fact, not rapists.

      And somehow I don't think being a beggar pays the bills like a steady telemarketting job does. Geez... I don't think even one part of your post had any truth to it.

    37. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by odose · · Score: 1

      A lot of places do mixed calling, both inbound and outbound. So if for some reason there isn't any inbound (often customer service or sales) calls in queue, they'll be given an outbound sales lead. Of course, this isn't the case here since the number Dave Barry gave wasn't for a company doing sales but for the association itself.

    38. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have taken this approach: I tell them that I develop software systems for call centers, and I bet their system is inefficient and outdated. I tell them I am so glad they called, and start giving them my sales pitch for doing sales call systems and integrating them with the national don't call list database. They usually want to hang up pretty soon. I have actually gotten some interest, but no actual projects yet.

    39. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by dolson · · Score: 1

      Personally, I don't care who I talk to, if anyone. Half the time someone hangs up on me, I keep on reading the script to kill time because I hate the job.

      Thankfully I have an interview at another place on Tuesday, and by October 1st I will have a computer consulting job, albeit part-time only but I don't care.

    40. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      If the product was worthwild, people would ALREADY BUY IT.

      Telemarketing is based on pressuring people into purchasing crap, and as a side not it steals time from every single person in this country.

      As for the reason that telemarketers are not rapists, that's due to the fact that being a rapist doesn't pay the bills.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    41. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by sniser2 · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely ridiculous. The point of the job isn't to annoy a few hundred people a day, its to sell a product to people. The annoyance is merely a side effect of the whole thing.

      It may not be the goal, but it is the MAIN EFFECT. That you don't get that is very typical. If telemarketers were rapists they'd say "hey, hurting and/or traumatizing a female is not the point of this, not at all.. you see, it's just about this tiny innocent blob of jizz, it really doesn't harm anyone blahblahblah".

      Are you familiar with the hitchhikers guide? =D

      "They'd probably be out raping grandmothers if they could figure out a way for it to pay the bills." I don't see how you drew this conclusion. I work in a call center (IT department, not sales) and I can vouch that most of the sales people are, in fact, not rapists.

      Heh, that only means they didn't find a way for it to pay the bills!

    42. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by instarx · · Score: 1

      How about the New York Times as a source? More creditable? This is an actual tactic that one telemarketer used when defending against hundreds of complaints that they were billing for services people had not agreed to buy. They would record the phone calls and would use edited snippets to "prove" that the customer had, in fact, agreed to the service. Yhe customers usually ended up paying full or partial amounts to the marketer just to get it over with.

      This tactic was VERY successful and worked well for many years against many scammed customers. You may like to pretend it is difficult to scam people this way, but in fact it is easy.

      And you are 100% wrong that you can't "bill people" if they claim not to have received an item. Telemarketers can bill freely, the customers just don't have to pay. But of course what marketers count on is that many people just pay the money to get you off their backs after dunning phone calls, letters, and threats to ruin credit. What you are also conveniently forgetting is that most of these scams are for services, not for delevery of a tangible good. It is a lot harder to prove that the service people were charged for was not approved by them - particularly when the telemarketer has a voice recording of the person saying "yes, I'd like that" in response to the question "would you like to be a millionaire?".

    43. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Soooo.... you're saying that because the NYT claims that a handful of senile old people and some stupid consumers got scammed by a ripoff artist that can be reliably extrapolated to the population at large?

      I've no doubt that this has been done in the past, and, in fact, I've heard the horror stories you're talking about, but unless these victims have no concept of the legal system, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't have gotten out of it with a moderately threatening lawsuit. First, if you're stupid enough to pay "just to end it", that's your own fault. And, if there was any level of proilferation of these scams in the past, they'd quickly be recognized as exactly that: a scam. It's sort of like the "hey - we're gonna have this gathering of vendors selling TVs and DVD players for cockroach dung and half-eaten burritos". Then, when you get there, they charge you $25 to get in and it turns out they're just selling old, broken / stolen shit out of the back of a U-Haul. The AG of PA caught onto this scam pretty quick and shuts them down pretty quick now once they get a few complaints - along with a pretty nice little fine to boot.

      And, like USA Today, etc. I think the NYT is a "questionable source". Like most other "news" rags in this country now-a-days, they're more interested in selling papers than reporting the news.

      Again - I'm mot saying you're lying or that it's never happened - I'm just saying the odds are so low that I'll take my chances to have a little bit of fun with my harassers.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    44. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Most call center type places buy a block of phone numbers in a row

      Yes, but most of them are designated so that they can only make calls and not receive them (unless some brainless idiot set up their phone system). Yes, they have call rollever, but that rollover is only for certain lines (ie, 4700-4710 are incoming lines w/ rollover, while 4711-4775 are on the call center's outgoing phone switch) -- that's programmed in their phone system server.

    45. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > The telemarking company I work at

      I think you just opened yourself up for a world of hurt.

    46. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by c4Ff3In3+4ddiC+ · · Score: 1
      I think you just opened yourself up for a world of hurt.
      Oh! I am so scared.
      --
      *twitch*
    47. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Oh! I am so scared

      Okay, Mr. Sarcastic, you will be. Oh, you WILL be. Muwahahaha. Or not, it's a job, I don't care too much. I even have friends who are telemarketers. But at least they know that they are scum who lie to get people to buy lousy/worthlessv products. Some of them are even nice enough to tell the people on the phone that the product is crap, and the people buy it because the "marketers" are so honest & nice to them. It boggles the mind.

    48. Re:They only stopped ANSWERING thier phones by c4Ff3In3+4ddiC+ · · Score: 1

      I don't need to lie as part of my job. In fact, great care is taken to ensure that I do explain all the details to the customer. Most of the time, when there is a problem with the order, it's the dumbass customer's fault that they weren't listening. Not all telemarketers are dishonest. Unfortunately though, there are a lot of dishonest ones.

      --
      *twitch*
  4. The ends justify the means? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 0, Troll
    Oh come on here. I can see the immediate appeal of this kind of puerile action, but in the end you're just sinking to the telemarketers' level.

    Dave has interfered with these people's ability to make a living. Indeed, he may well have cost a number of jobs with this article! At the end of the day, the innocent collateral damage is going to mean that many people don't eat because Dave went after another cheap laugh and went on the attack.

    Do the ends justify the means? No. This is the kind of dangerous thinking that brings abortion clinic bombings, the ongoing fighting between northern and southern Ireland, the danger in the Middle East, and countless other bloodbaths.

    Dave's had his fun and done his damage. Is this really something that needs to be worsened by giving ideas to the industrious- but idle-minded masses on slashdot? The damage can only be worsened here!

    Laugh if you must, but sit back and don't make this any worse than it already is!

    1. Re:The ends justify the means? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Funny
      Oh come on here. I can see the immediate appeal of this kind of puerile action, but in the end you're just sinking to the telemarketers' level.

      Dave has interfered with these people's ability to make a living. Indeed, he may well have cost a number of jobs with this article! At the end of the day, the innocent collateral damage is going to mean that many people don't eat because Dave went after another cheap laugh and went on the attack.

      ...
      Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

      Here is another proof that religion warps mercilessly someone's brain.
    2. Re:The ends justify the means? by Locky · · Score: 1

      I agree, While Telemarketers are annoying as hell, It is not that hard to simply say "No, I'm not interested" and hang up. Going off on stupid rants, insulting the caller and driving the unemployment rate skywards, achieves nothing but economic instability.

    3. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you own a home telephone number? I, like many others, have absolutely no sympathy for people making a living by harrassing me and my family. A lot of these telemarketers come with the presupposition that it's an Us vs Them attitude and will exude rudeness at the first sign of disinterest.

    4. Re:The ends justify the means? by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interfered with somebody's ability to make a living? Since when is that a right? If I've got a business model of strangling small children (or something legal thats equally offensive), other people have a right hinder me in anyway they legally can.

      Profit is not its own justification. Thats the sort of thinking that arms dealers and the RIAA use (like how I tied those together?).

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    5. Re:The ends justify the means? by geoff+lane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what do you do when they call you using the terminally broken "predictive dialing hardware"

      You answer and there's nobody in the call centre available so you get a silent call. I've had 5 of these in one day. As the caller id is blocked I can't even discover which set of brain dead idiots it is calling.

    6. Re:The ends justify the means? by buttahead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or rather a new stability where everyone is happier. telemarketers don't have to put up with crap because they lost their jobs; instead they go save the rain forests. and i don't have to get 3 calls per day from the same company trying to sell me the same thing every day that I am home telecommuting. (my guess is that they call on the days I'm not there, too, but I can't hear the phone on those days...).

    7. Re:The ends justify the means? by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      but in the end you're just sinking to the telemarketers' level.

      Although I agree with you in principle, I think you missed the bigger issue...

      The Telemarketers insist that they have a constitutionally protected right to harass us, even after we have added our names to a federally-maintained list saying that we would really rather not have them call us.

      This mass calling, while superficially petulant, demonstrates that a right to call and harass people works both ways, if they want to play that game.

      Think of this as no different than signing Ralsky up for every junkmail catalog in the world... While childish, it does get the message across - "We hate you and everything you do, so please shrivel up and die, preferably in some painful manner that involves your loathesome occupation". Well, perhaps not quite that verbose, but they get the idea.


      Is this really something that needs to be worsened by giving ideas to the industrious - but idle-minded masses on slashdot? The damage can only be worsened here!

      Oh, Pshaw! I expect we'll reach 70 or 80 comments before someone thinks to post the home phone numbers of various telemarketing company's CEOs (hint, hint, c'mon, someone out there has those suckers, post em!).


      Do the ends justify the means? No.

      Hey, the telemarketers already presented a number of points describing why we have a right to call and harass them. We all just want to congratulate them for their hard work. And hey, since the DNC registry would cost them two million jobs, if enough of us keep calling, perhaps they can re-hire those two million to field the inbound calls. So you see, we have simply found a way, by all pulling together, to save two million jobs in an otherwise bad economy. ;-)

    8. Re:The ends justify the means? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      The ends always justify the means.

      If you think otherwise it usually means you either havent thought out what the ends actually are or what the consequences of the means are. Almost everytime some says the ends don't justify the means, they wind up using examples where the ends are really crappy.

      Your own example of abortion clinic bombings, is a perfect example of the non applicability of that pithy maxim. The clinic bombers are people that are out to kill people thay feel are no longer human. This isn't a means that will accomplish the stated end. It is not about right to life (Ask yourself how in hell someone who bombs a place where pregnant women congregate figures they are protecting the unborn ?)

      In the case of telemarketers, the end is to put them out of business, the means is to make them feel the pain they inflict on others. I have no trouble with this especially seeing as its sunday morning and I have received 3 solictations for new credit cards so far today.

    9. Re:The ends justify the means? by yoshi_mon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My, what a crafty troll. I think I'll bite.

      I can see the immediate appeal of this kind of puerile action, but in the end you're just sinking to the telemarketers' level.

      Ok, so here your basicly saying that what the people who called the telemarketing group did basicly the same thing that the telemarketing group did, pick up a phone and call someone. Because thats what the telemarketers say, we are just calling you.

      Dave has interfered with these people's ability to make a living.

      You I could come back with something on this but Dave allready did it so well, I'll just quote him: "Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers," he wrote. "But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home."

      Do the ends justify the means? No. This is the kind of dangerous thinking that brings abortion clinic bombings, the ongoing fighting between northern and southern Ireland, the danger in the Middle East, and countless other bloodbaths.

      You go from talking about ends justfying means, and your argument there is weak at best, to bloodbaths? Unless someone was beaten over the head with a phone I don't think any blood has been spilled here.

      Dave's had his fun and done his damage.

      Ahhh, the "damage". Well again back to the orignal point we basicly now have a law that says that if you sign up for the National Do-Not-Call list that these people can't call you. Such as it is you could then argue that that law is doing "damage" to them. I mean it will, hopefully, reduce the number of calls that a "business" like this one can make and thus force it to lay off or close up shop totally. But, we as a people have decided that we want to be able to control who calls our phones that *we pay for*. And on top of all that, this company has said that it's unconstutional for such a law to exist! Now IANAL, much less a consitintuonal scholar but if any of these lowlifes could please point out to me where the right to protect a buissness model exists I'll be glad to take my words back. Such as it is however that is simply not the case.

      Laugh if you must, but sit back and don't make this any worse than it already is!

      I did laugh, thank you. How my "sitting back" when I did it made it worse I'm still a little confused about.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    10. Re:The ends justify the means? by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, I assume you were trying to be funny, but clearly some tool on here took you seriously and modded your post interesting instead of funny, so I'll reply.

      Good. Let people lose their jobs. Interfere with their attempt at making a living. If they inconvenience me one iota, I couldn't care less in the slightest if every last person there lost their job. Its a job. They can get other ones. If they can't, well our government has shown we'll bend over backwards to support people with no ability or desire to support themselves.

      They choose to call me, they choose to inconvenience me and you or they claim their ability to make a living should matter? Thats funny beyond words. What if these were ignorant asshats sending 50 million spam messages a day? Would shutting them down be bad because its going to put some people out of work?

    11. Re:The ends justify the means? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it was surely just as easy for them to say "Sorry I'm not interested" when people called to voice their opinions. Answering the phone is not always convenient. It's impolite to call people and then try to sell them something. I'm quite happy with a tit for tat retaliation.

    12. Re:The ends justify the means? by demon93 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

      I thought the bible said "an eye for an eye"?

      --
      demon
      -----
      Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.
    13. Re:The ends justify the means? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I thought the bible said "an eye for an eye"?

      Actually, few passages in the Bible are as badly misunderstood as this one. The "eye for an eye" maxim is not about harshness; it's about proportional retribution.

      Let me see if I can put it in context...

      In ancient Palestine, offenses against one's honor were met with an escalating response. If someone stole one of your sheep, the manly thing to do was to go and kill five of his cows. If some careless bozo trampled a row of your corn with his ox-cart, you might go and set fire to his field. In other words, "teach 'em a lesson."

      The eye-for-an-eye ethic put a lid on this escalating violence, insisting that punishment or restitution be proportional to the actual, demonstrable harm done, and that it not be determined by the rage of the party offended. For example, Leviticus 24:18 says, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast." The eye-for-an-eye principle placed rational limits on retribution and punishment.

    14. Re:The ends justify the means? by boomer_rehfield · · Score: 1

      Unless they call you 25 times in one week after you tell them to stop like AT&T decided to do to us.

      --
      Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
    15. Re:The ends justify the means? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      I'm quite happy with a tit for tat retaliation.

      TFT has been proven a successful strategy too. I use it all the time and it's a very effective natural enforcement of the golden rule (original version, do unto others* etc), good training for the naive. The 'just take it' strategy only encourages the offensive behavior.

      [ * that is to say, I DO 'do unto others', but if THEY 'cheat', then I cheat right back untill they 'get it', that cooperation is more profitable overall ]

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    16. Re:The ends justify the means? by buttahead · · Score: 1

      and they have called all of us, so should we all cal them.

      --from the b.b. king james bible fo the future.

    17. Re:The ends justify the means? by demon93 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, for every time a telemarketer calls, we are "allowed" to call back once. Publishing this phone number just allows us to extract this punishment.

      Following your "logic", if telemarketers make 30 million calls a day (to individual people), they should expect to receive 30 million return calls. I think that should be sufficient to overwhelm their phonelines :-)

      --
      demon
      -----
      Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.
    18. Re:The ends justify the means? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 1
      So, for every time a telemarketer calls, we are "allowed" to call back once. Publishing this phone number just allows us to extract this punishment.

      Following your "logic", if telemarketers make 30 million calls a day (to individual people), they should expect to receive 30 million return calls. I think that should be sufficient to overwhelm their phonelines :-)

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is the telemarketer who's called you? Even once?

    19. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, your post is weird. Take a chill-pill... you don't like the way people moderated/classified the posting? Oh well, not everyone can think the same way as you.

      I agree with your point, but not with your response.

    20. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Profit is not its own justification.

      its is for most Americans

    21. Re:The ends justify the means? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 1

      and they have called all of us, so should we all cal them.

      --from the b.b. king james bible fo the future.

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these are the telemarketers who've called you? Even once?

    22. Re:The ends justify the means? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 1
      I could come back with something on this but Dave allready did it so well, I'll just quote him: "Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers," he wrote. "But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home."

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these are the telemarketers who've called you? Even once?

      You want to mug somebody because you think they're in the habit of mugging others? I fail to see where you've established the moral high ground.

    23. Re:The ends justify the means? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these are the folks who called you? Even once?

      They choose to call me, they choose to inconvenience me

      Just make sure you establish that bit you're taking as a fact before you jump on board and dial the toll-free number like the rest of the slashbots. THINK before acting, man.

    24. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only old testament... but it all comes down to how religion can pervert even the most non-religious topics.

    25. Re:The ends justify the means? by mkldev · · Score: 3, Informative
      And you'll note that AT&T is excluded from the do-not-call law....

      AT&T local service used to bombard me with three and four phone calls per day. I repeatedly informed them that I had DSL, and was thus ineligible, and asked to not be called again, and was told repeatedly that I'd be added to their do-not-call list, only to find myself getting more calls than before.

      Here's how I solved the problem:

      First, I called my long distance customer service number and informed them that I would cancel my long distance coverage unless they stopped calling. They told me that they couldn't help, and that I needed to call another number.

      That number turned out to be the AT&T local service sales number. I tried to find out if they did their own calling or paid someone else to do it,but the guy wouldn't answer. The guy then began asking for lots of personal information. I finally asked why they needed that information to file a complaint, whereupon they said that this, too, was the wrong number to call. (What part of "I want to file a complaint" didn't the guy understand? How exactly did he get "I want your local service" from that?) Anyway, they gave me yet another number, but that the number was basically only open on weekdays,

      I ignored the guy's warning about it being only open on weekdays, figuring that anybody who interpreted an "I'm not eligible, so stop calling me" complaint as an "I want to get your service" request was so clueless that he probably didn't know what was going on. Unsurprisingly, I was right.

      So the number I ended up talking to was AT&T Local Services customer support. I had "the talk", as it is now infamously known, with the service rep, and he apologized profusely and agreed to put me on the do-not-call list.

      To date, I have not received any more calls. I guess tying up AT&T's 1-800 numbers for almost two hours and threatening to drop my long distance service if they didn't stop harassing me was enough to convince them that maybe I really didn't want their local service....

      That having been said, I think they're only excluded from the DNC law if they are your current long distance provider, so if they annoy you too much, tell them that from now on, "You're not dealing with AT&T" and see what they say. :-)

      --
      120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
    26. Re:The ends justify the means? by dosius · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, here's what the Bible really says about eye-for-eye.

      Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever will compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not away. Matthew 5.38-42 (Tomson)

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    27. Re:The ends justify the means? by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      The number for the ATA is meant for those who have inquiries/ concerns regarding the ATA, right? It's not a personal phone number- it's a number that you call if you need to talk to the organization. Well, if I disagree with what that organization is doing, and I'd like to let them know about it, well, then I think I have a right to call.

      Of course, it doesn't give me a right to flame them over the phone. In following with Christian principles I would politely state my beef and be done with it.

      It is stinkin' ironic, though, that they're now complaining of being called too much. ;-)

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    28. Re:The ends justify the means? by boomer_rehfield · · Score: 1

      I had to threaten to sue them for harrassment thier last 3 calls. I don't even know how many times we asked to speak to a manager. They told us that it takes 30 days for you to be put on their do not call list after you tell them, but they were calling us up to 3 times a day. Hard to believe that someone that WANTS your service would treat you that way. Just, amazing.

      --
      Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
    29. Re:The ends justify the means? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I expect we'll reach 70 or 80 comments before someone thinks to post the home phone numbers of various telemarketing company's CEOs (hint, hint, c'mon, someone out there has those suckers, post em!).

      Too late.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    30. Re:The ends justify the means? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Interfered with somebody's ability to make a living? Since when is that a right? If I've got a business model of strangling small children (or something legal thats equally offensive)
      Something like, say, telemarketing???
    31. Re:The ends justify the means? by tgd · · Score: 1

      No but if they choose to support the idea that such harassment of myself is constitutionally protected, I could care less if I'm a direct victim of their phone attacks.

    32. Re:The ends justify the means? by Spoing · · Score: 1
      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these are the telemarketers who've called you? Even once?

      So, just because someone is a telemarketer it's up to me to see if they are indeed the specific telemarketer calling me? How?

      1. The blanked out phone number on my caller ID?

        The meandering response when asked flatly who they are?

        The unresponsiveness when asked to not call?

        The repeated phone calls for the same types of 'services'?

      Now, even if one telemarketer did put me on their do not call list, should I spend time and effort to track that one and all the others, only to have them say "Sorry" if they are caught later?

      Before you respond...yes, I've been using the legal phrase. Due to telemarketers, I haven't used my answering machine in months because of the number of messages they are starting to leave. My answering machine says call my cell or email me. When I get home, I delete the messages without listening.

      Telemarketers and muggers -- if I'm harmed by one, why be nice to the others? Just because they didn't personally target me this time?

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    33. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How anyone could consider your post as anything other than an attempt to attract flames (i.e. the very definition of flamebait) is beyond me. Agree with the guy or disagree on the MERITS of the comment. But if all you got is that religion has warped his brain, well frankly, that's flamebait and it should be moderated as such.

    34. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Hitler...

    35. Re:The ends justify the means? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      You're right - it could've been the vicious beatings by his strict Catholic school marm that warped his mind.

      Some people are just SO insensitive...

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    36. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that isn't always the case. Some types of dialing software calls multiple numbers at once. The first person to answer the phone gets a telemarketter and everyone else gets nobody. I think this was made illegal at some point but maybe not.

    37. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You answer and there's nobody in the call centre available so you get a silent call. I've had 5 of these in one day. As the caller id is blocked I can't even discover which set of brain dead idiots it is calling.

      It's you!

    38. Re:The ends justify the means? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      I'd love to tell them to add me to their do-not-call list (which they are required to honor, by law.) Problem is, the assholes are using automated dialers and pre-recorded messages, so I have to wait until their 2min spiel is over before I have a chance to quickly copy down a 800 number. And they're doing this several times a week. AND these damn pieces of phone spam are clogging up my voicemail!

      What causes more economic instability? Getting a bank of automated machines turned off (no live people in the phone spam I'm getting), or disrupting the work of a professional programmer working on medical image analysis software?

    39. Re:The ends justify the means? by Spl0it · · Score: 1

      Who cares if they didn't call you or inconvenience you... there still a telemarketer and many others like them have harrased you time and time again...you have a right to call them and complain about there harrassing phone calls to the general public/your discust with their method of marketing. (You have a right to call them... in the US or Canada.) My $0.01 :P

      --

      No, this is
    40. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH this is eeeeeeeeasy. Set your answering machine to 5 rings instead of 3. This way MOST people are racing to the phone to pick it up. But on the 3rd ring you get to it... Most people that really want to talk will let it ring 4-10 rings.

      I used to get these alot also till I did that.

      Also you basicly 'told' the program that you answered the phone. Thats why it kept calling you back.

      I still get telemarketing calls. I allways tell them im busy right now could they call back later. MUCH later :) It costs them even more. They are billed by the minute just like our long distance. So I basicly get to tell them no twice. Have one that keeps calling me back too. Im on my 5th with this one.

    41. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya'know, Stewart? I like you. You're not like everyone else, here, in the trailer park.

    42. Re:The ends justify the means? by volkris · · Score: 1

      If they inconvenience me one iota, I couldn't care less in the slightest if every last person there lost their job.

      You know what else is an inconvenience? When the cops stop me from stealing cars. Someone needs to put a stop to that, and I couldn't care less if every one of those damn, dirty cops lost their jobs, because they're inconveniencing me.

      The point being that just because you're inconvenienced doesn't mean jack. The cops are right to arrest criminals and the telemarketers are right to use the phone service they pay for.

      They choose to call me, they choose to inconvenience me

      You agrees to allow them to call you when you subscribed to a service, the phone service, that explicitly allowed incoming calls from anyone. If you don't want incoming calls from anyone, then you need to find a better phone service. But don't take it out on the telemarketers that they're using the system you subscribe to as per the agreements everyone made.

      What if these were ignorant asshats sending 50 million spam messages a day? Would shutting them down be bad because its going to put some people out of work?

      No, it would be bad because they paid for their internet access just like everyone else, and so they have the same right to use it as per their agreement with their ISP. If they break that agreement or steal internet access, that's something different entirely and has nothing to do with the spam, but so long as they are completely following their agreement they should be left alone.

      If you make the decision to accept email or phone calls from strangers don't complain when you get some. Take some personal responsibility.

    43. Re:The ends justify the means? by Geekbot · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to not only mug a mugger, but to beat him senseless and leave him bleeding in a ditch to die. Is this just a joking troll, or could anyone be so stupid as to
      1) Take the side of violent terrorizing criminals (muggers)
      2)Take the side of harrassing mean spirited companies that harrass good citizens in their homes
      3)believe that legal methods to hinder the efforts of an organization devoted to harrassing people in their homes for cash and to betraying the public of the USA is comparable to an illegal act of violence? (Not that anyone except a mugger would care if you went around kicking muggers in the head and taking their stolen money so that they couldnt buy guns and drugs with it).

    44. Re:The ends justify the means? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I was wondering about that. Under what system of ethics is it unethical to mug an (actual) mugger?

      Obviously, if you just thought someone was a mugger, you shouldn't mug them, but if someone attempts to mug me with a knife, and I happen to have a gun for some reason, and I don't really want to deal with the police...I have no moral qualms about demanding his wallet. Hell, I'd probably demand every single item of clothing just for fun. Leave him there naked in an alley to reconsider his choice of job.

      Hey, for all I know, he has other people's wallets on him, and I can return those.

      If he has a problem with this, he can go to the police and complain that I mugged him while he was trying to mug me. Of course, he'd be immediately fingered by four other victims who were reporting their mugging to the police, so they probably wouldn't believe him.

      I probably wouldn't do this, because it's technically illegal, and he'd be a lot worse off in jail than he would be if I just took his wallet. But I don't have any moral issues with it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    45. Re:The ends justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep trolling, twatbag.

    46. Re:The ends justify the means? by dolson · · Score: 1

      Okay, I just thought I'd point out something... I am a telemarketer, as that's what I do. I do the actual calling. However, I most certainly AM in favor of the national do not call list. I think it's great. It (usually) isn't the actual telemarketers who are against it, it's the people who are higher up - the actual companies that stand to lose contacts (in their eyes, potential profits), that care.

      Personally, I can't see why more people haven't signed up for do not call lists, especially when they pick up the line on the 8th attempt and they complain that we keep calling. Although lately there are more and more people that I get each day that are catching on and requesting us to put them on our do not call list, so that's good.

      Don't forget that if you are on a do not call list for a company or a call centre, and they call again, you can sue for $500 a pop. And once the national do not call list takes effect (assuming it is legislated) in October, you can sue for $11K.

    47. Re:The ends justify the means? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Oh, Pshaw! I expect we'll reach 70 or 80 comments before someone thinks to post the home phone numbers of various telemarketing company's CEOs (hint, hint, c'mon, someone out there has those suckers, post em!).

      I'd almost be more interested in having these numbers just to find out if they're on the national DNC registry....

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    48. Re:The ends justify the means? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      To hell with Karma, I'm saying it anyway!

      The Telemarketers insist that they have a constitutionally protected right to harass us

      I am sorry but you are fully incorrect. They are not claiming that. They are correctly pointing out that they have a right to try to sell you something. You have a right to hang up, refuse the call, talk their ear off and not buy, or actually buy something.

      Commercial speech *is* a form of speech. With freedom comes responsibility. Good is accompanied by the bad. Just as freedom of speech means you can/will be exposed to ideas you disagree with, so to doe si tmean you will be exposed to sales methods you disagree with.

      This mass calling, while superficially petulant, demonstrates that a right to call and harass people works both ways, if they want to play that game.

      Now you're getting somewhere. Mind you, to take this further means that if they want to spread *your* contact information to *their* friends and they all decide top start expressing their opinions (since they are not soliciting, the list and all solicitation laws are irrelevant), then you can not argue with it and remain consistent.

      If this company chose to list Dave Barry's contact info on their boards and urge all the TM companies to call and give him their opinion. that's fine too.

      That's a product of freedom, like it or not. Once you start limiting another's freedoms, yours are next on the chopping block. Hey,w e start with Do Not Call lists, then they respond with "Do Not Call Lists" and next hing you know it is *you* on the receiving end of that Do Not Call violation. Or, you start getting nailed for posting people's private numbers on /.

      Hey, I now, rather than take personal responsibility, how about we just eliminate *all* advertising and marketing! After all, maybe I feel "harassed" by all those tampon commercials on the TV, the Radio, the billboards, the newspaper, etc..

      Mark these words:
      If this continues, and you are not on a Do Not Call list, then legally it will be determined that you are effectively on a Do Call List.

      "Well, you aren't on the Do Not Call List."

      Laws like this have an odd tendency to "legitimize" the activity.

      Further, the list excludes charities and non-profits. Congratulations, now every charity or non-profit on the world can get a list of people to call. All you do is shift it to a different group of tele-spammers. If the theory that people most likely to list themselves are the kind least likely to sy no, you have hamred these people even more. Now they have their heart strings tugged for "non-commercial" causes.

      Besdies, it is soo easy to set up a non-profit that sells things and gives much of the proceeds to charity. Watch for this to become more commonplace as DNC lists are more prevalent.

      In fact, I'd argue this system will increase the tele-spam. It will (in one theory) increase the sales per telemarketer, thus makign it more profitable to be one. This will lead to more of them.

      However, Telemarketer-tarpitting(TM) has precisely the opposite effect. In reality it costs the company little to be on the phone with you; that is part of the calculation.

      However, since most TM persons are paid based on performance, or stick around/kept on based on performance, then there is a higher rate of turnover in the TM labor market. This higher turnover leads to higher training costs and lower productivity. This is a more profound impact on revenue than simply calling them or keeping them on the phone longer incuring toll charges.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  5. why worry? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why are the telemarketing companies worried? This list of people who do not wish to be called, are probably people who wouldn't buy anything from them in the first place. This list should be welcomed as it prevent them from making 30 million calls on which they will not make any money on.

    1. Re:why worry? by DrEldarion · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Exactly. The people who sign up for the list are likely the same people who don't answer the phone when they see "Out Of Area" on their caller ID, or hang up after they hear the little pause after answering the phone.

      The telemarketing companies should be THANKFUL, because this cuts down on their costs a LOT - They need substantially less people to place outgoing calls (less money going towards wages), they make less calls (less money spent on bills), and their successful call rates should go up quite a bit (increased efficiency).

      Telemarketers aren't typically the most logical people, though, so they see the numbers all as lost sales.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

    2. Re:why worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, *some* of those who hate the telemarketers could be persuaded to buy this or that, and so they lose those calls, but that couldn't be too many perhaps not even a percent

    3. Re:why worry? by gclef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the telemarketers count on is the ability to sell things to people who have a hard time saying "no." These people do not want to be called, but they also lack the willpower to tell someone to go away. Those folks *love* the idea of a do-not-call list, because it keeps them from having to deal with the confrontation of saying "no." But, it's exactly those people that the telemarketers make the most money off of, so the telemarketers desperately want to keep access to them.

    4. Re:why worry? by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Exactly! The potential revenue earned by those few buyers would be offset greatly by the increases in efficiency elsewhere.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

    5. Re:why worry? by gfody · · Score: 1

      I think the worry comes from there being like 5 or 6 people left that aren't on the do-not-call list. These last few people's lines are just constantly busy from telemarketers calling them.

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    6. Re:why worry? by esme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the reason they are worried is that they make a majority of their money from people who know they don't want whatever the telemarketer is selling, but can't say no. whether because they're too nice, or don't like conflict, there are a lot of people who find it hard to say no to a person talking to them on the phone -- especially since the telemarketers have perfected having an answer for every imaginable excuse.

      i was surprised about their objections to the do-not-call list, too, until i saw several articles pointing this out. makes me hate the bastards even more....

      -esme

    7. Re:why worry? by goon+america · · Score: 1

      Any salesman will tell you the first door to knock on is the door marked "no solicitors," because if someone does that it means they don't know how to deal with a salesman as well as they would like.

    8. Re:why worry? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best part is that some of the same people who currently feel bad saying no will feel much better when the DNC list kicks in (it's not active yet, right? There's still a month to go or something?) and they get a call they didn't want, because they will have a healthy sense of moral outrage at the beginning, since they shouldn't be calling them at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:why worry? by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Not a good idea here.

      The "no solicitors" sign on my property means that I'm really afraid I'm going to do time for assault the next time one of them attempts to waste my time.

      'course there's a fair chance that a jury of my peers would never convict me for making a salesman eat his briefcase...

    10. Re:why worry? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      it means they don't know how to deal with a salesman as well as they would like.

      Well, I suppose greeting them with a loaded shotgun and offering five seconds to get off your property might not be "as well as you would like", if you'd really like not to give them the five seconds...

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:why worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need substantially less people

      fewer. the word is FEWER goddamnit!!

      unless you are piling the people into a heap and weighing them you do not have less people, you have FEWER!!

    12. Re:why worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any salesman who knocks on my door which is marked "No Soliticors" is trespassing. A police officer lives across the street from me.

    13. Re:why worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok ill bite.

      But wouldnt fewer people weigh LESS? Therefor LESS people. As in I have LESS fruit.

    14. Re:why worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Cant say no?

      Remember these words
      "ooooh look at the time could you call me back later"
      "when?"
      "much later"

      The WILL call back. There call cost for you has just doubled. Also more than likely you will get a different person next time. So just rinse and repeat. Im up to 5 with this one. Tommorow when they call back I will try for 6 :)

      I am VERY busy after all :)

    15. Re:why worry? by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      You know, I live in Germany and am not allowed to have a gun. But that saturday morning when I had just come home from a night with the guys and slept for about two hours, I wished I had a gun to display my dislike for Jehova's Witnesses who knock at my door so loud that I almost fall out of my bed.

      Anyways, there were these two chicks, one old chick, about 70 years old, make-up, nice dress, and one young chick, about 21, hot. Says the old one "Good morning. We would like to talk to you about God!"

      I, having said nothing since I opened the door, looked her in the eye for a few seconds, looked at the young one for a second, and told the old one, "see, I'd say I'd rather like to talk to this young lady about sexual intercourse."

      They were gone and they *never* returned to the house. Neighbors told me later that they had unsuccessfully trying to get rid of those for years.

      Heh.

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    16. Re:why worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answer telemarketer calls with celebrity voices recorded from movies.

    17. Re:why worry? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      What the telemarketers count on is the ability to sell things to people who have a hard time saying "no." These people do not want to be called, but they also lack the willpower to tell someone to go away.

      I love saying "no". The average telemarketing call to me lasts for under 10 seconds. Why can't they compile and maintain their own "don't bother to call" list? They will never get a dime out of me. They should concentrate their resources on suckers instead. Maybe I should just put the receiver down and walk away. Let them waste more of their time while they figure out nobody is listening, while not wasting my time.

    18. Re:why worry? by murkus13 · · Score: 0
      especially since the telemarketers have perfected having an answer for every imaginable excuse.

      There is a solution to the telemarketers ability to persuade people with their replies:
      counterscript!

      that's really good flowchart to aide you counter the marketer..

      .murkus

    19. Re:why worry? by Mesaeus · · Score: 1

      Only if you provide salt and pepper. It has to stay humane after all.

  6. Number is Toll Free! by CoolQ · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you too lazy to read the articles, here's the phone number to call:
    1-877-779-3974
    Let's /. their phone system!

    --Quentin

    1. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 0, Troll
      Let's /. their phone system!

      Let's not. You're interfering with people's livelihoods here. And by expressing the desire to /. (DDOS) the phone network, you've just made it a crime.

      Keep in mind that even if you block caller ID, when you call an 800 number, your number is still immediately available to the receiving party and is logged and provided as a list at the end of the month, even if they don't pick up.

      If these folks decide to sue for this kind of activity, this wouldn't be the first suck suit filed and won.

    2. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Oswald · · Score: 4, Interesting
      So now it's a tort to call a toll-free phone number? One that's listed on the contact page of their website? I'd like to see them make that stick.

      And, I think I speak for most of us here when I say I don't give a shit about these people's livelihoods. Next time they should get a job that doesn't make them a public nuisance (and a target for anger and aggression--don't they have any self-respect?).

    3. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Skater · · Score: 1

      first suck suit filed

      Funny line coming from someone with the name "Mr. Darl McBride". :)

      I don't think the telemarketing company would get anything out of a single person (or, not enough to be worth the suit). If there was a ringleader of the operation, as there usually is in an internet DDOS, going after that person might yield some money. Dave Barry could be that ringleader, but I'd think him being a journalist of sorts might protect him.

      --RJ

    4. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's difficult not to see some malice in Mr. Barry's intent," said Tim Searcy, executive director of the ATA, who said the added calls will be costly to his group because of toll charges and staffing issues."

      Domain Name: ATACONNECT.ORG

      Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Fanger, Robert (DUMHRQNOBI) rfanger@fangercom.com
      Fanger Communications
      238 S. Meridian St.
      Ste. 210
      Indianapolis, IN 46225
      US
      317-636-7635

      Searcy, Tim
      8645 Admirals Woods Dr
      INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
      317-823-8462

    5. Re:Number is Toll Free! by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, so we're interferring with poor people's livehoods. And why would we care about the livehood of people that live at our cost? Seriously, I don't care at all about how many people live from spamming, telemarketing, or selling heroine. If they all go bankrupt I will be very happy.

    6. Re:Number is Toll Free! by buttahead · · Score: 0

      And if i were in the middle of performing a surgury, when said telemarkateers started calling me, would not they be "interfering with people's livelihoods[ and or lives]".

      and by them refusing to recognize the "do-not-call" list, they are commiting a crime. they will suffer in their own time.

    7. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Felinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your mixxing laws and terminology here.

      There is a dramatic diffrence between a Slashdotting and a DDOS. A Slashdotting is when many people are directed to visit a website and do so. The resulting load of lagit visiters causes the server to overload.

      A DDOS is when a bunch of people send garbage packets to the target server. The resulting load clogs the network and keeps lagit users from visiting the website.

      When a bunch of people call a 1-800 number to complain they are making lagit phone calls. This is Slashdotting it's perfictly legal.

      When a bunch of people call and hang up or call and ask "If your fridge running?" or similar prank calls then your DDOSing. This isn't legal.

      And let's be clear on this. DDOS is hacking is applicable to the Internet and the laws binding to computer networks.

      The applicable law for calling a voice line and hanging up is not hacking but harrasment.

      So it all depends on what you say when you call. If your calling in protest you need to state your opposed to the companys possition that "cold calling" is protected speach.

      But if you just call and say something goofy and hang up that's harrasment.

      Yep they have your name and number but more importantly if your violating the law they can get your name and number from the records no matter what with a simple cort order. Caller ID blocking won't work here eather. The phone company has your records and will give them up with a cort order in a phone harrasment case.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    8. Re:Number is Toll Free! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      Let's not. You're interfering with people's livelihoods here.

      Bullshit. Nobody has a right to a parasitical livelihood that runs by at best annoying the hell out of someone or at worst by preying on their insecurities or other frailties.

    9. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      I agree... Actually this is part of the artical. Barry points out that laws against mugging put muggers out of work.

      It's part of the business to answer the phone thats why they have a published phone number.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    10. Re:Number is Toll Free! by crossconnects · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot!!

      There is no constitutional right nor biblical right to make a living this way. Your pathetic posts are irritating, like the attitude the telemarketers and spammers display toward my desire for family time and privacy.

      Your sig tells me that you are probably a hypocrite, whether you know it or not, because of a one-liner that means little to most people, turns others off due to the hypocrasy throughout Christianity, but does nothing to actually get anyone to look at the life and teachings of Jesus.

      --
      no big sig
    11. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Carbonite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if i were in the middle of performing a surgury, when said telemarkateers started calling me, would not they be "interfering with people's livelihoods[ and or lives]".

      Oh please! While I highly doubt that anyone who has trouble spelling "surgery" will actually be performing it, I doubt even more that telemarketing calls are received in operating rooms. Don't make a mockery out of the issue by making up absurd "straw-man" scenarios.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    12. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 0, Troll
      You show nothing but bitterness and hatred throughout your entire post. Looking at the rest of your posting history, this seems to be a pattern.

      I'm taking a few moments to pray for you -- I can only guess that you are going through troubled times.

    13. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Hayzeus · · Score: 1

      Some of these respondents are clearly in need of a severe beating with the humor stick.

    14. Re:Number is Toll Free! by barole · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure. My mother used to work in a small hospital and one time a robot dialer worked its way through every phone in the hospital. I think they eventually got the phone company to intervene and block the calls.

    15. Re:Number is Toll Free! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Keep in mind that even if you block caller ID, when you call an 800 number, your number is still immediately available to the receiving party and is logged and provided as a list at the end of the month, even if they don't pick up.
      This is very true. Which means ideally you shouldn't use your own phone to call them. Instead, whenever you next pass a payphone, call 'em on that. Not only does that mean they can't just block calls from you or take some other form of retaliatory action, but it also costs them an extra 25c (actually, I think it's more now) because they have to pay a "Payphone access fee" on top of the usual charges.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:Number is Toll Free! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...especially when there are even more serious examples. Take our boys in Iraq for instance. CLI doesn't usually work internationally, so when they receive calls on their cellphones, they have no way of telling whether it's their CO, the President, or Capital One. The last thing that anyone should defend is some poor soldier taking a bullet because they're expecting a call from Dubya, the phone rings, they answer it at a critical time, and it turns out to be someone trying to sell them a credit card.

      And take this example: The President visits China. Because his Sprint PCS phone isn't going to work on China's cellphone network, he takes the precaution of forwarding his Whitehouse number to that of the Chinese President. All of a sudden, before he gets a chance to call the Premier, Capital One calls trying to sell the Chinese Pres. a credit card. All he hears is an American voice speaking gibberish who'll not shut up, and assumes, from the accent, that it's Dubya and he's being made fun of. Instant World War III.

      That's why we MUST have a Do-Not-Call list and vigorously enforce the restrictions on calling cellphones.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    17. Re:Number is Toll Free! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative
      A DDoS attack does not necessarily mean you are sending garbage packets. That is a myth. That is simply the easiest way to do any DoS. In fact the value of sending garbage packets is highest when you are not making a distributed attack, because this is precisely when that strategy is needed most.

      A slashdotting could be a DDoS attack or not, solely depending on intent. Let's look at the words that make up DDoS:

      1. Distributed. As slashdot readers are distributed around the globe, and will be making their connections from an assortment of machines similarly if not identically distributed (what with tunneling, the former is more accurate) a slashdotting is clearly distributed.
      2. of. Just kidding. :) Let's move on.
      3. Service. What are we denying? Service. It doesn't matter if you're sending a bunch of syn packets or if you're actually going (attempting to go) through the process of opening a full TCP connection and downloading a file from the server. Either way, you're connecting to/attacking a specific service.
      4. Attack. Here's the kicker. If you did it maliciously, then it was an attack. If you didn't actually mean to slashdot their server, then it wasn't. If you didn't stop to think about the effects of your actions, then you're a nobk, but it's malice that makes an attack. If I trip and fall on someone and harm them, it's not as serious as if I punch them in the face, legally, even though I might do more damage by falling on them.

      Calling a voice line and hanging up is harassment, but calling a voice line and hanging up in response to someone else's request is collusion on your part, and conspiracy on theirs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Ditto. When I worked in the ER at Minot AFB, we had an emergency phone that was linked to the base 911 system, but also to a regular number. And we did get telemarketing and other nuisance calls on that line. So yes, one of those telemarketing calls could potentially have killed someone.

      That being said, a nuisance call doesn't have to kill someone to interfere with someone's life or livelihood. The fact of being bugged is itself enough to make life difficult. There is no Constitutionally protected right to harass people.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    19. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the toll-free number for SCO is, cause you sound like you're describing them there. :)

    20. Re:Number is Toll Free! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      get a job that doesn't make them a public nuisance

      Not only that, the whole "job-loss" thing is total bullshit. Most telemarketing is done by three types of people: high school kids, college kids, and people on the verge of welfare checks. They pay these people total shit and the benefits are usually about the same. We pay our telemarketing people an exhorbitant 7.25 an hour based on the average in the area, IIRC, and they get half the benefits everyone else here does (and yes... telemarketers really are as annoying in person as they are on the phone - everyone in the facility here absolutely despises them).

      Most of these jobs could easily be replaced in places like grocery stores, etc based solely on compensation. Besides, if they're such great salespeople, there are a LOT of commisioned opps out there in department stores, car lots, etc. The whole "lost jobs" thing is true, what they don't bother to tell you is that only the TM industry loses the jobs - another industry will just pick them up anyway. It's more like "migrated jobs" than lost as far as society as a whole is concerned.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    21. Re:Number is Toll Free! by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      You're interfering with people's livelihoods here.

      Too bad. Making money is not a blanket excuse for doing things that would be otherwise unacceptable. Telemarketers' desire to earn a living does not trump ordinary people's expressed desire not to be called. It doesn't matter whether that expression has the force of law behind it (as the do not call list would have it) or not (as the telemarketers would have it). It's still wrong either way, and the telemarketers will get none of my sympathy.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    22. Re:Number is Toll Free! by tedtimmons · · Score: 1
      So the real initials for DDOS are DOSA? I think you meant Distributed Denial Of Service, not "denial of service attack".

      -ted

    23. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is correct. Just remember nobody likes Masala Dosa.

    24. Re:Number is Toll Free! by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Let's not. You're interfering with people's livelihoods here. And by expressing the desire to /. (DDOS) the phone network, you've just made it a crime.

      I don't care about either point.

      When I complain about a spammer, I'm interfering with his livelihood. Okay by me. What he does for a living is immoral, unethical, and despicable. Same thing with telemarketers.

      As to the criminal aspect, something can be illegal without being unethical or wrong. If they want to press charges against me because I called a phone number listed as a contact number on their website, then I'm willing to face the charges in a court of law. Get a spine and do the right thing instead of worrying about the legality of it.

    25. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to eat, nothing to do with self respect. I work in fast food for fucks sake. Im not allowed to sit down for 6 or 7 hours a day, just so i can take abuse from hundreds of customers.

    26. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, lay off the smack dealers, I need that.

    27. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look at the other comments at this level... there are cases where calls make it to strange phones. even in operating rooms. so "straw-man" that, punk. and yes... I'm mocking you.

    28. Re:Number is Toll Free! by ahoehn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I was a volunteer at a hospital in Belize this past year for six months. I assisted a surgeon in around 30-40 surgeries over the course of my time there. About half of our surgeries would be interrurpted by one of the doctor's phones ringing. The circulating nurse would reach inside the doctor's operating gown, take the cellphone from his belt, answer and then tell the doctor who was calling. If the call was important enough and the surgery wasn't at a time-critical moment, the surgeon would have the nurse hold the phone up to his ear, so he didn't become un-sterile by touching it with his hands, and then have a phone conversation while the rest of us, and the sedated patient, waited. The first time it happened it was all very surreal.

      Of course I don't mean to imply that this has any correlation to the national do not call registry, or that surgeons typically answer their phones during surgery in more developed countries. I hope.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    29. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      I was being overly simplistic.
      Sending garbage packets is just the easiest thing to do. But if only one person is doing the DoS then you have to get the server to send a reply that is much larger than the original request.

      Receave = 2 bytes + bogus address
      Send = 5k responce to request sent to bogus address.

      But say the defect that makes this DoS possable is patched or not present on your intended victiom.

      Then

      receave = 2 bite + victoms address
      send = 5k resonce to victom.

      Sent out to as many people as possable... and you have a DDoS. Not garbage signal but it's all the same.

      As for the legal stuff...
      Ianal...

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    30. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " For those of you too lazy to read the articles, here's the phone number to call: 1-877-779-3974 Let's /. their phone system!"

      O' how I long for the day when VoIP is so far developed that I could Slashdot their phoneline by clicking a link. Perhaps a link that started up a modem that dialed their number and played a recording. That would be clever. Heh, they pay for every 800 call they get too.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    31. Re:Number is Toll Free! by OscarGunther · · Score: 1
      O' how I long for the day when VoIP is so far developed that I could Slashdot their phoneline by clicking a link. Perhaps a link that started up a modem that dialed their number and played a recording.

      You're telling me that with all the spare programmer MIPS we've got on /. someone can't whip up something similar? Who needs a recording? Isn't there some robotic voice emulation software we can script?

      The requirements are that the app accept an arbitrary string of text from some e-mail-connected input, which it then feeds into the robo-voice app and dials the appropriate phone number. When the remote answers, robo-voice plays the screed. Once you've built this thing, you publish the address here and become an instant geek legend.

      The beauty of this is that you're not just calling and hanging up--which is probably illegal--you're just using modern technology to express your opinion. You just don't have to bother saying it, someone does that for you. In a sense, it's just like representative democracy, except more immediate and direct. What patriotic, Constitution-loving telemarketer could object to that?

    32. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ... mixxing ... lagit ... harrasment ... possition ... eather ... cort

      Phew!

      This must be some sort of high score, especially for a post moderated +5 Insightful.

      FFS learn to spell!

    33. Re:Number is Toll Free! by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      What are they going to do, arrest me for calling their published number to disagree with a position they have publically taken?

      Riiiight...

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    34. Re:Number is Toll Free! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      ...if only one person is doing the DoS then you have to get the server to send a reply that is much larger than the original request.

      syn attacks don't depend on the server sending any reply.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Number is Toll Free! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I wonder what the toll-free number for SCO is

      "For Sales & Product Inquiries," 1-800-726-8649

      "I'd like to inquire if you sell a product that does not include litigation?"

    36. Re:Number is Toll Free! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Of course I don't mean to imply that [...] surgeons typically answer their phones during surgery in more developed countries.

      Obviously, I can't speak for every Hospital in the U.S., but in the hospital where I work you are not allowed to have a cell phone turned on while inside.

    37. Re:Number is Toll Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made my call.

      Talked very slowly. A lot of "umms"
      and asked them to call me back at 1-877-779-3974 (their old number)

  7. Use this recording to screen phones... by shri · · Score: 1

    We had recorded the message from 1-800-call-spy about (13 years ago) and put that on our answering machine. One of my roommates still has that and assures me that no-one call him the second time around. (Assuming a live person listens to that message).

    I'm not sure if the number is still active (I don't live in the US anymore) and I'm not sure how serious the response of the Home Land Security (or who ever runs that number) is. Dial at your own risk!

    1. Re:Use this recording to screen phones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for those of us who have no idea and dont want to call that number, what was the recording ?

    2. Re:Use this recording to screen phones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it still works.

      The message is:
      "You have reached the U.S.Army Call Spy Network. Your call is anonymous. Please leave a message. Your call is important to us."

    3. Re:Use this recording to screen phones... by axxackall · · Score: 1

      and what does it have to do with telemarketers?

      --

      Less is more !
    4. Re:Use this recording to screen phones... by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0


      If they're stupid, it might, umm, scare them?

    5. Re:Use this recording to screen phones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, well, I'm not gonna be calling strange numbers in the middle of the night, or at any time as a matter of fact. Just tell us what this terribly clever message was and stop being such an asshole.

    6. Re:Use this recording to screen phones... by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0

      It wasn't me, but... This is it.

  8. Re:Since when do nerds talk on the phone? by snolan · · Score: 2, Funny
    What is a phone?

    grinning, ducking and running...

  9. Oh well, we are too late by drkich · · Score: 2, Informative

    We're sorry you have reached a number that has been disconnected or is not in service. If you feel you have reached this recording in error, please check your number and try your call again.

  10. Disconnected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't bother, you'll only get a recording saying the number has been disconnected.

  11. Re:Since when do nerds talk on the phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate talking on the phone. It interrupts me when I eat, watch TV, surf the net, code software, play games, cook, sleep... ie when I live my life. :-D Also, some people I know, will call me and talk for hours, and I'm too nice to stop it after two hours. So it continues. Especially some people who love to talk about Linux and anime. I get it. You like anime. Now let me sleep. Ahhhh always feel so good after venting.

  12. Use the Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Using the internet seems like a much more effective method.
    With today's computer hardware it would be trivial to just whip together a program which would do the calling.
    Then you could just distribute the program on a blog of some sort.
    On your blog you could coordinate the readers to set their software to call certain numbers at certain times.
    Better yet.
    You could have you software automatically check you web site to see if there are any 'Call Worthy' events.
    Maybe when people sign up for account they have a preferences section which they can choose the type of events or companies which their software should call.
    Anyway you get the picture.

    1. Re:Use the Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, Modem script to do this:
      > ATD4144443456 [moviefone]
      - D: VOICE
      > ATH
      Start over.

    2. Re:Use the Net by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Actually you could set up the number as a dialable contact in ... oh crap, forgot the terminal software I used to use ... anyways just tell it to connect and it will dial incessantly until a modem answers. If a person picks up you do get the 'voice' thing and it hangs up and tries again.

      It would be as if a thousand modems dialed out and were then silenced. Obie Wan.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  13. wrong... by ecalkin · · Score: 1

    i've been told by several salesweasels that they love seeing a 'no soliciting' or 'no salesmen' sign because those people lack the time/motivation/temperment to say *no*. if you were really good at telling the salesperson 'no' and leave, don't comeback, don't call back, etc, they wouldn't need the sign.

    probably the easiest people in the world to see to are the people on the do not call list.

    eric

    1. Re:wrong... by acceleriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can tell you I'm a counterexample. If someone knocks on my door in spite of the "NO SOLICITING" sign, they get the door in their face, and a followup from the local gendarmes asking about their permit (which they almost never have) to solicit.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    2. Re:wrong... by dissy · · Score: 1

      > and a followup from the local gendarmes asking about their permit (which they
      > almost never have) to solicit.

      Hmm, I never knew you had to have a permit to sell things door to door.
      Can you provide more info on this? I would LOVE to use this aginst these people.

      We not only have a no soliciting sign, but are very rude to people that come in, even a couple times so far as to take the things they were peddling and treating them very unkindly right in front of the sales person, and if they make any motions of complaint we claim they are clearly tresspassing so as far as we are concerned this is not their property anymore, but obviously the legality of that is still questionable..

      I would love to turn the tables and bring under question their own legality in being there.

    3. Re:wrong... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Someone is not trespassing until you tell them to leave and they refuse. If you invite them in, they have every right to be there until you tell them to leave. If you ask them to leave and they do not comply (I think it's safe to say that they have the right to pack up their shit before they go, though) THEN they are trespassing, and you can execute a citizen's arrest, with all that that entails. This works for being on your porch, steps, et cetera.

      If you have a gated fence (as opposed to a gap in the fence) then you can put a POSTED TRESPASSING KEEP OUT sign (or something like that) at the border, and they are trespassing the moment they walk through your gate. In fact in most places that will also keep police officers out unless they have a warrant or have received a call, and it prevents them from entering your property and snooping around. It does not matter if the gate is two feet tall, or twenty, legally it is considered the same. I don't know about those little garden fences, but I suspect if you put a proper gate in it and posted a sign, they might qualify too :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:wrong... by dissy · · Score: 1

      Yea, thats just one of many technical problems our method had.
      It was also for a business, not a home.
      We would never invite anyone in, but between 9am-7pm we were open and thus the door was open/unlocked to the public.
      There was a buzzer on the door for when it opened, and one of us would come out of our office to the front area to greet whomever it may be.

      I would always start out by seeing if they are carring in crap (Youd be surprised how many people carry around paintings/pictures for walls, and things of that nature) and if so stating right out "If you are selling anything, we arnt interested, please leave."

      Those specifically were who i was referring to. The people that come in selling long distance for an example, you had to wait till they spoke to tell why they are there. We would of course ask them to leave after the fact.

      Being a business, its not at all tresspass until After you ask them to leave plus they refused.

      Like i said, im almost 100% positive that most of the time we had no legal leg to stand on. Which is why I would love to have one for future reference :)
      I no longer work for that small company, but have since moved to an office envirnment (With fully staffed lobby and all) so its a moot point.

      I was just interested in legal ways to scare the crap out of them that i didnt make up or arnt correct (like the tresspassing threat) ;}

    5. Re:wrong... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'd think if you havea no solicitations sign up, and a soliciter steps onto your property, you could say they were tresspassing. You can discriminate against people when deciding who may step onto your property.

    6. Re:wrong... by acceleriter · · Score: 1
      Lots of municipalities have laws requiring permits on the books--degree of enforcement may vary, but it's pretty good where I am. This is the section from the municipal code in my midwestern city:


      Sec. 12-272. Solicitation permits required.

      Every solicitor, of whatsoever form or nature must obtain a permit from the city before soliciting within the city. In order to obtain a permit to solicit, the applicant must furnish the information required under this article to the city clerk.


      (Ord. No. 4793-02, 2, 7-2-0)

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    7. Re:wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been told by several telemarketerweasels: "Hi, we're from Stupid Mortgages, where we like to call you even when you've told us firmly that you're not interested, cursed at us, told us to add you to our do-not-call list, etc."

      I see exactly what you mean. Thanks for the tip.

    8. Re:wrong... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can decide who is or is not allowed on your property on any basis you like, as long as it's not a business. (Even then you have a certain amount of leeway.) But you still have to warn people that they are trespassing and have them refuse or fail to leave before they are, in fact, trespassing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:wrong... by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Yet nothing in that says they have to show it to *you*.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    10. Re:wrong... by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      A sign indicating no solicitors would likely qualify as warning. If not put up one that say "Solictors are not welcom, and thus if you ring the bell or knock on the door, you are trespassing, and may be prosecuted under the law." and a reference to your local ordinances on trespassing would do it.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  14. DOS on phone number by siasl · · Score: 1

    Can you get in legal trouble for instigating a DOS attack on someones phone system......??? Well, Alice, here in wonderland you can get in hot water for just discussing certain forbidden subjects (circumvention tech, etc)....

    1. Re:DOS on phone number by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, i'm somewhat shocked that there isn't a worm to peform a DDoS on phones. Many systems on the net have modems installed, well mine doesn't but your average store bought pc comes equiped with a modem.

      The problem is with 800 numbers is there is a hardcopy record of you calling the number. It's not really reccomended that you put your modem on redial , though i'm not sure if there would be any legal issues regarding doing this other then harrassment.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  15. and calling telemarketers is for profit?!?! [nt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  16. Latest ATA Press release by TecraMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION

    Due to the outstandingly positive response to recent media events, the American Teleworking Association has taken steps to protect its constitutional right to protection from unsolicited calls by registering with the National Do Not Call List.

    "We were shocked by the intrusiveness of these unsolicited calls", commented Tim Searcy, ATA Executive Director. "None of us could get any work done! Our heartfelt thanks to the Federal Government for their foresight in creating such a resource to protect people like us!"

    Returning to work today, ATA employees are looking forward to a day of uninterrupted work now that they are protected from such intrusive unsolicated calls.

    1. Re:Latest ATA Press release by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Except that won't work. People calling them to complain are obviously non-profs.

    2. Re:Latest ATA Press release by KernelHappy · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter, it's not like they could track you down withtout paying a ton in law fees.

      As I've recently learned, if a telemarketer calls and fails to identify the company name there is no easy way for someone to track them down. For example, you are on a published do not call list (in my case the New York State list) and you get an automated call asking if your interested in a 3 day vacation to walt disney world. Rather annoyed for interrupting your bowl of fruit loops, you press 1 for more information. Then the voice system rattles through some sort of disclaimer and tells you that someone will call you back then asks you if you agree, obviously you don't want to establish a business relationship with this company (thus giving them the right to call you legally inspite of the call list) so you select 2 for no and the system hangs up on you.

      So immediately you whip out a pen and paper and start to make notes on the call so you can go after them for the $2500 (or is it $5000?) in punitive damages for violating the do not call list. You right down the time and then check the caller ID only to realize, they never gave a company name (illegal) they never gave you the option to opt out (illegal) and you have no clue who it was that called you. So you hang up and call Goveneror Patakis Consumer Protection Board and tell them about the incident. They ask you what the company name that called you was, you repeat "They never identified themselves which is illegal on it's own aside from the do not call violation". They tell you that you need the company information to which you ask "great, how do I go about getting it". They tell you that you have to call the phone company.

      So faithfully you hang up and call the phone company and they tell you that they can't give you that information. Then you ask how do you get it and they tell you that you have to get a subpoena for it. In other words you now have to take time off from work in order to play Matlock and create a lawsuit just to find out who it is harassing you. Imagine if you had to do your own detective work before you could submit a claim for a stolen car.

      I've also had a similar scenario where a telemarketer called me at a really bad time. I promptly asked for a manager, when the manager picked up I asked for the company name and address. They asked me why I wanted it and I told them that "by law you called me you have to disclose this information" and they hung up on me. I wrote down the offer name and the time just in case they called again, but in reality I knew since I didn't get a company name or a phone number that they annoyed me, wasted my valuable time and were going to get away with it.

      Until there is someone that will chase down the violations on behalf of the people on the do not call list, the telemarketers can pretty much operate unimpeded. If anything this should be an opportunity for a sleazy lawyer. If they recoup any punitive damages split it 50/50 with the person that received the call. Shit, they can keep all of it except for $100, just mail me a check for $100 with the memo "punitive damages from telemarketer" so I can frame it and hang it over my phone.

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    3. Re:Latest ATA Press release by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Sure, yu think it's funny now ...

      Wait till there is a law against calling a business for other than transacting business. Wait till they criminalize calling a company to express your opinion.

      "But that's free speech!". Yup, for now.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  17. Do not call lists will lower sales by GGardner · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The NYT ran an article about this a while back -- they interviewed people who didn't want to buy things from unsolicited phone calls, but ended up doing so anyways, because they "felt sorry" for the person making the phone call. One woman they interviewed bought 5 $1k replacement windows, which she later admitted, "probably wasn't a good idea". She also said that she would sign up for a do not call list, to prevent her from mercy purchases in the future.

    Don't think that the telemarketters don't know their own business.

    1. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by whovian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly what I was thinking.

      A "logical" business model would be not to waste time on a customer who won't be interested so go elsewhere where there is money to be made. However, the tactics of some telemarketers/ing firms involve coersion or a play on the emotions of the telemarketee.

      That, my follow readers, is the true evil behind telemarketing and IMO justifies having Do-Not-Call lists.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    2. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why I love to keep telemarketers on the line as long as possible. I know I'm never going to buy whatever crap they're peddling. Even if they do come across with something that sounds interesting (hasn't happened yet), I plan on finding out exactly what company is selling so that I can look for a similar service among their competitors.

      The trick to keeping them on the line for upwards of a half hour is to sound like you're interested, but have certain specific objections that need to be overcome first. If somebody calls offering a two week cruise, you object that you don't have that much vacation time. When she quote the price, you tell her you're a little short right now.

      As things go along, get more and more absurd. When she describes white, sandy beaches, tell the caller that you're allergic to saltwater. When she tells you that one of their destinations is the Bahamas, ask for her assurance that you won't run into any "foreigners" down there. Ask if they'll let you take your golden retreiver, and then describe Sparky's bladder control problems in lengthy detail. Just keep making up weird crap, until it becomes obvious that the telemarketer desperately wants the phone call to end.

      Finally, explain that you'll have to make some plans, and consult both your wife and your mistress. Ask for a callback number. Then politely let her go. Even better, ask them to call you back in a week.

      Hey, I'm a frequent Slashdot poster, so it's not like I have anything better to do. :)

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Once, I kept a lady on the phone for like an hour, talking about magazines. I was gonna order the whole lot. Then she says, "Okay, I need your credit card to continue." I calmly reply, "Credit Card? Oh no no no. That's how they get ya. I keep all my money in a box under my bed."

      Unfortunately, she doesn't take cash.

      Another time, I actually read off the numbers to the credit card, but accidentally turned up SLAYER on the stereo for the last 6 digits. Oops.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    4. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Bobulusman · · Score: 1

      I never do anything like that because, as much as I dislike getting telemarketer calls, delaying people on the line isn't hurting the telemarketing company, it's hurting the employee. They get paid by the sale, so keeping them on the line for 30 minutes is sure to cost them a lot.

      Oh, and don't give me any bullshit about "They work for a telemarketing company. They deserve to lose money." That's just childish. Most of these people don't have a lot of choice. If they could get work elsewhere, they would.

      --
      Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    5. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Forty-two · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I worked at a call center in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. Let me tell you that people like you made my day working there. The way it worked is that as long as the customer kept giving you excuses why they can't buy the product you had to keep giving them reasons around it. Once the customer repeats an objection you can then just end the call.

      I've had calls like yours and the whole time I sat there with a grin on my face trying to come up with ways around your insane compaints. These calls were so much fun and most people there would trade these stories with each other and laugh. The rest of the time your job is mind numbing and repeditive.

      Added to this I would like to say that annoying telemarkers may seem fun but these people are almost always in a bind and do not want to work there either. Making a single mother's life hell when she's resorted to working for a call center because she can not find anything else is not going to solve the problem.

    6. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and don't give me any bullshit about "They work for a telemarketing company. They deserve to lose money." That's just childish. Most of these people don't have a lot of choice. If they could get work elsewhere, they would.

      By your same logic, we should just let drug dealers battle it out on our streets, because most of them don't have any other choice, either. It points to a bigger problem, and we need to address it. Making more jobs that only hurt everyone involved (including the employee) doesn't solve the problem. You should waste their time so that those companies go out of business. The sooner bad companies that pay low wages are out of business, the sooner everyone gets a better paying job.

    7. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should waste their time so that those companies go out of business. The sooner bad companies that pay low wages are out of business, the sooner everyone gets a better paying job.

      Ok, see, that doesn't make sense to me. First of all, how does hurting the employees hurt the company? Sure, if all the telemarketers were delayed, they would get less sales, but in general you just hurt people who are desperate for a job. Secondly, you assume that if telemarketing isn't an option, other jobs will be available. Have you looked at the current job market? I know people with college educations and more than fifteen years of experience that have been looking for a job for over a year.

    8. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by whovian · · Score: 2, Informative
      In order to not just preach to the choir, here are just two examples (pardon me if they have been mentinoed here elsewhere)
      • Rebates. You having mailed in all those "mail in rebates" forms would put you in the category of "having a prior business relationship" escape clause of the DNC lists. If not that, the vendor you bought from already qualifies you.
      • Store cards. Ever sign up for one of those gift cards/member cards, and the only way to check the balance is to call them? Well, I realized in time Barnes and Noble does this, so I would be certain not to use a cell phone or a home phone. I would use work phone instead because at least that's blocked from telemarketing. Granted, they don't have my name, but they 1) could compare with lists of names previously associated with that number and 2) might learn that it's a valid number (assuming no caller ID blocking and unblocking one-upsmanship).
      I get the feeling that it is only a matter for time beore companies come up with other insidious methods.
      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    9. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      They could just as easily get a job at the local mall. That is the same as saying career criminals don't have a choice.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    10. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would like to say that annoying telemarkers may seem fun but these people are almost always in a bind and do not want to work there either. Making a single mother's life hell when she's resorted to working for a call center because she can not find anything else is not going to solve the problem.

      Hey, thats awfully considerate of you.. I'm an unemployed geek. Is it OK if hang out in your house, empty your fridge, hog your couch and drive your car around, because "I can't find anything else" ? Please don't say NO, you'll be making my life miserable!

    11. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      annoying telemarkers may seem fun but these people are almost always in a bind and do not want to work there either. Making a single mother's life hell when she's resorted to working for a call center because she can not find anything else is not going to solve the problem.

      Bullshit - yet another variation of "it's for the children". She can find some other job.

      I'm unsympathetic to someone's excuse why it's ok for them to harass me - would it be acceptable for people to walk up to you on the street and offer to "quit harassing you" if you'll just give them some money?

    12. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by altamira · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US or other parts of the world, but at least Germany has laws governing the validity of purchases negotiated between private individuals and companies over media such as telephone, the Internet, and regular mail, that allow for the private individual to cancel the contract at no cost and without any particular reason within 14 days.

      As far as "mercy purchases" are concerned, rules like this should make it pretty hard to succeed for telemarketers, magazine subscription vendors and the like.

      - Jan
    13. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      How did you do a job like that? If I had that much hatred coming down the line at me every day, I'd slit my wrists within a week. Did you consider a less dirty profession, like prostitution or drug dealing? Let me tell you about my savior, and yours... have you heard the word of Jesus Christ? (If you don't get this post, see my last one.)

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    14. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Associate · · Score: 1

      Slayer! You rock man!

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    15. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Rebates. You having mailed in all those "mail in rebates" forms would put you in the category of "having a prior business relationship" escape clause of the DNC lists. If not that, the vendor you bought from already qualifies you.

      Um, i belive thats wrong. The exception is a CURRENT buisiness relationship...not a prior one. Prior would most likely only come into affect if you owed them money. As soon as the rebate check is mailed to you, your relationship with that business ends.

      Store cards. Ever sign up for one of those gift cards/member cards, and the only way to check the balance is to call them? Well, I realized in time Barnes and Noble does this, so I would be certain not to use a cell phone or a home phone. I would use work phone instead because at least that's blocked from telemarketing. Granted, they don't have my name, but they 1) could compare with lists of names previously associated with that number and 2) might learn that it's a valid number (assuming no caller ID blocking and unblocking one-upsmanship).

      Um, not quite sure what you're getting at by mentioning gift cards. You use it, and when its done, your relationship with them has ended. If you have a membership card, i'd say you have a current relationship with them, and thus they could call you.

    16. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      how does hurting the employees hurt the company? Sure, if all the telemarketers were delayed, they would get less sales

      I guess your second sentence there caught you off guard, since had you seen it coming you'd have known the answer to your question.

    17. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if all the telemarketers were delayed, they would get less sales

      Bingo! But it doesn't even require that *all* of them be delayed, just a significant minority. Your argument is akin to "my vote won't count."

    18. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt it.

      While I'm certain telemarketing employees receive bonuses for the stuff they sell, minimum wage laws at the very least would dictate that they also receive some form of salary. And I doubt that these people also pay for the phone calls, which, given the use of call centers and the like, are almost certainly almost-always long distance.

      And that's without covering the per-employee cost of equipment, lines, office space, etc.

      The more employees required to make a sale, the most expensive per-sale that operation becomes. So yes, it directly hurts the telemarketing company to keep their employees on the phone constantly.

      I might also add that my heart doesn't exactly bleed for these people. They should get real jobs. The fact that telemarketing is legal doesn't make it ethical, it doesn't make it a legitimate career choice. If it hurts both the employer and the employee, more power to it. I appreciate you may feel that's "childish", but I honestly don't see how anyone can consider telemarketing a legitimate career to be involved in. There are a whole load of crappy jobs in existance, telemarketing is the only one that springs to mind that's actually completely and utterly immoral.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's why I love to keep telemarketers on the
      > line as long as possible.

      Only if your time means nothing to you ...

      Hmmm, where did I hear this phrase before ?

    20. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Olathe · · Score: 1

      If they weren't making enough money from a telemarketing job because of such callers, what should they do ? If they're lazy morons or morons without any friends to give them simple job-seeking advice, they'd stay there and complain or be depressed. If not, they'd start looking for a decent job so they could switch.

      There are always openings available. Most may be crap jobs, but what is telemarketing ? They don't even need to take time out of their day, just ask cashiers (or even managers) at places they frequent about job openings.

    21. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by eabell · · Score: 1

      Back in college we had a game of this. Obviously we were too dirt poor to buy anything, and being geeky losers, we had little social life for such things to interfere with.

      I forget the exact rules. It was point-based, though, and you got certain points based on how many minutes you held the telemarketer on the land. Then you got bonus points for inducing them into profanity, getting them to say certain phrases, getting successfully transferred to someone else, getting hung up on, etc.

      Okay. So it was fun at the moment...

    22. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, if the ones in charge don't provide other job opportunities, then NO, she can't find another job. You obviously don't understand the job market. This is no wonderland where you can pick whatever job you want.
      I agree that some jobs are just immoral, but blaming the people who do it isn't the right way. It's the guy proposing the job who's to blame, as much as the corporations buying the telemarketing service in this case.
      Would you die hungry if you couldn't find a job that suits your moral needs ??

    23. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by AJWM · · Score: 1

      because she can not find anything else

      There's always something else.

      Just ask them: "Do you ever look at other ways of making money?" ... and then launch into your Amway pitch.

      --
      -- Alastair
    24. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Spoken like someone who's never truly hit hard times. Move out of your parent's basement yet, little buddy?

      No, turdburglar, reality is you can't always "find another job." The economy in some towns is shit. And you can't "just move someplace else" when you can't even pay the rent or feed yourself and the car's about to be repo'd. And McDonald's doesn't pay the bills, either. Telemarketing is a shitty job, but it pays fairly well compared to minimum wage. Sometimes life doesn't hand you neat little choices.

      And panhandlers come up to me on the street all the time asking for money. I either give them some money if I have it (and feel like giving it away) or say sorry and move on with my life. I don't piss and moan about how inconvenienced I am by the fact that someone else is trying to feed themselves.

      So, grow the fuck up and get some perspective.

    25. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it fucking well isn't.

      A retail job at the mall most likely pays minimum wage. Telemarketing can pay $10 an hour, sometimes more, which is a hell of a lot of money to some people. Plus, some telemarketing jobs can be done from home, which means that single mother doesn't have to pay half or all her daily wages for child care.

    26. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes life doesn't let you calmly pick and choose among jobs that are in your "legitimate career" path. Sometimes you get laid off, or sick, and have to pay the rent and feed yourself, and you have to do it right now. When that happens, a telemarketing job that pays almost twice minimum wage does start looking pretty good. A "real job" is one that keeps you alive. And utterly immoral? So you have to answer your phone, big fucking deal, you spoiled piece of shit. Just hang up.

      Maybe you can "honestly see" how someone can get involved in a job they don't like when you get out from in front of your computer and hit upon some genuine hard times, Nerdlinger. Until then, shut the fuck up.

    27. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by The+Vulture · · Score: 1

      I worked for a telemarketing company, as a temporary job before I got my "big break" in Silicon Valley. It was during the summer between my fourth and fifth years in university, just after the computer store that I worked at closed down.

      The way that the pay structure worked for the company I worked for was that we got paid an hourly rate (in my case, $8 per hour, a 40-hour work week), and we got a bonus for achieving certain quotas. This was in Ontario, Canada, and $8 per hour was pretty good, considering that most other student jobs were starting at minimum wage (which at that time, I believe was $6.45 per hour).

      Nonetheless, these people running the telemarketing are a bunch of dishonest cheaters. Among the things that they did:
      1. They forced us to come in Canadian holidays, instead giving us American holidays off (I believe that the Ontario Ministry of Labor gave them flak for that).
      2. Some of the telemarketers had very questionable tactics, yet the company did not discipline them (even when management was aware that it was a problem).
      3. The company tried to avoid giving out the bonuses at all costs. If a particular salesperson was close to meeting the quotas, they would put that salesperson on a different call list, where they were almost assured to not meet the quotas.
      4. If somebody actually made the quota, they rarely got the bonus check. I know somebody who this personally happened to.

      I only spent two months working as a telemarketer, but I absolutely hated it. When I got home at night I felt awful about the products I was selling, and some of the tactics that people were using. But it was either have a job or get kicked out of the apartment, so I kept doing it. I didn't really have time to find a better job, considering that I was going back to school in another couple of months (but then I got a job in the Valley and didn't go back).

      People get into it probably because it's an easy job to do, it's not menial labor and the pay is (in most cases) better than minimum wage, which is pathetic.

      -- Joe

    28. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

      Making a single mother's life hell when she's resorted to working for a call center because she can not find anything else is not going to solve the problem.

      Well, you might as well join a gang and be a hitman. Or a person who makes "problems go away" with a baseball bat and a few friends. Or you can start selling drugs. Or become a prostitute. Believe me, you can make more money this way.

      Because the jobs listed above are illegal, and law has not declared telemarketing as illegal does not mean people will accept being harassed for their time and money through the telephone.

      What should be done for single mothers, is the gov't must step in and help. If you have to resort to telemarketing(which is a crime IMO), then something's wrong with the gov't.

    29. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Sometimes you get laid off, or sick, and have to pay the rent and feed yourself, and you have to do it right now. When that happens, a telemarketing job that pays almost twice minimum wage does start looking pretty good.
      It does indeed. As does prostitution, dealing drugs, mugging people, holding up banks, picking pockets, and a whole host of other ways of getting money, some legal, some not so.

      That doesn't make any of them moral. There are a whole host of legitimate jobs out there, and there's welfare on top of that if there are problems getting those jobs. I fully support someone's right to be on welfare if they can't get a reasonable job. I don't support someone finding any method, no matter how immoral, no matter how much of a nuisance they cause to others, to make money. There are limits. Telemarketing is one of them.

      Oh, and fuckwit: I'm been on welfare. I know exactly how hard it is. I spent nearly two years on it during the tech recession in the mid-nineties and used my time to improve my skills and my employability. No matter how far into despair I got, I never was tempted by telemarketing. But then I wasn't tempted by prostitution, dealing drugs, mugging people, holding up banks, or picking pockets either.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    30. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by dorsey · · Score: 1

      They could always start selling drugs. At least people want drug dealers...

      --
      hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
    31. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard that if you have a business relationship with an entity, you may request at any time that they do not contact you any further, and they must comply (debt collection notwithstanding). Is this true?

    32. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by interJ · · Score: 1
      I don't think a lot of telemarketers would agree with you, since their salary usually depends on the number of sales they make and this kind of call would just waste time.

      Added to this I would like to say that annoying telemarkers may seem fun but these people are almost always in a bind and do not want to work there either.

      To use Dave Barry's analogy, I'm sure muggers are also in a bind and would rather do something else. Basically you're annoying people for a living, and then complain when they try to annoy you back.

    33. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by lrucker · · Score: 1
      Bullshit - yet another variation of "it's for the children". She can find some other job.

      Yeah, she could go work for SCO

    34. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      This is precisely why I do it. The longer I keep this person on the line, the less time the caller has to make calls to other people. Ergo, fewer people will be contacted, and fewer people will be strongarmed into buying something they really didn't want in the first place.

      I know that the person on the other end has a rough life, and that they'd rather be doing something else. I sympathize, but that sympathy is tempered by the fact that these companies aren't helpfully connecting willing customers to valuable goods and services. Most sales come because, at the end of all the excuses the person on the other end of the line has tried, they still haven't found a way to deny the telemarketer without being rude and just saying "Not interested."

      You argue that the telemarketing companies aren't hurt, but this isn't true at all. I worked at an inbound call center for a short time, and our $8/hr salaries represented only a quarter of the cost of having a telemarketer on the phone. Infrastructure, phone lines, management, oversight, quality control, and many other factors dwarfed what we were actually being paid. They turned a profit by billing the customer (the company paying us to be there) somewhere around $60 an hour.

      Finally, if this tactic costs the telemarketer salary, I'm not happy about it. But perhaps that reduced salary will impel them to look for a job where their employer isn't a worthless leech on the intestinal tract of humanity, in which case I'm overjoyed.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    35. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Bobulusman · · Score: 1

      I understand your viewpoint, but IMHO, it's better to more directly go after the companies (like with the Do not call list or more strict rules on what they can do) rather then try to hurt the company by making the lives of people with crappy jobes even worse.

      --
      Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    36. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't try and make their lives hell. If I can get them talking about their day, their love life, or their family, it still accomplishes my goal. Plus they get to feel like somebody is sympathetic, and sometimes they lead fascinating lives.

      Sadly, the best telemarketers are always the hardest to draw off topic, and they're also the first to sniff out the fact that I'm not really interested.

      I'm always as polite as possible. I don't think they deserve verbal abuse.

      As a former telemarketer, maybe you could answer a few questions. What percentage of calls led to sales? Of those, what percent do you think were sincerely interested in the service, and what percentage do you think were just being polite? I've always been under the impression that most sales were made because the person just wanted to be polite.

      Any horror stories would also be entertaining.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    37. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other parts of the world, and in centuries past, people have been forced into prostitution when they can't pay their bills. When people who feel sorry for them, the answer isn't to go and have sex with them as much as possible so that they'll have money to put food on the table. The answer is to reform the system.

    38. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      The exception is a CURRENT buisiness relationship...not a prior one.

      Not exactly.

      Q: My number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. After I bought something from a company, a telemarketer representing that organization called me. Is this a violation?

      A: No. Even if you put your number on the National Do Not Call Registry, a company with which you have an established business relationship may call you for up to 18 months after your last purchase or delivery from it, or your last payment to it, unless you ask the company not to call again. (In that case, the company must honor your request not to call. If they subsequently call you again, they may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.) Also, if you make an inquiry to a company or submit an application to it, for three months afterwards the company can call you. If you make a specific request to that company not to call you, however, then the company may not call you, even if you have an established business relationship with that company.

      Emphasis added.

    39. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a river. If mudering babies paid better than minimum wage, does that make it right? The problem with the world is simple: people have no ethics when it comes to covering their own ass. That's why an idiot like you defends telemarketers--and you use their very same techniques of emotional coercion.

      Perhaps if you got yourself educated intstead of knocked up you wouldn't wake up to find that you've become satan's mouthpiece. Or asspiece.

    40. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      Spoken like someone who's never truly hit hard times. Move out of your parent's basement yet, little buddy? No, turdburglar, reality is you can't always "find another job."

      Aside: I find the mentality remarkable on Slashdot when an Anonymous Pussy reply that leads off with calling someone a turdburglar gets modded as interesting. Ah, the value of a fourth-grade education shows once again.

      Telemarketing is a shitty job, but it pays fairly well compared to minimum wage.

      There are a lot of shitty jobs in the world that are honest and don't involve harassing people that you damn well know don't want to be harassed - but oh, whine, whine, if it pays more than minimum wage then it's acceptable to bug the shit out of people. What self-respect would you sell and what would you be willing to do for twice minimum wage oh spineless one?

      I don't piss and moan about how inconvenienced I am by the fact that someone else is trying to feed themselves.

      Congratulations to contributing to the early death of many alcoholics. Sleep better?

      So, grow the fuck up and get some perspective.

      Yawn.

    41. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She "felt sorry" for them?!? WTF? Hmmm. Well on the positive side I think she needs a web sever setup. After all the so-and-so's accross the street have one. Right guys? ;)

    42. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making a single mother's life hell when she's resorted to working for a call center because she can not find anything else is not going to solve the problem.

      That's where you're wrong. If my on-phone lectures to telemarketers about how they are the most pathetic ostracized losers without real jobs makes them miserable and unhappy enough about their job to stop, that's one less person making outbound telemarketing calls. How is that not solving the problem? If they truly have absolutely nowhere else to turn to (eg: holding a cardboard sign by a freeway off-ramp, prostitution, selling body parts on the black market) then I guess they'll just have to commit suicide, which you might consider terrible, but which I contend would still constitute a solution to the problem of telemarketing.

      The bottom line is that anyone associated with the propogation or continuation of telemarketing should encounter nothing but attempts by all humans that they contact to make them more miserable than they already are, because that will cause them to stop telemarketing.

      Keep it legal, polite, and focused, and attack telemarketers with all of the creative negativity that you can muster. Treat every telemarketing call that you receive as an opportunity to damage the psyche and emotional wellbeing of the telemarketer.

    43. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by chaddarland · · Score: 1

      I was recently a manager at Barnes & Nobles, and they do *not* sell any customer information. To anybody.

      There are also absolutely no unauthorized mailings, phone calls, or email.

      They realize that happy customers are essential in the retail book business, and try their hardest not to piss them off.

      Also, you can check the balance at any of the B&N stores, and I thinkyou can also do so online at B&N.com.

      --
      God is dead -- Nietsche

      Nietsche is dead! - God

    44. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by WNight · · Score: 1

      Heard of the soup kitchen?

      Hey, I'm broke and I really want to keep cable TV and net access, so because I can't find work I really want I'm going to come steal your stuff. But, I've got no choice you see... It's actually immoral of you to complain. In fact, to save time and make it easier for me in this tough world, could I ask that you have your stuff packed in the original shipping materials and sitting on the porch around 10pm, or would 11:30 work better for you? I can stop by either on my way to of from the video rental store.

      You're the one who's never been down and out. When you stop worrying about keeping your car and the TV, let alone cable TV, there's someone there to keep you from hitting rock bottom. They may drone on about god while you eat but at least they'll give you food. Starvation *does not happen* in North America, unless you choose it. We are so far from truly down and out that it's not even funny.

    45. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Geekbot · · Score: 1

      It will solve the problem if the company has to close shop because not only the single mother but enough of the others employeed there cannot make any valid sales calls.

      I cant believe these stupid reasons people keep giving. I mean, these callers themselves are not absolutely evil, but that's their job. Of course they are going to piss people off. They're calling people at their homes and harrassing them into buying things they don't need and using deceptive means to do so. They're tying up resources that honest citizens have paid for (their phones). So no, I don't feel the least bit of pity if the "lowly" workers at these companies all go broke at their job. I want them to. I want every single telemarketing employee to be dead broke so that no one will ever take that job ever again. And I'm not meanspirited for that. They are playing a game of them against me, they are doing it for cash, and I want them to lose.

    46. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by SuperLiquidSex · · Score: 0

      You must be in a nice state where welfare pays for stuff. Where I'm at I'd make more money at mcdonalds then on welfare. I'd rather be a telemarketer calling dipshits like you then be working 60-80 hour weeks in fastfood. Also telemarketing is signifigantly less off a problem than your other examples.

      --
      Oops....you'll know what I'm talkin about in a bit.
    47. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was recently a manager at Barnes & Nobles, and they do *not* sell any customer information.

      Sorry, but I don't believe you. I don't normally get much junk mail, but I got a ton of book club offers and such after I got my BN Readers Advantage card.

    48. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I dunno, I'd argue that prostitution and drug dealing are not immoral per se. They are only offering services that others wish to purchase.

      Don't confuse drug dealers with drug pushers. The fact they merely sell drugs doens't mean they're running around hooking small children on them by giving out free samples in playgrounds. Many people who sell drugs in this country are just drug users who know where to get it in bulk, cheap, so they sell off their extra and make enough to cover their own drugs. Many of them neither need nor want more customers.

      Of course, that's not to pretend all drug dealers are fine, upstanding citizens, most aren't. But selling someone some drugs is not an inherently immoral act, unless you believe that using drugs is an inherently immoral act.

      Likewise, I don't really have an objection to prostitutes at all, and I don't really understand why anyone else does. I have an objection to how they advertise, if you ever end up in a part of town where they are, and attempt to walk down the street, you'll be harrassed, but that's mainly due to a lack of legal means of advertising.

      But the actual service hookers sell is even less objectionable then, say, selling cigarettes. No one gets addicted, there are a few slight risks, but everyone's had those drilled into them since childhood. (And hookers aren't notably more likely to have STD than random sexually active people.)

      Telemarketing, now...telemarketing is like someone's figured out how to steal a single item of change out of people's pocket, and they've managed to legalize the damn thing. This is much worse than pickpocketing. Not only have these thieves somehow got the idea they aren't thieves, but no one realizes they're getting stolen from, unless you one of the people where the telemarketers illegally turn their machine on you repeatedly and steal all your change every day.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    49. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a really funny story, and it's actually pretty cool...provided that you're 15 years old. Eventually, hopefully, you'll reach a point where you stop wasting your time on moronic garbage like that.

    50. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What self-respect would you sell and what would you be willing to do for twice minimum wage oh spineless one?

      Heh! I'm reminded of the exchange:

      'Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?'
      'Yes.'
      'Would you sleep with me for a dollar?'
      'What kind of lady do you think I am?!'
      'We've already established what kind of lady you are, we're just negotiating a price.'

      Tell me, Anonymous Coward, what kind of unethical job would you do, and for what price? We know you're willing to annoy (Let's estimate three minutes a person.) 20 people for ten dollars, repeatedly. That's a person for 50 cents.

      Now, would you murder an infant for a billion dollars? Does the method of murder matter, would you charge more for having to stab it vs. smothering it? Would you steal a pack of chewing gum for a dollar? Does the flavor matter?

      Would you punch an old lady in the face for a thousand? An old man? Would you mock a crippled man for a twenty? Does it go up if it's a war veteran?

      Would you beat a dog to death for a million? What if it was an annoying dog, like a poodle? Would you key someone's car for a fiver? Is the color relevant?

      What, exactly, are your standards, and what is your price?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    51. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Like I said elsewhere here, if I saw someone holding a sign saying 'Too moral to be a telemarketer, can't get any other job, please help', I'd be more likely to give them money.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    52. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      For the most part I agree. Actually I knew a drug dealer at University and he genuinely was a moral person, trying to do the right thing where he could. Should really have thought about it a little more before including those two "professions".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    53. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Often these people are young, in my age range, and I know how hard it is to find a job these days. I feel bad for saying no, no, no to them, but really, I'm not interested. And I wouldn't buy from them just so they can keep their job, either.

    54. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Channard · · Score: 1
      They could just as easily get a job at the local mall.

      Plus while they'd still get stressed due to sucky customers at least the majority of people they'd be dealing with actually are interested in the products they'd be selling.

    55. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at a call center in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.

      Telemarketing companies look for the lowest common denominator to employ. That's why they love regions like Atlantic Canada. High unemployment, low wages, cheap running costs. Unfortunately, the provincial government chalks headlines like "800 new jobs in call centre" as a win. To me that's no different than reading "800 new jobs created in puppy-puree mill".

      The worst of it is that the majority of the calls from your call center would go to the U.S.; a perfect example of NIMBY.

    56. Re:Do not call lists will lower sales by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      Outside of long distance telephone companies, my favorite is to ask the caller to "hold on, someone's at the door." I park the handset next to the TV speaker, or lately, on top of the aquarium pump. They get a nice humm. After a few minutes, I grab the phone, ask them to "hang on... just a minute... " I've stretched this out to more than 20 minutes on several occasions.

      With long distance telephone companies, I usually ask a lot of questions, starting with full name and number of the person, their supervisor, where they're located, etc. Sometimes, they panic and disconnect. These are the slammers that will change your long distance without telling you. Careful with these people... especially if it's some no-name company.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
  18. Yes, but it costs them money by skizrule · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if you only get a recorded message, they pay toll fees for every incoming call. Once you start hearing a busy signal, their cost is zero.

    1. Re:Yes, but it costs them money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It's difficult not to see some malice in Mr. Barry's intent," said Tim Searcy, executive director of the ATA, who said the added calls will be costly to his group because of toll charges and staffing issues.

      Domain Name: ATACONNECT.ORG
      Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Fanger, Robert (DUMHRQNOBI) rfanger@fangercom.com
      Fanger Communications
      238 S. Meridian St.
      Ste. 210
      Indianapolis, IN 46225
      US
      317-636-7635

      Searcy, Tim
      8645 Admirals Woods Dr
      INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
      317-823-8462

    2. Re:Yes, but it costs them money by slamb · · Score: 1
      Even if you only get a recorded message, they pay toll fees for every incoming call. Once you start hearing a busy signal, their cost is zero.

      They've called my cell phone before, and that cost me money. When I warned them, they did not do it again, but they should have checked more thoroughly to begin with. So I don't have much sympathy for them when they whine that we are costing them money.

  19. Re:Screen your calls by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    Livelyhood? Let me guess, you're one of the people spamming or phoning millions of people who don't want to know about the crap you're peddling. You see it as your right to intrude on people's time and privacy in a sad attempt to make money selling something someone else creates the value for. Maybe you consider yourself an entrepruneur, but you're a bottom feeder at best - go get a real job and stop pissing people off for a living.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  20. Bob Weiner strikes back at telemarketers... by BobWeiner · · Score: 1

    Dave's not the only one pissed at telemarketers. Here's what I propose we do to them. Of course, this is probably the best solution.

    --
    The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
  21. Love that Dave Barry by GomezAdams · · Score: 3, Funny

    But in a guy sort of way.... and "The National Do Not Call List" sounds like a great name for a Rock & Roll Band.

    --
    Too lazy to create a sig...
  22. Talk Like a Pirate by brians95 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not to be left out should be the fact that you should call the telemarketers and talk like a pirate next Friday as Mr. Barry suggests!

    http://www.talklikeapirate.com/

    1. Re:Talk Like a Pirate by TDScott · · Score: 1

      Arr, and I be obliged to be postin' a link for the British HQ for the day, yarr.org.uk. We be havin' pirate ringtones for yer phone, too, an' a guide on how to be proper takin' like a pirate. Yarr.

    2. Re:Talk Like a Pirate by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "September 19th: Talk like a pirate day"

      Let the anti-piracy companies sort that one out.

      Headline: Today the RIAA confirmed it's belief that the entire world was composed of pirates, as 37 million americans answered their phone with a slurred "Arrh?", and started their team-meetings with the phrase "Avast, me hearties, ye have no business for me?". Darth Vadress herself was quoted as saying "this is the proof we need to start building our detainment facility for 12-year-old pirates"

    3. Re:Talk Like a Pirate by FPCat · · Score: 1

      How about Aarh, Matey, have ye got any warez?

  23. New Number is Listed on their Site by CoolQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    On their site, they list a new contact number:
    (866) 500-4272
    As others have pointed out, their old number has been disconnected.

    --Quentin

    1. Re:New Number is Listed on their Site by CvD · · Score: 1

      So is it toll free when you can internationally too? That would be cool.

      I called them, didn't get a person on the phone, unfortunately, but an answering machine. I left some them a foreshadowing of Talk Like A Pirate Day, on 19th of September, with a loud "aaarrrr!" Hope they enjoy it.

    2. Re:New Number is Listed on their Site by nettdata · · Score: 2, Informative

      It just worked from Vancouver, BC. :)

      I just called, gave them a fictitious name, and then asked them to call me back on their now un-listed phone number. :)

      Made my day.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    3. Re:New Number is Listed on their Site by kst · · Score: 1

      So is it toll free when you can internationally too? That would be cool.

      I think it's toll free only from within area covered by NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Administration). I think there's a special area code that lets you call an 800 number from outside North America and pay a toll, and corresponding codes for 888, 877, etc.; I don't remember what they are.

    4. Re:New Number is Listed on their Site by CvD · · Score: 1

      Well, I called the number listed as toll free on their page and got through... but I assume that I probably paid regular toll for calling to the US (I have one fixed toll price for the whole of the US).

      Ah well, just curious. :-)

  24. Just like ant-spammer tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Dave Barry has a good idea here - just as spammers get their details posted on the web and people sign them up for all sorts of unsolicited (e)mail, phone numbers of members of the American Teleservices Association should be made available so that they can experience the joys of unsolicited calls. Obviously, they won't be on the 'do not call' register, so it should be perfectly legal.

    1. Re:Just like ant-spammer tactics by KernelHappy · · Score: 1

      Commercial numbers are uneligable for do not call lists. In other words if they pay an employee $30/hr and they spend 4 hours a week dealing with unsolicited callers, oh well they're out $120. Then again it's not like they could do anything about it if the caller doesn't give you all their information

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
  25. New Number: they don't pick it up by axxackall · · Score: 1

    The autoanswering machine is auto-answering my call. Well, let's flood their tapes :)

    --

    Less is more !
  26. We should be careful about this by nenya · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the numbers that the telemarketing industry is throwing about are even half right, this could end our current economic recovery. Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October. That plus a huge boost in unemployed (and otherwise unemployable) persons is a very bad thing. Be careful what you wish for.

    1. Re:We should be careful about this by gilroy · · Score: 1

      Yes, and then the terrorists win...

      How about taking the demagoguery elsewhere? No one has to protect invalid business models (listening, RIAA?). If people want the products, the sales will be generated anyway. If people don't want the products, then the sales are improper. The numbers come from the ATA itself and are very very suspect.

    2. Re:We should be careful about this by CommieOverlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Several billion dollars will not suddenly vanish from the US economy. People will spend their money in other ways or put in the banks (which then invest it). Only if everyone takes the money and sticks it under their mattresses will it make any difference.

    3. Re:We should be careful about this by phidiot · · Score: 1

      Boo hoo. Aren't telemarketing companies sending all of their business offshore to India? These jobs were going to be lost anyway.

    4. Re:We should be careful about this by xplenumx · · Score: 1

      If the numbers that the telemarketing industry is throwing about are even half right, this could end our current economic recovery. Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October. Be careful what you wish for.

      I've never understood this logic. Telemarketers get (earn?) their money from customers, so if they can't contact potential customers then the customers are left with some additional disposable income. The customer says "Hey! I have some extra money" and they go out and buy an extra shirt. The money doesn't disappear from the economy, it just moves to a different area.

      Similarly I've never understood why sick days "cause millions of damage to our economy each year!" (especially since vacations days don't create the same headlines). A sick person tends to buy cold medicine and visit the doctor (or Six Flags)... isn't that pumping money into those sectors?

    5. Re:We should be careful about this by D'Arque+Bishop · · Score: 1

      Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October.

      Although, sometimes I really wonder if the system by which they get those figures is the same one the RIAA uses...

    6. Re:We should be careful about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October.

      Only if the suggestible people who would have bought some dreck from the telemarketers burn that unspent cash. Methinks they'll probably spend it on something else, and probably something much more worthwhile than whatever shit the telemarketers were flogging.

    7. Re:We should be careful about this by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      > 'Similarly I've never understood why sick days "cause millions of damage to our economy each year!" (especially since vacations days don't create the same headlines). A sick person tends to buy cold medicine and visit the doctor (or Six Flags)... isn't that pumping money into those sectors?'

      If the person remained healthy and working, they would have produced something of economic value during those healthy days, AND they would have some extra money available to spend on something else other than drugs and doctors. So sick days do cause not just millions, but billions of economic damage as a result of lost production. The difference is not in what they would have otherwise spent during the sick days, but in what they would have produced.

      Vacation days and weekends may also cause some economic loss, but that isn't necessarily a big problem because most people who just work work work work without taking days off end up becoming less productive on a per-day basis, and the increased stress eventually leads to more illnesses, resulting in days off anyway. In addition, there is value that people place on getting days off, even if it can't always be measured in dollars. In other words, most people are willing to forgo the extra cash income in order to have vacation days and holidays available.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    8. Re:We should be careful about this by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Telemarketers wouldn't feel this threatened unless convinced the sign-up will be huge, meaning millions of normally lethargic people (look at voter turnout) so dislike their calls they'll go out of their way to make them stop. The level of threat is directly proportional to the degree of contempt and annoyance caused by unsolicited calls, and by expressing such concern for their future the Association is admiting people really do hate them and want no part of their services. It's hard to feel sympathy for such parasites.

    9. Re:We should be careful about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although, sometimes I really wonder if the system by which they get those figures is the same one the RIAA uses...

      Yep. We got it off Kazaa.

      Anonymous Telemarketer.

    10. Re:We should be careful about this by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that people won't spend the money that they spend on telemarketing products on something else? I'm sorry, but the junk sold by telemarketers doesn't make anyone work more efficiently, or produce any greater economic activity. In fact, everyone would likely be a bit happier and maybe more productive if the telemarketers dropped off the face of the planet since people aren't being interrupted at dinner time by telemarketing.

      Telemarketing jobs are dead-end low pay jobs. Losing these jobs wouldn't be like losing good paying jobs in a major industry like the auto-industry. Furthermore the advertising money that's currently going to telemarketing companies will just go to other promotional sources. Maybe some of that will be internet advertising, which would help a certain segment of geeks out their that do web development? Maybe not... The point is that telemarketing isn't a particularly great part of the economy that wouldn't be quickly replaced by some other industry.

      --
      AccountKiller
    11. Re:We should be careful about this by Fiver-rah · · Score: 1
      Telemarketing is an inherently inefficient form of selling though. If you were really buying things that had Actual Utility for you, you wouldn't have to have it crammed down your throat. It's much better to have people spend their hard-earned money on things they want--like books, eating out, and new laptops--than to have it wasted propping up a portion of the economy that provides no actual benefit.

      It does the economy more good for people to spend there money where they deem it appropriate than to allow people to push profligate spending on things that really should just die.

      --
      Read Bujold. Free (as in
    12. Re:We should be careful about this by DF5JT · · Score: 1

      " If the numbers that the telemarketing industry is throwing about are even half right, this could end our current economic recovery. Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October. That plus a huge boost in unemployed (and otherwise unemployable) persons is a very bad thing. Be careful what you wish for."

      An economic recovery dependent on money spent by consumers only is a Bad Thing [tm] anyway. In fact, it is a vicious cycle that can only so long disguise the fact that the US economy is in extremely bad health anyway. Half of the "economic recovery" is based on defense spending and that money comes from a constantly rising deficit of the state.

      Have you guys realized that the US is basically bankrupt?

      How many *millions* of people do you have over there, who will never be able to earn their living with a job that requires a little more than half a brain?

      These are the first jobs that will cease to exist very soon, since people can do without telemarketers, super market bag clowns and all those other jobs that do not contribute to anything relevant in economic terms, other than generate a cash flow within those who don't have cash in the first place.

      You'll then end up with a couple of millions of people without qualification, perspective, educational background and money to pay taxes.

      Another couple of years and these millions of people will forma critical mass that spells trouble at no end.

      But I am sure there are some smart guys out there, who have already found a solution to keep these people quiet.

    13. Re:We should be careful about this by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Vacation days and weekends may also cause some economic loss, but that isn't necessarily a big problem because most people who just work work work work without taking days off end up becoming less productive on a per-day basis, and the increased stress eventually leads to more illnesses, resulting in days off anyway. In addition, there is value that people place on getting days off, even if it can't always be measured in dollars. In other words, most people are willing to forgo the extra cash income in order to have vacation days and holidays available.

      And people who never take sick days off when they get sick fall over dead after awhile, and never produce anything again :)

      (This of course doesn't apply to the people taking sick days off so they can go skiing)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  27. Re:Screen your calls by crossconnects · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's pretty hard to screen your calls when they block caller ID.

    --
    no big sig
  28. I smell a shill! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is the kind of dangerous thinking that brings abortion clinic bombings, the ongoing fighting between northern and southern Ireland, the danger in the Middle East, and countless other bloodbaths.

    It is too bad Slashdot doesn't have a -1, Shill moderation... I would use it on you.

    I mean, to compare a grass-roots protest of an organizations business tactics to the senseless slaughter of thousands of civillians is the sort of logical leap that only a maniac (or a shill) could make. Dude, get a clue. Telemarketers are leeches on society. The list of people that telemarketing benefits is very short, and consumers are most definitely not on it. I get the feeling, though, that if I could check the payroll/stockholder's list of all the telemarketing firms everywhere that I would eventually stumble across your name.

    The function of a telemarketer is to sell products at inflated prices to impulse buyers. If you ever find yourself listening to a telemarketer spiel and thinking "This sounds useful" hang up immediately, and Google for the same product. Odds are pretty good you will find something better, cheaper, or both without looking too hard.

    That is the whole purpose of telemarketing: To push overpriced products onto people who are dumb/suggestible enough to buy something from a stranger who called them randomly on the phone. How do you know it isn't somebody playing a prank? Or collecting CC#'s for fraud purposes?

    While I understand this doesn't mean ALL telemarketers are evil lawbreakers, I do know that all telemarketers are ANNOYING and are selling things that a careful shopper could get much more cheaply by doing a tiny amount of research.
    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:I smell a shill! by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct term, since we dont know if he's on payroll, is 'pussy apologist'.

  29. ATA numbers that work by user138 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since those guys have turneed off the 877 number here is updated contact info: Administrative Office: 3815 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 20 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Toll Free: (866)) 500-4272 info@ataconnect.org Legislative Office: 1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Toll Free: (866) 500-4272 info@ataconnect.org give em a jingle.. i am

    1. Re:ATA numbers that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez guys, lighten up. Be nice and send them a pizza instead. ;)

    2. Re:ATA numbers that work by Pionar · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're here in Indy? Looks like someone's about to get some "unsolicited" pizza. How about 10 large pepperoni?

  30. Junk Mail? by spoonist · · Score: 4, Informative

    And their address is published at the bottom of their web site.

    Perhaps they'd like some junk mail too.

    American Teleservices Association

    1666 K Street NW Suite 1200

    Washington, DC 20006

    877-779-3974

    info@ataconnect.org

    1. Re:Junk Mail? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps they'd like some junk mail too.
      American Teleservices Association
      1666 K Street NW Suite 1200
      "

      As if, even an office-junior at the catalog-mailing company isn't going to spot that one! At least address your catalog requests to the right person:

      "Dave, ATA, 1666 K street 1200"
      "Jeremy, ATA, 1666 K street 1200"
      "Lisa, ATA, 1666 K street 1200"

    2. Re:Junk Mail? by macrom · · Score: 1

      Not surprising that they have '666' in their address...

    3. Re:Junk Mail? by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      Heee heee, it appears that they disconnected their phone number due to the high volume of calls.
      Did someone do a Slashdot on their PBX system? hehehehe! ;D

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  31. This is not o.k. by Krapangor · · Score: 1, Troll

    It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.
    Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.
    If it's illegal then leave the revenge to the goverment.
    I mean otherwise it would be like shooting people who break into your home etc.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:This is not o.k. by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 1
      It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.

      In this case, the people calling aren't even first checking to ensure that the telemarketer they're calling is one that's ever contacted them in the first place.

      As I said to another slashdotter, if you're mugging someone because you believe they're in the habit of mugging others, or because you think they look like somebody who's mugged you in the past, I don't see where you've established the moral high ground.

      Attacking these people's phone systems is just plain wrong.

    2. Re:This is not o.k. by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 1

      It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.

      Why not? Have you any justification for that statement?

      Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.

      Certainly I, or anyone, can. Perhaps you mean we shouldn't harass them, butyou're wrong in that, also.

      As for illegality, that's the whole point. It's not illegal to call people; that's why there's a telemarketing industry! And, finally, shooting people who break into your house is often considered quite all right. Now go back to your telemarketing job.

    3. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, where I live it is legal and expected that you are going to shoot people who break into your home. People here do not shoot to wound either as "dead men tell no tales" (pirate reference in anticipation of Talk Like a Pirate Day!).

      Being secure in your home is about as fundamental a right as there is. What's next, not being allowed to punch someone who is beating on you?

      -- arugula

    4. Re:This is not o.k. by justin_speers · · Score: 1

      It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.

      It's O.K. if those people don't think it's a wrong, and you're doing it to make a valid point.

      Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.

      Yes, you can actually.

      If it's illegal then leave the revenge to the goverment.

      No one ever said it was illegal, and since when is the Government any good at doing anything for us?

      I mean otherwise it would be like shooting people who break into your home etc.

      Break into my home, and I WILL shoot you. No questions asked.

      Who modded up this third grader as insightful???

    5. Re:This is not o.k. by FroBugg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course it's ok. This is a group that does business with the public. The number being called was listed as a public contact number. It was made available so people could get in touch with the ATA and register their comments. That's what people were doing.

      Nobody gave out the home telephone number of a given telemarketer. Nobody sent mailbombs to the company, or tried to break in and cut their phone lines.

      People were just trying to make their opinions known to the company in a legitimate manner. The only thing out of the ordinary here is how many tried at once.

    6. Re:This is not o.k. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.

      Why not? It says so in the bible? Guess what, it's an invalid concept from an invalid religion you are quoting there. I have no such qualms, I am allowed under my religion to destroy that which opposes me. Neato huh?

      Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them.

      Yes we can! Watch!

      If it's illegal then leave the revenge to the goverment.

      Ha! Like that concept ever worked correctly.

      I mean otherwise it would be like shooting people who break into your home etc.

      You must be Euro-trash or something. In many parts of the United States (including my whole state) one has only to have "feared for one's life" and it's quite legal (and even encouraged by the local authorities) to respond to an intruder with lethal force.

    7. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Colorado, it is legal to shoot someone if they break into your home.

      P.S. Your analogy is pretty bad.

    8. Re:This is not o.k. by clifyt · · Score: 1

      "As I said to another slashdotter, if you're mugging someone because you believe they're in the habit of mugging others, or because you think they look like somebody who's mugged you in the past, I don't see where you've established the moral high ground."

      Whats wrong with that? If someone is thief, they deserve to be ripped off by each and everyone they come into contact with.

      The social penalty should be high enough that ever f'n mugger gets the clue that we take care of our society because if we don't, it won't take care of us. Its morally irresponsible of you to know someone is a thief and NOT take action.

      Moral high road? The ONLY moral high road is to do something like this.

      Heh! Kinda reminds me of an incident a few friends were involved with a few years back. Guy mugged them armed with a gun. Ran into the street and was hit by a car...not dead...but the car did the standard hit and run as was common in that area of town...i.e., the area of town where muggers walk freely. Guys gun was in the street. One of them grabbed it, and the other rolled him as he's bleeding screaming he's gonna kill the mf's. He had MUCH more cash on him than he had taken from the guys...and they took his wallet.

      Never called the police. Kept checking for the obits to see if he died (after all, they had his ID)...nope...probably layed there for a few hours before someone called.

      Anyone willing to treat you as solely a means to an end isn't human and you shouldn't be treated as inhuman for acting accordingly.

      I'm not saying that this is the case with telemarketters...but I wouldn't be at all upset if someone were to ruin their businesses with any means at their hands. Immoral companies deserve to be treated as such (heh! For the record I was totally for folks DDOS'ing your company Darl...please don't sue me. I think it was immoral of folks like RMS to tell these folks to stop.)

      Anywho, lets collectively mug the muggers...and then work our way up to the telemarketters and SCO.

    9. Re:This is not o.k. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do have a point. We live in a culture of hypocrisy. It's illegal to kill people, but if you do, we kill you. It's illegal to rape people, but if you do, we put you in prison, where you may get raped. It's illegal to speed, but the police do it, and not just in pursuit of criminals. I have seen cops speed up to make a yellow light and then pull into a parking lot and shut off, so they weren't in pursuit of anyone, but they tell you you're supposed to stop for a yellow if you can do so safely.

      On the other hand, this nation (Obviously, I'm a maricon) is built in part on civil disobedience, doing things which are clearly illegal under the current system, in order to change it. Boston Tea Party, anyone? And you are saying just because they annoy you, you can't harass them. Harassing someone who annoys you is walking up to someone on the street who's wearing neon clothes and yelling at them. This may be harassment, but it's harassment of someone who is harassing me, and above that, it is legal. So yes, just because they "annoy" me, I can "harass" them. Their number is published, it's freely available, and I can call it.

      As for shooting people who break into my home; I own guns. If someone breaks into my home and feels threatened, I will shoot them, and I will not care if I kill them. Actually, California state law pretty much encourages you to kill people, because if you don't then they can sue the shit out of you. Actually, you're better off killing them than scaring them off and having them break their ankle running down your steps, provided you can live with yourself afterward, and personally I don't think I'd have much trouble with that, although cleaning up the blood and having to think about a dead guy in a certain spot on my floor every time I walked over it would probably cause me a little mental anguish.

      The government isn't doing shit. I predict that a very small percentage of do not call list violations will actually result in a fine, but we'll see.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:This is not o.k. by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1

      I for one, think you are brilliant Krapangor. I wish i still had my mod points so I could mod you funny. Dont worry about all these other idiots who didnt get it.

      Of course, this is assuming that your post was supposed to be funny...

    11. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone broke into my home and I felt that the safety of my family or myself was in danger, I will shoot. I will kill if necessary. I'm not a gun nut -- I favor more restrictions on certain types of pistols and assault rifles, licensing, and mandatory firearms courses for gun owners -- but I've seen too many houses burglarized, too many people assaulted, killed or raped, to not be armed.

      So if you break into my home and steal my welcome mat then run away, you're safe. If you break into my bedroom at 2AM and I'm finishing off a game of nethack and I hear you, I will kill you. I will not shoot you in your kneecaps or ask you to surrender, I will kill you. Why? I don't want you suing me if I hurt you or cause you psychological damage.

      (BTW, I personally know a person who has been paralyzed by an intruder's gun, shot the intuder, then was sued.)

    12. Re:This is not o.k. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Er, let me rephrase something I said above and botched: If someone breaks into my house and I feel threatened... etc. If someone breaks into my house while I'm there, they'd better damn well feel threatened, because they bloody well will be. I have a girlfriend who I love and a bunch of posessions to protect, in that order.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, wouldn't it have been better for everyone if they had taken their money back, then called the police to take the guy in and book him so he was off the streets? By not doing that, he spent a couple weeks, or maybe months recovering from his wounds, and probably went right back to doing what he did before, whereas if the police got him, it would have been a few years before he got out and started robbing again. (And there's always the extremely slim policy that he might have been able to be helped while in jail and made a productive member of society, though that's extremely unlikely.)

      Wouldn't it also have been a better idea to have gotten the license number of the hit and runner, too, so that they, too could be taken off the streets to not hurt anyone further?

    14. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Attacking these people's phone systems is just plain wrong.

      Which is why Dave Barry is suggesting you call the ATA. You should call and tell them that you think their business model is reprehensible and that you won't do business with companies that are members of their group. If you don't do this, then they think what they're doing (attacking your phone system) is OK, and they continue to do it. Whereas if you tell them, they just might decide to change when they start feeling the pinch of it hitting their pocketbooks.

      Dumbass.

    15. Re:This is not o.k. by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      > "You do have a point. We live in a culture of hypocrisy. It's illegal to kill people, but if you do, we kill you. It's illegal to rape people, but if you do, we put you in prison, where you may get raped. It's illegal to speed, but the police do it, and not just in pursuit of criminals. I have seen cops speed up to make a yellow light and then pull into a parking lot and shut off, so they weren't in pursuit of anyone, but they tell you you're supposed to stop for a yellow if you can do so safely."

      Yes, cops do speed and rapes happen a lot in prison, but that's more of an inefficiency in enforcement and prevention rather than actual policy.

      Beyond that, locking up criminals or otherwise punishing them isn't hypocrisy in any way. A court forcing you to pay back a $1000 loan isn't morally the same as hacking into your credit card or bank account to extract $1000. Somebody shooting you because you first pointed a gun at them isn't the same as somebody shooting you because they don't like you. When somebody has done something wrong enough to deserve harm to their person or possessions, it isn't necessarily wrong to harm them.

      The law isn't hypocritical by saying that killing or locking up a person is wrong, because it doesn't say "killing and imprisonment is wrong in all circumstances whatsoever."

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    16. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right, let's make our own law, and fuck the system. Are you out of your mind ?

    17. Re:This is not o.k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you.

      Why not? It says so in the bible? Guess what, it's an invalid concept from an invalid religion you are quoting there. I have no such qualms, I am allowed under my religion to destroy that which opposes me. Neato huh?"

      Obviously you are somewhat familiar with the Bible. Perhaps you should skip ahead to the final chapter and compare that warning with the one given in the first chapter and then reconsider just how "invalid" it is. This is a God who keeps his word and seldom pulls his punch.

      Eventually we are all going to take part in rebuilding this planet back to idyllic conditions. Some of us as fertilizer.

    18. Re:This is not o.k. by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      Um, wouldn't it have been better for everyone if they had taken their money back, then called the police to take the guy in and book him so he was off the streets? By not doing that, he spent a couple weeks, or maybe months recovering from his wounds, and probably went right back to doing what he did before, whereas if the police got him, it would have been a few years before he got out and started robbing again.

      There is a fatal flaw in your logic. You aren't supposed to graze them and allow escape.

      Ending a criminal's petty life is, without a doubt, a much more effective way of 'taking them off the streets'.

    19. Re:This is not o.k. by phorm · · Score: 1

      I have seen cops speed up to make a yellow light and then pull into a parking lot and shut off

      Cops are human too, and they quite often pull the same stupid stunts. It's also just as illegal for them to do so, in fact, penalties can be worse because of their position of power/trust.

      For example, if a cop was found to be speeding without reason and slammed into a civilian vehicle, injuring/killing the individuals inside, they would get reamed nicely in court (of course, the force would likely try to cover them, but they can still go down).

      Cops aren't above the law, but many seem to thing they are because they represent a portion of it. Just remember that not all of those represent the majority of police: many of these are fine individuals who would put themselves in harms way for you or many other ordinary citizens.

    20. Re:This is not o.k. by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      having to think about a dead guy

      You sexist pig! Women are criminals too!

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
  32. Even Better by buzzcutbuddha · · Score: 5, Funny

    Call the Chairman of the ATA at home!!!!!!!

    Chairman:
    Thomas Rocca, (770) 429-1956, 3840 Jiles Rd NW, Kennesaw, GA 30144

    (provided by Google)

    1. Re:Even Better by 955301 · · Score: 3, Funny


      Well, how about that! He lives right around the corner from my archery club. >:)

      Wish I had points shaped like little punching bags. Maybe I'll just start giving out his number and address as mine whenever some retail store asks for it.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    2. Re:Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "It's difficult not to see some malice in Mr. Barry's intent," said Tim Searcy, executive director of the ATA, who said the added calls will be costly to his group because of toll charges and staffing issues.

      Domain Name: ATACONNECT.ORG
      Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Fanger, Robert (DUMHRQNOBI) rfanger@fangercom.com
      Fanger Communications
      238 S. Meridian St.
      Ste. 210
      Indianapolis, IN 46225
      US
      317-636-7635

      Searcy, Tim
      8645 Admirals Woods Dr
      INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
      317-823-8462

    3. Re:Even Better by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tim, I am an online journalist and am writing an article about Dave Berry recent article. I am trying to get some feedback from you about why you think that you have the right to call millions of homes, but you do not feel that millions have the right to call your home
      It is amazing what legal rights and latitudes all journalists are allowed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      http://www.ataconnect.org/contact.htm
      Check it out - you can use them as a spam relay. View the source - the to field is in there and hidden. Hmmmmm.... ;-)

    5. Re:Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy-! I just moved out of that apartment complex! Wait... my lease ends on the 19th. Think I should go to his door talking like a pirate?

      The name of the complex by the way is Bridges of Kennesaw, and their # is 770-218-1201

    6. Re:Even Better by CvD · · Score: 1

      That would probably not be a good idea. :-) He'd start frothing at the mouth and probably punch you, finally taking out his anger at some tangible target.

      Cheers,

      Costyn.

    7. Re:Even Better by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just make sure you get the right ATA. Could be unwise to piss off the higher-ups at the American Taekwondo Association :)

    8. Re:Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I will let everyone know that the mailboxes there are extremely small, and nearly get jammed up from 2 days of local ads alone. Therefore if he were to be signed up for magazines and such, his box would definitely overflow on a daily basis.

    9. Re:Even Better by darien · · Score: 1

      Sadly not true. They've configured FormMail (sensibly enough) to reject recipients outside of their company. You can still use the form to spam ATA Connect, but that's not a particularly surprising discovery given that it is, after all, a contact form... :)

    10. Re:Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now to just wait until dinner time. >:)

    11. Re:Even Better by jacobcaz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Searcy, Tim
      8645 Admirals Woods Dr
      INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
      317-823-8462

      Oh great - I find out they're in my home town... Well Mr. Searcy makes to damn much money; the sub-division he lives in is in of our higher-income areas where all the quasi-celebs and most of the sports stars (Reggie Miller) live.

      I'll take donations to go and TP his house! :-)

    12. Re:Even Better by LakeSolon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While calling the business to register complaints seems perfectly reasonable to me, calling the employees at home about their business might have some issues involved with it.

      So call and try to sell them something... like maybe your chair. Be courteous but make sure they're made aware of all the benefits of owning your chair for a few (157) easy payments of just 196.95.

      ~Lake

    13. Re:Even Better by Zoop · · Score: 1

      And if you mess with the Air Transport Association, you'll get labelled as a terrorist.

    14. Re:Even Better by LittleGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just make sure you get the right ATA. Could be unwise to piss off the higher-ups at the American Taekwondo Association...

      Me: {Ring Ring Ring Click} Hello, is this the ATA? I want to complain...

      *knock on door* /me answers

      Person at door: "Boot to the head!"

      fwwwwooooop /me staggers back and collapses on floor

      "And one for Jenny and the wimp...."

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    15. Re:Even Better by psilosopher256 · · Score: 1

      Not to invoke Godwin's Law or anything, but unethical acts aren't suddenly ethical because you're employed to do them. On the other hand, unethical acts aren't suddenly ethical because the person who is acted against is a jerk.

      --
      ---Psilosopher
    16. Re:Even Better by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      How much you need, and will you provide pictures for entertainment purposes?

    17. Re:Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By their standards calling people who don't want to be called is protected by the first admendment. If they don't like the taste they might change their minds.

      Are any of the companies who do the actual phone solicitations publicly traded? If so get the listings of the corporate officers and publish them.

    18. Re:Even Better by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you go, please consider using the waste ads that come in the mail instead of TP. At least TP has a use and I doubt that it could clean this shit anyways.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  33. Not at all the same.... by botzi · · Score: 0, Insightful
    ... if its members are prohibited from calling people who do not want to be called, then two million telemarketers will lose their jobs. Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers.

    Sure telemarketing is "evil", but don't compare criminals with people actually doing a *legal* job. Sure, it's annoying for the customer(maybe even more..), but they're not breaking any laws, so the "pretty much" is pretty much a troll.

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
    1. Re:Not at all the same.... by gilroy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Um, it's the "laws against mugging" that make mugging a crime. So if you hypothesize that muggers have a "right to a living", then the laws against armed robbery interfere with that "right". The analogy is actually a pretty strong one.


      You're upset because you see Barry making a moral equivalence between the two, but he's talking only about the "right to a living" argument. He's not saying telemarketers are as bad as muggers -- or if he is, it's irrelevant to this particular argument -- only that their position is as untenable as a mugger's would be.

      My only quibble is that the analogy would have been even better had he used, not mugging, but house burgulary. In both cases someone comes uninvited into your house -- even when you take steps to keep them out -- and take something precious (in the telemarketers' case, your time).

    2. Re:Not at all the same.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the next sentence:

      But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home.

      It's humor.

      Remove that mensa comment from your signature line until you attain enough reading skill to judge context.

      The original post is NOT insightful. NEITHER IS THIS ONE.

    3. Re:Not at all the same.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... It's a H-U-M-O-R column... Humor... Look it up (http://www.dictionary.com/)

    4. Re:Not at all the same.... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      True enough. Think of it then as push-side restraining order of the kind granted to provide relief from the psycho ex-significant other. Nothing illegal about an ex making a call, except if they're calling you. It's a list to provide relief from harrassment.

  34. Doh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are sorry, the number you have called has been disconnected"

    Apparantly they got a new phone number.

  35. Two words... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    (and they're not the two you're thinking of, but I like the way you think) ...for the apologists for the poor telemarketing drones who will lose their jobs:

    buggy whips

    Go ahead - we'll tell you not to call, you'll say we're trampling your rights, but hey - you're obsolete.

    Not to mention "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"

    They're a bunch of double-standard-bearing tools who can't be any more creative about marketing than browbeating anyone they can find to shove home their apparently otherwise unsellable garbage.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  36. Re:We should be careful about this (TS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Tuff shit. Security ain't worth freedom. Soviet Russia showed that for all to see.

  37. #s are bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    The numbers are extremely bogus. Conservatitve, CPA-like numbers say about 400,000, from which fewer than 60,000 will walk the streets - and I don't mean the phone sex girls, most of whom are too ugly to be seen in public.

  38. Who's modded it 'interesting'? by axxackall · · Score: 1

    What's your phone number? Many of us wanna talk to you.

    --

    Less is more !
  39. Why did they register. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They themselves, registered in the unconstitutional do not call registry on 9/3/2003:

    Your phone number with the last four digits 3974 was registered in the National Do Not Call Registry on 9/3/2003. Most telemarketers will be required to stop calling you three months from your registration date. Your registration will (or did) expire on 9/13/2008.

    Visit www.donotcall.gov to do any of these things:
    -- to renew your registration before it expires
    -- to file a complaint ...

    The security on that donotcall website needs a bit of work...

  40. There's a difference.... by JeffTL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    between the Slashdot effect and a DDOS attack. This looks like a willful attempt to crash their computer and drive their help around the bend; it's a DDOS.

    1. Re:There's a difference.... by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what if a /. story submitter, knowing about the /. effect, willfully submits a story about some company? His intent might me DDOS.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:There's a difference.... by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      Then it's a grey area. It's just a usual /.ing as much as anyone can see, but in truth it is a DDOS attack designed to crash a server.

    3. Re:There's a difference.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a group of protestors signing a petition outside a factory is DDoS the factory? DDoS is only a DDoS when there isn't direct human intervention. For example, making 100 copies of a form vs writing out 100 copies of a form then sending it in. So long as it's through direct human actions, it might be a DoS and it might be distributed, but it's not an illegal DDoS. Without DoS or it being distributed, civil disobedience/unions/etc wouldn't work.

    4. Re:There's a difference.... by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      It's multiple entities bombarding a system and/or institution with bogosity, with the evident intent of disrupting usual business.

  41. Third time's a charm by Maserati · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a telemarketing situation where I'm just waiting for the payoff. Our office has several blocks of 100 numbers each, most of which aren't in use and are forwarded to the front desk (because a client may have an old number). Some months ago a mortgage company started autodialing our blocks. Our receptionist went from calm to frothing at the mouth in 60 seconds flat, and eveyone else was getting either a hangup call or a voicemail left for them.

    I called the 800 number in the voicemail I personally received, got a manager on the line in record time (it helps if you sound like you want to confirm your satellite recon for the imminent airstrike) and explained that we had a block of numbers, that they were calling ALL of them and to please stop right-fucking-now. I then did the usual bit about do not call lists and a copy of the policy (which I never got). The do not call list was tough, since numbnuts didn't grok the "I have several hundred consecutive numbers" part very well.

    The next day they did it again. I got another manager on the line, who was significantly less than understanding about the whole affair. In point of fact, he seemed dismissive of the whole fact that I had complained the day before and tha the was perhaps a bit offended that I was trying to interfere with his attempt to rescue a failing mortgage business. I reminded him about the FCC's $500 per call regulation and he got offended. Go figure. Apaprently the fact that the Federal government might put him out of business wasn't a factor in his worldview. I rang off.

    And called the local police department and reported a couple hundred harassing phone calls. I leaned heavily on the second manager's attitude toward my request of the previous day and on his utter disregard for Federal codes covering his business. I named both managers in the complaint. These guys are less than fifty miles from us and in the same state, so it could happen.

    We have a case number. Some day they'll screw up, and then a telemarketing manager will do the Perp Walk. I'll be sure to put whatever details I can on a website so we can all share the joy.

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    1. Re:Third time's a charm by quietlysubversive · · Score: 1

      you never talked to a "manager" they just laughed and transferred you to their friend in the next cubicle.

      I have friends who worked in places like that and they'd tell stories like that all the time.

      --
      ----(o)----
  42. The party's over for telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The party's over for telemarketers thanks to no-call lists. I signed up for the Mass do-not-call list which went into effect on April 1st of this year(kind of a nice April fools joke on the telemarketers) and I have had exactly ONE telemarketing call in violation of that list since then! That's right, you heard me correctly, since April 1st I've had ONE telemarketing call(except for a couple from companies that I'm currently doing business with). Now, non-profits and politicians are exempt from the law, but I haven't gotten one call from either of those groups yet. I will boycott EVERY non-profit company that calls me. I will also VOTE FOR THE OPPONENT of every single scumbag politician who calls me. I hope that everyone who has added their name to a no-call list will join me and do the same to any non-profit companies or politicians who call them in direct violation of their stated wish not to be called.

  43. E-mail address required to join Do Not Call list.. by iainmcphersn · · Score: 1

    Looks like a job for Mailinator.
    www.mailinator.com

  44. Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine you come into your house and there inside you find your telephone waiting, and suddenly it starts ringing. An uninvited person is calling you.

    See why the hous eanalogy is incorrect?

    Now, to post something on-topic, why not having a telephone with authentication (like a smartcard, for instance). I know this would be easy with VoIP, but I'm talking about grandma & grandpa. Their telephone would change and they wouldn't notice.

  45. Hmm... the 1-877-779-3974 number... by pozar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    is disconnected now. Bummer.

  46. Bible Quote by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    Man, reading Matthew 5.38-42 makes me really glad I don't live my life according to the bible.

    If I get smote on the right cheek, I'm not gonna offer up the other - I'm gonna smote right back, plus enough extra to make sure I never get smited by that guy again. If a guy sues me and wins a judgement, I'm definitely NOT going to offer to double it. I'm not sure what "go with him twain" means, but I'd surely resent anyone trying to compel me to go anywhere. And if I gave to him that asketh, the beggars in Toronto would clean out my bank account before I got to my office!

    1. Re:Bible Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is "hyperbole"

      -uso.

    2. Re:Bible Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what "go with him twain" means

      Two. i.e. go with him two miles. This seems to be along the lines of what's actually happening here, the man's bound to get pissed off with you following him around after whatever it was the first mile was for is over.

    3. Re:Bible Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I get smote on the right cheek, I'm not gonna offer up the other - I'm gonna smote right back, plus enough extra to make sure I never get smited by that guy again.

      Maybe you should see a psychiatrist for your anger problem

    4. Re:Bible Quote by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Because it must be MY problem if I want to respond to an attack on my person, and ensure I'm not subject to another from the same person, right? Twit.

    5. Re:Bible Quote by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone makes me angry, I walk a mile in his shoes. That way, I'll be a mile away from him, and I'll have his shoes...

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  47. what happens when companies follow the law? by zaphodbblx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    About 3 years ago I informed a local newspaper(berkshire eagle) that I wanted to be removed from ALL their telemarketing lists. after a few calls bitching to management(they call at 8:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night for christs sake)The calls stopped. A few years later MA passed a do not call registry and we didnt add our address right away. Well allmost to the day the law went into effect guess what happened....YEP I started getting calls again. When I called to get removed I was told "get on the registry,thats what its for" SLAM...yep the bastard hung up on me. Now to get revenge the last time a sister paper called(owned by the same company) I had the guy on the line for about 30 minuites, and ended the call telling the guy"I guess after 30 miuites you thought I was going to buy papers, no papers for me sucker" SLAM

    --
    "A towel is the most astounding Mind-boggleing useful thing in the universe, allways know where your towel is"
  48. Just checking... by Jerf · · Score: 1

    Are you 100% certain that's the correct "Thomas Rocca"? I'm not the only one with my name in my city, and while "Rocca" may not be terribly common, "Thomas" certainly is.

    Would it surprise you too much if the real Thomas Rocca had an unlisted number, and this is just some poor guy who happens to share his name with a scumbag?

    Please don't call this guy unless you can be more sure you're not hurting an innocent.

    1. Re:Just checking... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you bothered to follow the link from the comment above you would have seen that that page is on ATA's own site.

      Being too lazy to read an article is one thing, I succumb to that all the time, but being too lazy to even roll your mouse over the link, that's pathetic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Just checking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it surprise you too much if the real Thomas Rocca had an unlisted number

      And infringe on the constitutional right people have to call him at home any time they please? I can't believe Tommy would do such a thing.

    3. Re:Just checking... by Olathe · · Score: 1
      That's strange...I bothered to follow that link and there's no home phone number for the scumbag there. I even checked a past version. Guess what that means.
      1. You're a moron
      2. The person who posted the comment above (listing the phone number) probably used an online telephone directory, which means that if someone indeed has that same name and city and the scumbag is unlisted, then you will be calling an innocent person .
    4. Re:Just checking... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Hey braintrust, from this message's great-grandparent: "(provided by Google)".

      "Lazy" right back atcha, squared; you can't even be bothered to read the comments completely when you're <fingerMotion type="exaggerated quotes" strength="8">correcting</fingerMotion> someone else!

  49. 2 million telemarketers out of work by Skapare · · Score: 3, Funny

    What does it mean to have 2 million telemarketers out of work? Well, if those 2 million people are not putting in their 40 hours a week, then they won't be taking up a total of 40 hours of time each week from a few hundred other people. Imagine what might happen with 80,000,000 more hours of time become available to other people at work, at home, and at the dinner table. Imagine the increased productivity happening at work. Imagine the opportunity to get the home and garden chores done. Imagine being able to actually talk and bond with your family at dinner time. Oh the horror!

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:2 million telemarketers out of work by La+Temperanza · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I sense that the next big thing is in divorce law.

      --

      --
      est modus in rebus
    2. Re:2 million telemarketers out of work by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      .. imagine the millions of second-wage earners that can now no longer keep the bills paid. Imagine the working students who now can not pay their bills, and have to drop out taking menial jobs that pay less. Imagine the single mothers who were doing TM because it paid better than double jobs + lots of sitters and no time with kids that now have to do exactly that just to get by. Imagine that family now having that wonderful "dinner togetherness" over a pot of ramen noodles instead of something healthy, since now they can't afford it.

      Then, imagine the companies who products these people are hawking seeing drastic drops in orders, meaning more layoffs amd thus, more government spending, which leads to more taxes which leads to less take home pay, which leads to more poverty which leads to more government involvement. Rinse lather, repeat.

      Do some math. How many are currently unemployed? How much would the unemployment rate change by adding 2+ million to it.

      I ti s not as you may like to believe, pollyana.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    3. Re:2 million telemarketers out of work by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Certain jobs create value in our economy. Others merely divert value around. Telemarketing, for the most part, is the latter. It doesn't add to the economy; it just shifts it around.

      Those who don't buy the stuff hawked by telemarketers aren't going to be burning that money in the fireplace because there's nothing left to do with it. Instead, they will spend it on something else, perhaps at an online web store, or at a local store they can visit in person. And they'll have more time to do that, too. It means people shift jobs around and instead of working for someone whose business model takes time away from others, they will be working for someone else whose business model does not.

      All of the negatives due to telemarketing will be compensated by similar positives in other areas. But the one thing not carried over is the harrassment endured by those who don't want the telemarketing phone calls disturbing them and taking up their time. Who knows, maybe the next person an unemployed telemarketer doesn't call will be someone who is starting up a decent business that doesn't take from others in order to make a profit. Getting rid of the whole telemarketing industry, I believe, will be an eventual improvement in the economy.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  50. National Do not spam list? by javajeff · · Score: 1

    Ok, where is it! I want my do not spam list. My rights are being violated 400 times a day. :-)

  51. this is o.k. by QEDog · · Score: 1
    Their point is that those activities are not disturbing. So, think about it as a proof by contradiction, in the same line as that spammer that somebody posted his address in /. , and people sent a lot of spam to his house. He had to publicly declare that the spam did bother him, contradicting his previous arguments.

    It is not illegal. I wish it was, and nobody would have to do this.

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  52. Slashdotting over: number disconnected by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey! Salshdot gets more effective every day! The number has been disconnected.

    Hurray for the /. effect!

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    1. Re:Slashdotting over: number disconnected by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Hey! Salshdot gets more effective every day! The number has been disconnected.

      Hate to rain on your parade, but the number was disconnected before it was posted here. I guess this would be the Barry effect, in this case.

  53. True story by acalford · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for the IT department of a small, rural hospital near New Orleans. Which means people call me about problems with everything from their PC to their fax machine. It may not be part of my job description, but I'll try to help them with their problem if I can...

    One day a couple of weeks ago, I had a very frustrated message on my voice mail from the director of our Radiology department. It seems that the phone in one of the diagnostic imaging rooms would ring, and when someone would pick it up it was a recorded message from a telemarketing company.

    If it had happened once, she probably would have wrote it off to a mistake. Instead, it kept calling the number. Continuously. For a half hour, by the time she'd left me that message. Now, as you can imagine, having the telephone in a MEDICAL PROCEDURE AREA continuously ringing is a bad thing. Not to mention that line now being tied up so that in an emergency the techs can't call for help.

    I ran (literally) down to the department, picked up the phone the next time it rang, and recorded the call. After about two minutes, a real human picked up the line.

    Said human began reading her script when I asked her if she knew what phone number this was. I then told her that at that moment, I was standing in an x-ray room, in a hospital, with a patient who was supposed to be getting tested right now but because we kept having to pick up the EMERGENCY PHONE they were just kind of lying there moaning (at which point the director standing next to me made the most pitiful moaning noises, heh, heh) and we would like to GET HER OFF THE TABLE IF YOU PEOPLE HAD NO OBJECTIONS...

    There was a moment of silence, then prolific appologies, a promise to stop the calls, more appologies...After leaving her flopping on the end of the hook for a moment, I accepted her appology, took her name and number, then hung up.

    The phone never rang again.

    1. Re:True story by nytmare · · Score: 1

      It is not any caller's right to assume what a random phone number is used for or can be used for, and your case is a strong demonstration of why that makes mass unsolicited calls thoroughly unacceptable.

  54. Ask not what telemarketers can do to you DAVE BARR by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    Full text of the column:

    There's just over a year to go before the 2004 presidential election, and everybody in the nation is extremely excited. Except of course the public. The public, shrewdly, pays no attention to presidential politics until all of the peripheral dorks have been weeded out, and it's finally time to make a selection between the two main dorks left over.
    So what does the public care about right now? Telemarketers. The public hates them. It hates them even more than it hates France, low-flow toilets or ''customer service.''
    We know this because recently the Federal Trade Commission, implementing the most popular federal concept since the Elvis stamp, created the National Do Not Call Registry. The way it works is, if you are a member of that select group of people (defined as ''people with phones'') who do not wish to receive unsolicited calls from telemarketers, you can go to www.donotcall.gov and register your phone number. Starting Oct. 1, any telemarketer who calls you will be locked in a tiny room with a large, insatiable man who will force the telemarketer, repeatedly, at all hours of the day and night, to change his long-distance provider.
    No, sorry, that was the original concept. But the law is pretty strict: For each call to a registered number, telemarketers face an $11,000 fine. This program is a huge hit with the public. Already 30 million American households have registered; this figure would be even higher if it included all the Florida residents who tried to register but accidentally voted for Patrick Buchanan instead.
    And how has the telemarketing industry responded to this tidal wave of public hostility? It has issued this statement: ''Gosh, if these people really don't want us to call them, then there's no point in our calling them! We'd only be making them hate us more, and that's just plain stupid! We'll try to come up with a less offensive way to do business.''
    No, wait, that's what the telemarketers would say in Bizarro World, where everything is backward, and Superman is bad, and telemarketers contain human DNA. Here on Earth, the telemarketers are claiming they have a constitutional right to call people who do not want to be called. They base this claim on Article VX, Section iii, row 5, seat 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which states: ''If anybody ever invents the telephone, Congress shall pass no law prohibiting salespeople from using it to interrupt dinner.''
    Leading the charge for the telemarketing industry is the American Teleservices Association (suggested motto: 'Some Day, We Will Get a Dictionary and Look Up 'Services' ''). This group argues that, if its members are prohibited from calling people who do not want to be called, then two million telemarketers will lose their jobs. Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers. But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home.
    So what's the answer? Is there a constitutional way that we telephone customers can have our peace, without inconveniencing the people whose livelihoods depend on keeping their legal right to inconvenience us? Maybe we could pay the telemarketing industry not to call us, kind of like paying ''protection money'' to organized crime. Or maybe we could actually hire organized crime to explain our position to telemarketing-industry executives, who would then be given a fair opportunity to respond, while the cement was hardening.
    I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm sure you have a better idea for how we can resolve our differences with the telemarketing industry. If you do, call me. No, wait, I have a better idea: Call the American Teleservices Association, toll-free, at 1-877-779-3974, and tell them what you think. I'm sure they'd love to hear your constitutionally protected views! Be sure to wipe your mouthpiece afterward.
    In closing, here's an:
    IMPORTANT REMINDER -- Mark your calendar with a big ''X'' on Sept. 19, which is the second annual National Talk Like A Pi

  55. Yeah, and I believe those statistics. by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 3, Funny


    Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October.

    Yeah, and the Russians said that they had several thousand nukes pointed at the US in the Cold War, well, technically they did.

    Many, many, many of the silos had water in them up to the missile in the bottom, thus, when launching, would have killed all of the people launching them and left a missile with a nuke on top in burning in a hole in the ground and thirty minutes of rocket fuel burning there with it.

    Lighting those suckers would have caused ecological disaster for the USSR.

    The lesson here?

    Never, ever, ever, trust the information given to you by your enemies. Do you expect North Korea to tell you the truth when threatening you? Expect enemy information to be overinflated. Or downright bogus.

    1. Re:Yeah, and I believe those statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect enemy information to be overinflated. Or downright bogus.

      Or understated. It is important not to forget that.

    2. Re:Yeah, and I believe those statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like when American soldiers were killing themselves on the walls of Baghdad?

    3. Re:Yeah, and I believe those statistics. by Reglar_Joe · · Score: 1

      As he did for most things, Mark Twain said it best: There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    4. Re:Yeah, and I believe those statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darl, you just gave away our business plan! Way to go loser...

      Chris

  56. Re:Screen your calls by payndz · · Score: 1
    It's pretty hard to screen your calls when they block caller ID.

    I recently had a problem with an autodialler - I'm in the UK, so I don't know if these are illegal here or not. But I do know they are bloody annoying, especially when they call every five minutes for about an hour each evening. No message, just an immediate hang-up. Since they were withholding their number, I couldn't even call them up to yell at them. And that's saying nothing about all the other junk calls I was getting - double glazing, conservatories, loans, mortgages, the lot.

    Eventually I complained to my phone company (NTL), who told me about a little-known service they offer - blocking any calls that have withheld their number. Free service, takes a couple of days to activate, and can be switched on or off with a keypad code.

    Not one unsolicited call since. Brilliant.

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  57. Re:Screen your calls by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    It's pretty hard to screen your calls when they block caller ID.

    Depends - how many of your friends block caller id when calling you?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  58. Herald? by NickisGod.com · · Score: 1

    Dave Barry is a columnist syndicated from by the Miami Herald.

    What I think is hillarious is I receive calls from Sun-Sentinel all the time trying to convince me to buy the rag they print. Sun-Sentinel is Herald's main competitor in South Florida. I'm sure Herald must do the same thing but I've never received calls from them.

  59. Automate the registration. by chrome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a bit underhanded, I know, and some people might actually LIKE getting called by telemarketers - but it struck me that it would be rather easy to automate adding every phone number listed in the United States to the DNC registry.

    Write a script that hits the page, enters in 3 phone numbers, waits for the mail to be sent to an address it generates on the fly, 'clicks' the link, rinse, repeat.

    No telemarketing! :D

    Ok, Bad Idea. I should remember where I'm writing this. Someone is likely to go off and do it.

    1. Re:Automate the registration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The national DNC web site is run on .NET and probably MS-SQL Server behind the scenes. It could never handle the load :)

    2. Re:Automate the registration. by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      I think the main problem with this is that somehow the telemarketers would find out about the automation and manage to have the entire list be declared invalid because of the fraudulent adding of numbers to it.

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
  60. Let's all telemarket by metamatic · · Score: 1

    I have some junk I was going to sell on eBay. Why not call him up and see if he wants to buy it first?

    In fact, why don't we all do it?

    I mean, that's exactly what telemarketers do, so they can hardly complain if we do it to them, can they?

    So don't call and be abusive. Don't call and argue. No, call and try to sell him stuff.

    "Hey, Mr Rocca, I was wondering if you need a new 17" computer monitor..."

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  61. Moral equivalence by metamatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I think the moral argument is pretty good too. As discussed above, telemarketers make money by selling people things they wouldn't otherwise buy, using high pressure tactics and abusing people's goodwill.

    I don't see a hell of a lot of moral difference between gently mugging granny for $50, and pressure-selling her $3000 of windows she doesn't want or need.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  62. DoS by H8X55 · · Score: 0

    Barry's tactics are equal to a DoS. The ATA has every right to question the legislation, as long as they remain within the letter of the law. Did Barry know what publishing that telephone number would do? I'm sure. Why does the press leave that information out of their media coverage? To prevent being held liable for this type of attack.

    1. Re:DoS by thedillybar · · Score: 1

      Are you a lawyer or what? Just because everyone else is afraid of being held liable doesn't mean they CAN be held liable.

    2. Re:DoS by H8X55 · · Score: 0

      Are you a lawyer or what? No, just a pro-bono devil's advocate. and i would think that the press could be held liable, but that wasn't my issue, and why i titled my response DoS. liable implies defamation, and that's obviously not my concern. but when someone publishes information irresponsibly and it leads to lost business or lost resources there's usually a decent amount of ground to stand for.

  63. 80,000,000 more available man-hours! My God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll have a manned Mars mission ready and a cure for cancer discovered before Thanksgiving!

  64. War dialer by jbarket · · Score: 2, Informative

    Come on man, it's called a 486 and a war dialer.

    Now that I think about it, I bet I pissed a lot of people off in the early 90s. It's the middle of dinner and the phone rings "Oh damn a telemarketer" except when they pick up the phone they're greeted by my ever-so-desperate-for-love 486sx.

    --

    -----
    jonathan barket
  65. Effective strategy for deaaling with telemarketers by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Get a Caller ID Box. Your telco probably will charge you a fee for sending the information, since as they see it, you might decide not to answer the phone based on who is calling and therefore they will not earn the connection charge on the call.
    2. Block Withheld Numbers if you live in a jurisdiction where withholding your number is still legal. Your telco probably will charge you for this, but it's worth it. {before I had mine blocked, I used to say to Number Withheld: "Are you a paedophile? Because your number is withheld." That saw them off. On my mobile, where there is no such service available, I have to resort to doing an impression of a recorded announcement: "Anonymous calls are not welcome on this line. If your business is important you may ring back without withholding your number. Goodbye."
    3. Don't say anything if you don't recognise the caller's number. This spins them out, because they think it could be an answering machine. A legitimate caller will ask for you by name. A sleazeball telemarketer will just hang up.
    4. Ask them how they got your number. This distracts them from the purpose of the call and maybe gets them into an infinite loop.
    5. If all else fails, remember that it is your line, and you are under no obligation to be polite with unwanted callers. Any obligation of politeness would fall on the originator, not the recipient.
    I think the best solution would be for the do-not-call list to be in the phone directory, by placing a symbol next to the numbers of people who did not wish to receive unsolictited sales calls. I'm not so anti-social that I'd consider going ex-directory, because that would jeopardise things for people who might have a legitimate reason to call me {and because I like looking up my name in the new phone book every 18 months or so, it gives me a kick without harming anyone else}. Having the "do not call" list in the phone book itself would be almost foolproof. Everyone with a phone line gets the phone book, so there would be no shortage of witnesses to the fact that your number was on the list. The only downside is that you might have to wait till the new directory was published in order to get your name properly DNC'd. But the telemarketing companies could be made to subscribe to an update list as a condition of their operating licence.
    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  66. A Modest Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it is desirable to eliminate the even unwanted supper breaking phone calls we should also like to avoid adding an additional 2 million names to the unemployment roll.

    If the US were to buy and distribute large quantities of cell phones and satellite phones to the people of Iraq we could then put these 2 million experienced phone callers to work as telediplomats. They could call the Iraqis up day and night extolling upon them the qualities that we think are important. We could do this not only while they are eating their meals but even during their call to prayers.

    In short we could give them a real good reason to hate us.

  67. Telemarketing is fun; let's keep it! by $criptah · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guys, telemarketing can be a lot of fun if you add some positive atmosphere to it. Just think of it, since the chances of meeting your friend on the other end of the line are pretty slim, you can get away with almost anything: dirty jokes, humiliation, etc. Whenever a telemarketer calls me, especially if the person has a thick foreign (Indian, most of the time) accent, I have fun. Here is how to do it:

    a. Pretend to be somebody else, like an old person with a hearing problem or a recent immigrant who speaks poor English. Make the telemarketer re-read the offer and ask stupid questions: start with product related stuff and then move onto personal issues. For example, in the middle of conversation say "Wow, you know, you have a really sexy voice!" Works like a charm :)

    b. If you have roommates, set up a plot. I remember when my roommate pretended to be an abusive husband and I played a role of a wife for unwanted calls. Whenever a telemarketer called us, we would be 'in the middle of a physical conflict.' "The husband" would swear at his wife and beat her (just slap your naked leg for the sound effect); the wife on the other turn would say things like "Stop beating me! I've had enough already" and then she would continue to talk about her personal problems to the telemarketer in between the beatings. Basically, use your imagination; most of the time the other party will hang up.

    c. Put them on hold. This is by far the easiest one, unless you're expecting some other call. When you receive an unwanted call, tell them that you're in the middle of something that you must finish asap; therefore, offer them to stay on the line for a minute or so. Then go read a newspaper, drink a cup of tea. This may sound stupid, but this brings positive results: you keep telemarketers from calling other people through your personal sacrifice.

    There is more stuff and it usually depends on who is calling and when. Sometimes when I have a bad day, I find telemarketers to be my stress relievers: I bitch and swear at them for several minutes. After hanging up I start feeling better right away.

    1. Re:Telemarketing is fun; let's keep it! by Exatron · · Score: 1

      It's more fun to experience the blissful silence of people not calling to sell things I don't need or want.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    2. Re:Telemarketing is fun; let's keep it! by mrdogi · · Score: 1

      My brother used to do something along the lines of letter c. He'd take the call, be polite listening to the spiel for a bit, then "have" to go let the dog in/out. He'd excuse himself to go take care of this, put the phone down and walk away. He may actually have let the dog out, but that was irrelevent. He'd come back 5-10 minutes later, and hang up.

      Unfortunately, I don't have a dog to let out :(

    3. Re:Telemarketing is fun; let's keep it! by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      d. preach religion to them. tell them that their souls are in danger of permanent damnation unless they repent of their evil telemarketing ways. :)

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
  68. Re:Since when do nerds talk on the phone? by skippy_twin · · Score: 1

    Well, originally it was a lot like VOIP, but all done in hardware...

  69. Um.... by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    You can shoot people who break into your home. It's called self defense. You have an obligation to protect yourself and your family and if you feel your life is in danger and you have no other choice you have a right to kill.

    In most states you just have to make sure they're dead. Otherwise you could be sued for their injuries thanks to our retarded legal system. It also eliminates "he said she said" and as a result makes it very difficult to form a case against you should the family attempt to do so.

    "Just because they annoy you, you can't harass them."

    If calling up and complaining about what a bunch of idiots they are is "harassment" then I guess I can. It doesn't matter what loose retarded meaning the "poor little victim" gives to "harassment," it's perfectly legal to call up and complain to a business about anything related to their company.

    "It's not o.k. to do the same wrong onto people which those people have done onto you."

    If it's not illegal it is. Maybe you have a moral problem with feeding people their own medicine but here in the real world, there are times when morality isn't an issue.

    Unless you find that complaining about a "service" is morally wrong.

    Ben

  70. The US has a Do Not Call list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I expect we'll reach 70 or 80 comments before someone thinks to post the home phone numbers of various telemarketing company's CEOs

    But a recent report indicated about half of the US telemarketing CEOs have put their numbers on the federal government Do Not Call list.

    1. Re:The US has a Do Not Call list by pla · · Score: 1

      But a recent report indicated about half of the US telemarketing CEOs have put their numbers on the federal government Do Not Call list.

      Well then, since the fDNC includes exemptions for charities, political campaigns, and companies you have (however indirectly) some business relationship...

      I guess we'll have to call to harass them for contributions to the "down with telemarketing" fund. Or to vote for the AntiDirectMarketing candidate in 2004. ;-)

  71. Sorry, but what current economic recovery? by EnlightenmentFan · · Score: 1
    If the numbers that the telemarketing industry is throwing about are even half right, this could end our current economic recovery.

    Hmmm. Millions of people lost jobs since Bush took office, 93,000 more payroll jobs vanished last month, and consumer confidence just took another dive.

    Telemarketers and the Bush administration are not good sources of unbiased information. And, in other news, a fortune is not waiting for you in some Nigerian bank.

    --
    Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
    1. Re:Sorry, but what current economic recovery? by dlt074 · · Score: 0

      start rant

      please show me one time in the history of this country that there we're NOT people being put out of work. it always happens! in good and bad economies!

      the economy IS turning around and i'd go so far as to say it's GOOD! my company just relocted it's main office and it's like pulling teeth to give other companies our money, we can't find people to sell us the things we need, oh we do find them but they never get back to us with a quote! if the economy was soooo bad you'd think that people would be hurting for money. this to us does not seem to be the case.

      when i looked at my 401k this last time i made money! in fact i made a LOT of money! that has not happened in some time(year(s)).

      my company is making record sales almost every month! so there are companies out there that are making money!

      we actually hire new people! so you keep on thinking everything is bad and then when it really DOES turn bad some time in the future. because it will, you can not stop the cycles. where will you be? complaining and blaming other people for your lazy ass and the other people who just won't get off their butts and WORK! some people just don't want to work and the government PAYS them NOT to work! for those that do want to work, yeah it may not be in the field that they just got layed off of, but there are other jobs out there! adapt over come! be flexable!

      even when clinton was in power, i know for a fact that there were still people going to the unemployment office and getting layed off. and i don't think anyone wants to claim that the economy was BAD during the 90's.

      but if it makes you feel better to blame bush for your lameness go right ahead.

      end rant

    2. Re:Sorry, but what current economic recovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my company is making record sales almost every month!

      Yes Darl, we heard all about your two licencees.

    3. Re:Sorry, but what current economic recovery? by EnlightenmentFan · · Score: 1
      Hey, I'm happy for your company--how soon do you think you'll be creating some of the 3.1. million jobs that disappeared during Bush's presidency? According to this recent news story, Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover whose term in office created a net loss of jobs....

      And I'm also happy about your 401k--it went up last month, did it? How many more months will it have to go up at that rate to get up to where it was before Bush took office?

      --
      Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
  72. Nice point, but... by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    you've been trolled. Sorry, dude, better luck next time. I hope the karma is enough to make up for it.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
  73. Troll. by DoorFrame · · Score: 0

    Troll.

  74. Crafty? Hardly. by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    Darl McBride, posting to slashdot? Why even bother trying to respond.

    When did slashdot cause you to lose your sense of humor and, more importantly common (troll) sense?

    ^_^

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
  75. Re:spamming a telemarketer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sign 'em up on 1, yes that's right, 1 "wedding oriented" website.

    Geez, my fiance put *my* work email address on one of those "for some information" and my spam tripled overnight!

  76. unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could it be unconstitutional if there weren't any phones when the constitution was written?

  77. YOU'RE ARGUING WITH AN OBVIOUIS TROLL! by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    Just look at his name.

    Christ you people have gotten so gullable.

    And the parent article is a humor piece... no intelligent discussion allowed!!! :-)

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    1. Re:YOU'RE ARGUING WITH AN OBVIOUIS TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      But he's the funnest troll to argue with! PLEASE CAN I CAN I????

      Darl I think they should all loose their jobs and get the crap kicked out of them for being the ignorant pole smokers they are. And, while you and occationally myself have proven time and time again that it doesn't take money to tempt people into a position of pissing off other people, the real Darl McBride has, and he should therefore work in telemarketing, so I can stomp the piss out of that shit-guzzling fucktard as well.

      If I had to choose, however, I'd keep the telemarketers and eliminate the spammers. I'd elaborate on exactly what I'd do, but all you need to do is Google for "talentless Flash movies about shooting Osama Bin Laden" to get a vague idea.

      In Soviet Russia! All Your Base! Natalie Portman slathered in hot grits!!!!


      Okay, I feel better now. The only way I'd feel better is if I had another account to mod myself Insightful with.

  78. ...through the courts by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    "eye for an eye" is just what it says. What illiterate people can't grasp is that it was one of the hundreds of laws giving to the legal system of the OT. The laws were never given for the common man to enforce.

    If someone poked your eye out you went to the judge and if the person was found guilty, their eye was ordered out BY THE COURT. Just like we do today.

    Just because I can go in any law library and read up on laws and punishments doesn't mean I get to go around enforcing the law and punishing people as stated by the law.

    Not this obvious explaination will stop you from spouting your ignorance.

    Ben

    1. Re:...through the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone poked your eye out you went to the judge and if the person was found guilty, their eye was ordered out BY THE COURT. Just like we do today.

      I don't know what country you're talking about when you say the courts have people's eyes poked out today, but where I live no that's not what we do.

  79. Better Still by thewils · · Score: 2, Funny

    For sure. Replying keeps the Postal Services busy.
    If you have two reply envelopes, swap the contents or include some local flyers maybe along with a nice note - "Here, have some of mine".

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  80. And the message will say... by bryanthompson · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Greetings, friends. Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you've got the power inside you right now. So use it and send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay. Eternal happiness is just a dollar away."

    Which, after a court order, will be changed to:

    "Hello, this is Homer Simpson, AKA Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call every person in town to apologize for my telemarketing scam. I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to: Sad Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power." -Homer

  81. TOC upon door entry by bryanthompson · · Score: 1

    Would it work to post something like a software license where it says 'by opening this cd you agree to the terms and conditions...' on your door? have it say... 'by knocking on this door you agree that you aren't selling anything, aren't trying to 'save' me from my evil ways, yadda yadda yadda.'

    even if it wasn't a legally binding thing, i think it'd be hilarious to come to the door after a salesperson knocks and say, 'did you read the eula?' and make them feel stupid as you point out section a paragraph b line g.

    1. Re:TOC upon door entry by entartete · · Score: 1

      two doorbells, one labled 'I agree', the other labled 'cancel'. of course the cancel one is disconnected.

    2. Re:TOC upon door entry by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      No, no, no! The "Cancel" doorbell should activate a Tesla coil that fries them out of their boots!

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
  82. You can Talk to Them by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    And say stuff like, "Man, how do you do this? If I had that much hatred coming down the phone at me every day, I'd slit my wrists within a week." or "Have you considered a slightly less dirty profession, like prostitution or drug dealing?" or "I'd like to tell you about my personal savior... and yours, tell me friend, have you heard the world of Jesus Christ?" Of course, I haven't got a call from a telemarketer since I had Qwest add the unidentified call blocking feature to my line. Sure it costs me a few bucks a month, but the time I was spending coming up with Jesus speeches more than makes up for it.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  83. Unconstitutional? WTF? by penginkun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, the first amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience...

    1. Re:Unconstitutional? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sometimes a quote just puts the point across better:

      "In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions - and every other man is entitled not to listen." --G. Norman Collie

    2. Re:Unconstitutional? WTF? by justins · · Score: 1

      This is true. However, when the constitutionality of restrictions to speech has been taken into consideration by the supreme court in the past, they have considered a number of factors. One factor they have considered at times when deciding whether certain restrictions should be considered constitutional is whether alternate means of getting the same message out exist. If they do, the court has been more inclined to accept the restrictions.

      So, the audience thing is at least a consideration.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    3. Re:Unconstitutional? WTF? by Just+Jim · · Score: 1

      You know, the first amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience...

      In fact US Supreme Court ROWAN vUS POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 US 728 (1970) seems to decisively decide that the do not call list is constitutional.

      "Weighing the highly important right to communicate . . . against the very basic right to be free from sights, sounds, and tangible matters we do not want, it seems to us that a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee."

      I think it's going to be difficult for the telemarketers to show why they have a stronger right to push their views on those who DO NOT WANT IT, than do mail advertisers.

    4. Re:Unconstitutional? WTF? by penginkun · · Score: 1

      I believe that, in this case as with spam and junk mail we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our own homes. When I leave the house and go to work I'm fair game. I might not LIKE that, but that's life. But here in my house...no. Don't want it, won't allow it.

      These assholes can talk all they want. But they have NO right to try to make me hear their message. My right to privacy in my home trumps their right to free speech 100% of the time until *I* say they can call me.

      The telephone exists for my convenience, not as a marketing tool for every shithead with a product to sell. I paid for the phone, I pay for the service, not them. It's a tool at MY disposal, not the telemarketers'. My answering the phone does NOT imply that I WANT to talk to the person on the other end. Neither does it imply you have my permission to call me if I answer the phone for your call.

      So what if they might lose their thrice damned jobs because nobody wants to hear from them! Why the hell can't they take the hint? Why aren't they out there trying to find other employment? There are plenty of opportunities for people to sit and yak on the phone all day-they could be customer service reps, or operators, or order takers or tech support people (wait-all those jobs are being sent overseas to India-nevermind).

    5. Re:Unconstitutional? WTF? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Insightful?? Puh-lease!

      There was no claim about being guaranteed an audience. Just thet they can try to get one!

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  84. Re:E-mail address required to join Do Not Call lis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your willing to give away your phone number, but not your email address? How does that make any sense?

  85. As Great as the Idea Sounds... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I'd far rather call those assholes at home, just around dinner time. I think I could make much more of a point about my objections to some asshole invading my private time to sell me shit if I could talk to one of the guys in charge, not some head whose job it is to answer an 800 number, and I'm quite willing to foot the costs of doing so.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:As Great as the Idea Sounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Tim Searcy is exec director of the group and quoted in the article. Admin offices of the ATA is in Indianapolis, IN. Google returns one Tim Searcy in Indianapolis and only one Tom Rocca in Kennesaw:

      Exec Director:
      Tim Searcy, (317) 823-8462, 8645 Admirals Woods Dr, Indianapolis, IN 46236

      Chairman of the Board:
      Thomas Rocca, (770) 429-1956, 3840 Jiles Rd NW, Kennesaw, GA 30144

      Worth a shot don't you think? (Didn't search on the other board members, but I bet it works as well)

    2. Re:As Great as the Idea Sounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Heh. The past chairman of the ata is a bill miklas of omaha nebraska. A google search doesn't turn up contact info through the white pages, but a contractor lists the addresses (and home #s!) of his past customers. Looks like being chairman of the ata is pretty good as bill just had an addition to his house. Why not call him and congradulate him?

      Mr. and Mrs. Bill Miklas
      4041 No. 116th Cr.
      Omaha, NE. 68164
      Home #493-1153
      Work Done: Addition

      (Oh, BTW, the area code of omaha is 402)

  86. Slashdialing by cirby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems as good a word as any.

  87. Dave Barry with the big picture... by bobbuck · · Score: 1

    Once again our "fine" republic is in debt to this great visionary and his tireless production of columns with many correctly spelled words. I have used his free tax advice every year and it was worth every penny. I hope that my fellow slashdot readers will support him in his presidential run because
    a) His name can be rearranged to spell "V-Bra Ready" and
    b) That would be an excellent name for a rock band.

  88. This year, telemarketers. Next year, spam. by Animats · · Score: 1
    The vast number of people who signed up with the U.S. Government do-not-call list really means something. No politician wants 30 million people mad at him.

    Once this kicks in and starts working, it's time to add E-mail to the do-not-call system. It can happen; the political pressure is there. It's opt-out, but it's global, government-enforced opt-out. If it works for phones, it can work for mail.

  89. yep by BRUTICUS · · Score: 1



    What needs to be clogged is the sales lines. You have to find a sales line that is connected to the buisness in someway. If not sales than the CEO's @work and @home telephone numbers are good too. I despise spam on all levels.

    I would really love to see a website dedicated to this as I can't stand spam. Just a list of numbers to call and email addresses to spam. This site should be directed at telemarketters AND spammers.

  90. You heard it here first by smoondog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You heard it here first:

    When the do not call list takes effect, I predict the reincarnation of the door to door salesman.

    (Besides, haven't you always wanted to know what that telemarketer type person on the other end of the line looks like?)

    -Sean

    1. Re:You heard it here first by shish · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Besides, haven't you always wanted to know what that telemarketer type person on the other end of the line looks like?

      Broken nose with leaflets shoved up his ass if he comes near my house...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:You heard it here first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Door to door salesmen can be handled with a method I saw on The Flintstones: Big sign on the street - "Salesmen welcome" - Big rock over the door, with a "bell rope"...

    3. Re:You heard it here first by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "When the do not call list takes effect, I predict the reincarnation of the door to door salesman."

      You mean we'll actually get to meet face to face the people who used to anonymously harass us?

      I think I speak for all of Slashdot when I say in my best Mr. Burns impression, "Excellent......."

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:You heard it here first by Gildor · · Score: 1

      I work for MCI doing customer service, and they're already tesing door to door sales for long distance service in order to get around the DNC list.

    5. Re:You heard it here first by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Good ol' assualt and battery...

      I was talking with a security guard at a Taco Bell in the San Fernando valley who told me about his experience with a Jehovah's Witness....

      It seems the security guard worked for two different rent-a-cop agencies part time, so was rarely at home. It was a Saturday when this happened, and he said it was his first full day off in two months, so he was sleeping in...

      Around 9 AM, his door bell rings...so he goes to the door, and meets the JW (Jehovah's Witness). The JW gives his spiel, and is told the guard isn't interested...in fact is told that this is his first full day off in 2 months and he wants to be left alone. The guard closes the door and goes back to sleep...

      An hour later his door bell rings again...he wanders out, opens the door, and there is the exact same JW. Now, he's a nice guard, but at the moment he's a bit testy. He explains again that it's his first day off, yada yada yada, and tells the JW that the next time it happens he'll be face to face with a shotgun...

      Of course, an hour later the JW has rung the door bell again, so the guard grabs his (loaded) shotgun, races to the door, throws it open, and levels the gun at the JW. The JW drops his bike and books and runs for his life...

      A few hours later, the JW shows up with the cops, having told them that he was threatened with bodily harm. The tin-badge explains to the cops the whole thing, and the last he saw of the JW, he was being hauled off to prison for tresspassing and being a public nuisance.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    6. Re:You heard it here first by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      If it did (I doubt it, it's too time consuming), combining the do not call list with a reverse lookup will provide quite the nice list of people who apparently lack the will to say no to you on the phone, let alone in person will provide you a nice place to start sending said door to door salesman. A veritable gold mine.

      And they will be a *lot* more assertive/aggresive than telemarketers. it takes a more ballsey perosn to do it in person.

      Ahh the law of unintended consequences.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  91. Another way to contact them by JustAnotherReader · · Score: 2, Informative
    This site http://www.ataconnect.org/contact.htm is the ATA's contact us page. The only required fields are first and last name and an email address (Use a real email address at your own discression)

    You can send them an email stating your point of view.

    NOTE: A well reasoned, polite email will probably have a greater effect than an angry rant (if it has any effect at all).

    1. Re:Another way to contact them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey this is cool. Once you have filled out the form, you can keep clicking the submit button, to make sure they really get it.

      I just used a piece of spam for the message body - that makes it very authentic.

  92. I wonder what all those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ATA officials have said about 2 million of the 6.5 million people working at telemarketing call centers across the nation will lose their jobs because of the rules that established the nationwide "Do Not Call" list.

    I wonder what all those hot, young 17 year old High School students will do. Probably have to find a job on a porn site. :(

  93. Re:Effective strategy for deaaling with telemarket by Wakkow · · Score: 1

    But the big telemarketers don't open up phonebooks and start dialing.. They buy lists from other companies, many of which you probably have "prior business relationships" with.

  94. Re:Screen your calls by crossconnects · · Score: 1

    Actually when using a calling card, caller ID is often blocked. For whatever reason, a couple of my friends were using calling cards.

    --
    no big sig
  95. past president info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  96. At last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone who understands that economics is about production, not consumption!

    You are right. When someone doesn't buy some crap from a telemarketer, the non-customer will spend their money on something else, or they will actually save and invest that money instead.

    And when someone takes a sick day, whether they are actually sick or just choosing not to work, that lowers overall production. Of course it is their *right* to spend their days however they want or need to spend them, but it does result in less production.

  97. Hanging up on them? by HBI · · Score: 1

    Is there something wrong with just hanging up on telemarketers? I can detect the sales pitch within seconds of it beginning, and most of them use call machines that make the connection, then pass it to a telemarketer - takes a couple seconds, and if you hear the silence, then the click of the transfer, you just hang up because you know it's a bullshit telemarketer.

    Done deal!

    They won't be able to overcome that flaw. It'll hurt productivity...imagine having the telemarketer dialing the phone manually. Not happening.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Hanging up on them? by Tomorrowist · · Score: 1

      I prefer to ask telemarketers to put me on their do-not-call list.
      When I worked in customer service for a large company that did lots of telemarketting, we were told to take such requests very seriously. The costs for ignoring such a request were up to $10,000 per incident. While the maximum fines only applied to out of state calls, most telemarketting calls were out of state.
      This response ("do not call") is quick and easy for me. It is not cruel and does not raise my blood pressure. And even if the law has changed, the mechanics of adding me to the do not call list probably creates a headache for the telemarketers.

      --
      Trolling for karma since 2003.
  98. Oh, you fucking whore! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The Herald site isn't slashdotted, so why post this, and why not post it AC if you really have to?

    2 lousy points, was it worth it, you fucking whore?

  99. Unfortunate by Jason+Yost · · Score: 1

    It's unfortunate that something, such as telemarketing and spam has to get as bad as it does before we as a society can get together to voice our discontent with the situation. Even though telemarketing and spam are exceptionally annoying they are by far minor infractions against our personal freedoms compared to what we endure silently because we have not had one leader step forward to rally us against injustices that plague us every day.

  100. Give SCO a Call too :) by Famatra · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html

    End users who purchase this license are granted the right to use the SCO IP in Linux in binary format only. The license is available immediately and can be obtained by contacting your SCO sales representative or by calling SCO at 1-800-726-8649.

    1-800-726-8649

    Ask SCO for information about their products, and to send you a copy of their Linux license before you consider paying for it ;).

  101. 2 million indian telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is he talking about the two million people *from India* who will lose their jobs ?

  102. Telemarketing pays by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    Telemarketing is a shit job that pays fairly well with no real skills required. The only reason it pays so well is that it has to to get folks in the door in the first place. So the worse we are to the individual telemarketers the harder it is for the telemarketing companies to find employees, The more the telemarketers must be paid. So flame on and make it hurt baby

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  103. Who wins? by polarbrowser · · Score: 1

    1. Be a telephone company
    2. Profit
    3. Telemarketers make mass calls
    4. People get upset and make mass calls back at telemarketers
    5. Telephone company $$$Profits!!! even more...

    Now if I could only get to step 1

  104. Always call back... by gesualdo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The other day I got a call from a telemarketer who wanted me to change my phone service (for the low, low monthly price of $49.90/month). For some reason I felt compassion for this bloke who called, and I didn't tell him to go fuck himself outright (although it would have been well within my right, since my ass-cheeks had just landed on the toilet seat, and I was ready to unload.) Anyway, so I was nice, and feigned interest, and asked if they had DSL, and yada yada yada. And then asked all the questions that they're supposed to be legally bound to answer (their name, company's name, address, phone number, etc). Around this time, the guy starts to get annoyed, since it's been almost 60 seconds that we've been talking. He gives me his name and address, when I (honestly) realize I don't have a pen, so I ask him to hold on a second. Ten seconds later, I've got a pen and paper, and I copy down his name as well as the company's. When I ask for the address and his employee ID number, he gets all snotty, and taunts me with, "What are you going to do, come up here and arrest me? I'm in Vancouver." I explain, still politely, that he is the one that called me, and that as I understand the law, he is required to give me certain, specific information about himself and his company. When I start to ask for his address again, he get's all pissy, and abruptly hangs up.

    Now, normally, I'd say fuck it, and go on with my day, but he taunted me with that "what are you going to do" attitude, so I say fuck him. A few googles for his company (RSVP Customer Care Centre) later, I find the website (after getting arond their silly spelling of "center"), and the name of his boss, the VP of Sales and Marketing. She was very kind and apologetic, and she seemed honestly surprised by Joe's reaction to me on the line; for four year he had been a model employee. And for Joe, fair enough, his job probably does suck with people giving him shit all the time; still, at the same time, there's a certain amount of professionalism that I expect from these guys. Maybe he was just rude because he knew he'd be out of a job when the DNC list goes into effect.

    Anyway, my (elusive) point, call their bosses and bitch, especially if they're rude or unprofessional.

  105. Blocking all withheld numbers bad by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    My girlfreinds parents bock all of the withheld numbers. Unfortuanly that also includes all phone numbers that the local telco doesn't have a name attached to it, So our old line in the tiny little town I used to live in could not successfully call her parents on the other side of the country. We moved to a larger town and no longer have this problem, but remeber some of these plans have side effects

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    1. Re:Blocking all withheld numbers bad by xlv · · Score: 1

      Also, caller id does not work with international numbers so if you know somebody overseas, you cannot block all withheld numbers.

    2. Re:Blocking all withheld numbers bad by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      The caller ID standard specifies a difference between numbers being deliberately withheld at the request of the caller, and being unavailable due to incompatible technology {i.e. analogue exchanges or other equipment which does not send the info}. International numbers show up as "unavailable", not "withheld". BT only block "withheld" calls. Your mileage may vary dependent on your telco .....

      I have heard it rumoured that deliberate number-withholding {and that includes the deliberate connection of incompatible equipment} is to be outlawed in the UK. Certainly my place of work has now started sending an ident. Dunno about the place I used to work, but it was a useful side effect them not being able to call me at home .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  106. better use for those 2 million jobs! by ghettocat · · Score: 1

    Will someone tell me why those 2 million telemarketers who will lose their jobs MAKING CALLS cannot find a job, instead, ANSWERING the F(*$)#@)* customer service line ?

  107. I'm a telemarketer by Mo+B.+Dick · · Score: 0, Troll

    I work for a long distance company telemarketing. It's true that lots of people will lose their jobs over this list. People act like getting a telemarketer call is the end of the world. I mean I don't sell windows or cruises or anything stupid like that. I sell long distance service, and what better way to sell phone service than over the phone!

    I love it when I call people who say they don't do business over the phone. I always ask them if they order pizzas, since that's doing business over the phone. Or how they got their phone line set up to begin with, chances are they had to call for that. I love it when people just press a bunch of buttons on the phone, thinking it hurts our ears or something. I love it when people yell and scream at me, not realizing I have their name, address, and phone number in front me. I love it when I call someone and they think its the biggest deal that I interupted their dinner. If they were so busy they shuoudn't have answered the phone. I love it when people tell me to get a real job, when chances are I make more money telemarketing than they do with their "real job."

    Next time a telemaketer calls your house don't get mad that they interupted your dinner, everyone eats dinner at different times, and it's impossible to work around everyone's schedule. Before you yell at the telemarketer realize its usually a college or high school student trying to pay their way through school, or a single mother trying to feed their kid. Maybe if you just listen to them they will have something you are interested in, or you could save money on your long distance bill. If not, just tell them you arent interested and hang up. Last time I checked getting a phone call wasn't that big of a deal.

    1. Re:I'm a telemarketer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that lots of people will lose their jobs over this list.
      Good!
      love it when I call people who say they don't do business over the phone.
      There is a huge difference between calling a business and being cold-called by some jerk
      chances are I make more money telemarketing than they do with their "real job."
      Dream on!
      Next time a telemaketer calls your house don't get mad that they interupted your dinner, everyone eats dinner at different times, and it's impossible to work around everyone's schedule.
      Exactly! It is impossible to avoid it, so STOP.
      Last time I checked getting a phone call wasn't that big of a deal.
      Perhaps you are right - let's discuss this further. What was your home phone number again?

  108. I'm sorry.. that number has been disconnected.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but these ones haven't...

    Legislative Office:

    1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20006
    Toll Free: (866) 500-4272
    info@ataconnect.org

    Administrative Office:

    3815 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 20
    Indianapolis, IN 46240
    Toll Free: (866)) 500-4272
    info@ataconnect.org

  109. 5% of the US labor force? by invckb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ATA officials have said about 2 million of the 6.5 million people working at telemarketing call centers across the nation will lose their jobs because of the rules that established the nationwide "Do Not Call" list.

    so 5% of the USA's 140 million labor force work as telemarketers? Why did the journalist let them get away with those numbers?

    1. Re:5% of the US labor force? by Senjaz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could stick them all on a huge space craft along with all the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers

      --
      Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.
    2. Re:5% of the US labor force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, have you ever seen a journalist that can count?

      500,000 people hacked to death in Rwanda...

      Who counted? Most people in Rwanda can't count.

      Where did they suddenly get 500,000 pangas to hack the poeple with?

      Why did only one group have pangas? Were the rest of the people unarmed?

      Journalists have never been good at asking proper questions and any kind of math beyond grade 1 level.

    3. Re:5% of the US labor force? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Why not? They let others get away with claiming that there are 20 Million+ homeless, that the homeless are dying at a rate of a .5million/day, but will somehow be over 50 million in a couple years!

      They also don't challenge the absurd claims that half of all Americans voted *for* Bush, and that slightly more voted *for* Gore, when the truth is that something like (IIRC) less than half of Americans even voted in the first place, and that of those that did, probably 90% of them were voting *against* the other guy.

      HOWEVER....

      And actually, 6.5M is not that unexpected, since it does not say what you did. It says 6.5M people working in call centers. That means the TMs, the management, the HR, the trainers, the screeners, the lawyers, the techs (that includes IT people), and even the people cleaning the place up.

      Now, is it so hard to believe 6.5M in that entire industry, and those industries that support call centers.

      No? Then add this fact:
      To get to dialing all the areas codes, across the timezones, it often is more cost effective to set up multiple call centers, usually in the two central zones. Usually this means two centers, thus doubling the people involved (slightly more for cross-site manintenance and management overhead).

      No, are you so sure that 6.5M is unreasonable? Then counter with an estimate and justify it.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  110. Call Intercept by zerocircle · · Score: 1
    You answer and there's nobody in the call centre available so you get a silent call. I've had 5 of these in one day. As the caller id is blocked I can't even discover which set of brain dead idiots it is calling.

    I used to get tons of those too. I'm in New Jersey and my local phone provider is Verizon, and I signed up for their Call Intercept service as soon as it was announced (for an extra monthly fee; it's included in some plans). Any incoming call with anonymous or "Unavailable" caller ID gets answered by a Verizon computer, which (1) plays a recording that says the caller must press 1 to continue; then (2) requires the caller to record their name; and then, if the caller successfully does all that, (3) rings my phone with a distinctive ring (three short rings, in my case). If I pick up the phone, the computer says there's a Call Intercept call and please press 1 to hear who it's from. If I do that, it plays the caller's recording. If I want to speak with the caller, I press 1 again and it connects me. If I don't, I just hang up.

    As soon as I activated Call Intercept, the house went eerily silent. No more telemarketing calls. Period.

    No, wait...I actually had one person (a real estate agent) go through the rigamarole. One telemarketing call in about two years.

  111. Do-no-call registrants reached 48 Million by Trevin · · Score: 1

    I've just poked around the do-not-call web site and found that as of September 2, they registry has grown to 48 million phone numbers. They got a significant boost in numbers over Labor Day weekend -- when Dave Barry printed his article. About half of the 6 million new entries registered by phone. I had been wondering just how many people out there have not registered simply because they haven't heard about this registry yet.

    The web site also mentioned that a large number of people have not completed the registration process by replying to the email that is sent when they register online. (Certainly none of the readers of Slashdot fall into this category.)

    Does anyone know approximately how many residential phone numbers total are in use in the U.S.?

  112. oh, and mod it back down by Jerf · · Score: 1

    Oh, and please mod parent back down, mm'kay?

  113. Re Are you listening AT&T?!? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    AT&T local service used to bombard me with three and four phone calls per day.

    I used to have the same problem, and also put a lot of effort into trying to make them stop. I switched phone companies, and intentionally went without cable TV and fast internet (both AT&T-only in my old building) for a year as a direct result.

    Their telephone harassment was particularly egregious. I've been AT&T-free for three years, and plan to continue to be.

  114. Bullying people for money on the street--illegal? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I walked down the street and cornered people and asked them to give me money, would that be illegal? Especially if I essentially ignored their refusals and became rude, aggressive and demanding?

    I'd wager that at minimum they'd bust you for agressive panhandling, perhaps someone might even stretch it into a form of mugging or robbery.

    And this is exactly what telemarketers do. On the street, the more aggressive and strong-willed people would walk away or otherwise rebuke them and walk away, but I'd bet that the same people who are bullied into buying from telemarketers would fork over money to someone just demanding it on the street.

    What amazes me is why the media doesn't spend more time and effort exposing this "sales technique" for what it is. Surprisingly most articles on DNC lists focus on the "irritation" of the calls, or worse, the untold damage to be done to our economy through the loss of telemarketing jobs. None of them seem to focus on the decepetion, bullying and probably outright fraud associated with telemarketing.

    In my mind is inextricably linked to the same business ethos that fueled Enron, WorldCom and host of other "lying your way to wealth" business models that seem to have prospered.

  115. No Dialling Machines??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Any PC with a modem is a dialling machine. Setting it up to auto dial a list of numbers and play them all a prerecorded message - just don't use a Metallica song - is a piece of cake...

    This is especially good with 1-800 numbers, where the recipient pays for it - reverse spam...

  116. Elderly & Alzheimers... by cyberwench · · Score: 1

    That's the category where telemarketers really cross the line into coercion. There a lot of elderly people or people with alzheimers that are in good enough shape to still be in their own homes, but they really don't have the ability to deal with coercive people on the phone.

    I know one woman who changed her long distance service 5 times in a month... and they would NOT stop calling her, despite the requests and then orders from her family. She's nice, pleasant, and didn't have the ability to say no. That's the sort of person who this list is really for, and I for one applaud it.

    --
    ~ Leilah
  117. Don't play them Metallica songs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, No, NO!!!
    1-877-779-3974

  118. Obligatory quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From Dirk Gently's Detective Agency:
    "Don't pick it up, don't pick it up, don't picky..."

    (866) 500-4272

  119. Keep your legs together. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, you have yourself to blame. Try thinking with the thinking end.

  120. Spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody got their e-mail addresses?

  121. I seem to recall a famous IRC log by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    about something like that... some guy named Bloodninja trying to get a girl to talk like a pirate.

    Apart from being pretty twisted, it was hilarious... I don't recall the details, other than the fact that she kept having to say "HAAARRRRR!"

    Maybe Bloodninja is Dave Barry's online alter-ego...

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  122. There's Always Prostitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The single mother should start working as a prostitute.
    At least most slashdoters would have more respect for her.

  123. It _is_ that hard for some people. by cyberwench · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of people living on their own, with phones so they can call/be called by their families, but who do not have the ability to deal with telemarketing calls in a sane/sensible way. I'm not talking about people being jerks, I'm talking about people who mentally are not capable of handling someone trying to coerce them into something over the phone.

    I'm sure there are "legitimate" telemarketers out there, but the general tactics are just appalling.

    For more information on telemarketing fraud and the elderly, check out AARP's site - Telemarketing Fraud Underreported, and their Off the Hook Study.

    --
    ~ Leilah
  124. I heard about a neat trick... by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Funny

    The callee speaks very quietly, to try and get the telemarketer to raise the volume of their phone/earpiece. After a few seconds, the callee blows an air horn right into the phone, blasting the telemarketer.

    Ever have that happen?

  125. Already a solution... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    Put up a "No Soliciting" sign. If anyone comes up to your door and tries to sell you something, have them arrested for trespassing.

    1. Re:Already a solution... by bryanthompson · · Score: 1

      not really, because they have to 1.) enter your property in the first place and 2.) you have to ask them to leave before you can have them arrested. Unless, of course, you have the sign on a fence or something... then yeah, that'd work swell too

    2. Re:Already a solution... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      You should look for a way to put a sign at your property line as well as at your door, but if you own your home then they've entered your property once they've come onto your yard.

  126. Wow by autopr0n · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Some people have this thing called a "life", The last time a telemarketer called me I simply said "Please put me on your do-not call list" and hung up. I havn't been bothered since since I don't use a land-line. I have gotten a few campaign and polling questions lately (I'm in iowa). I even got my ass out of bed to listen to the begining of a recorded msg from John Kerry... Needless to say I won't be voting for him.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  127. Perhaps you've misunderstood? by cyberwench · · Score: 1
    Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these are the telemarketers who've called you? Even once?

    These very blatantly aren't the telemarketers who've called anyone. This is the telemarketing association that claims to have a constitutional right to call anyone they darn well please. What is being said is that if they do... then so does everyone else.

    You want to mug somebody because you think they're in the habit of mugging others?

    Ok, now read this sentence: "Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers..." Where do get the line about wanting to mug people?
    --
    ~ Leilah
  128. Here's the trouble by Get+Behind+the+Mule · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that everyone in his right mind despises telemarketing. Spam too. Ask anyone, and they'll tell you that there are few things they hate more in life. It seems as if there are no exceptions to this rule -- everyone, bar none, hates telemarketing and spam.

    But it can't be true. Someone must be responding to this stuff by spending their money. Because for some reason, telemarketers and spammers stay in business. Somehow, it must be worth it for them.

    If everyone hated the stuff as much as they say they do, if everyone hung up on the unwanted calls and deleted the unwanted mails in nothing flat, like they say they do, then the problem would fizzle out before long. No one could make money doing it, so there would be no reason to keep trying. And yet, the crap just goes on and on and on.

    I've read rumors that a certain small percentage of the people called or mailed actually do respond and end up buying something; usually the figure is put about 10%, or something similarly low. Hard to believe that such a business would be worthwhile if the response rate is so low; but whatever it is, it must be high enough that the incentive for telemarketing and spamming is maintained. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing.

    A national no-call list is a nice idea, but I can't see the problem going away altogether as long as the telemarketers and spammer still believe there's a chance to make money. Certainly the spammers are not going to let some trivial thing like a Federal law stop them. (They'll just go on spamming from Antarctica, or wherever.) If we really want the problem solved, once and for all, we have to ensure that there is no future for those businesses, and that would require educating the public, right down to the last man, woman and child, to always follow this rule without exception: If someone calls you or emails you to sell you a product, then whatever you do, don't buy that product!

    1. Re:Here's the trouble by CottonEyedJoe · · Score: 1

      >usually the figure is put about 10%

      If 10% of the people who recieved spam responded, spammers would be gozillionaires, making Bill Gates' fortune look like chump change. But your point is well taken.

      The reason telemarketing is successful is because there are people (usually older people) who still believe that it is rude to hang up on someone or interrupt them while they are talking. Telemarketers use this, pushy sales tactics and outlandish claims (most will lie to make a sale) to sell whatever it is they are selling. Few people sit at home thinking "I wish someone would call and offer me some diet pills for $153.26 a bottle!"

      If this list goes as planned calls WILL stop. I live am on my states no-call list and I have gotten ONE call during the 2 years we've been on the list.... A call I reported to my states attorney generals office.

    2. Re:Here's the trouble by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      If they move their calling ops overseas then they'll have to pay international connect charges. I can't see that happening. What I can see happening is telemarketers saying "oh, you did business with XYZ company and they've told ABC company that you'd like their product too, so we have a loophole."

      If/when I ever get a job, DNC list signup notwithstanding, the Telezapper is going back online.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    3. Re:Here's the trouble by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Now this qualifies as insighful, and should be modded even higher!

      usually the figure is put about 10%, or something similarly low. Hard to believe that such a business would be worthwhile if the response rate is so low; but whatever it is, it must be high enough that the incentive for telemarketing and spamming is maintained. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing.

      Direct mail, that snail-spam you get has a response rate of 3-5%. If you do calls in high enough volume, even that rate is enough. 10% is a godsend to business.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  129. Woa! John Ashcroft reads Slashdot!! by mrklin · · Score: 1

    This is the kind of dangerous thinking that brings abortion clinic bombings, the ongoing fighting between northern and southern Ireland, the danger in the Middle East, and countless other bloodbaths.

    See his post above.
  130. We're sorry, the number...is disconnected by btakita · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great. Now they know what it is like to have to change their number after being harrased over the telephone.

    Maybe now they have to tell all their friends to let it ring twice, hand up and call again or something like that.

  131. What other disgusting organizations... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... can this be applied to?

    1) RIAA
    2) SBA
    3) Al Qaeda (no published number, just start calling every phone in Pakistan)
    4) The Office of Homeland Defense
    5) Democratic National Committee
    5) Republican National Committee

    Sadly, once the Evil has grown beyond a certain critical mass, mere mass protests have no effect.

    1. Re:What other disgusting organizations... by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 1

      You forgot:
      6) SCO

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
  132. RIAA's number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have the RIAA's phone number off hand?

  133. Reminded me of Steve Martin by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    ...because I like looking up my name in the new phone book every 18 months or so, it gives me a kick without harming anyone else...

    "The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!

    (I'm not insinuating that the original poster is a Jerk)

  134. another one by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
    "Once, I kept a lady on the phone for like an hour, talking about magazines. I was gonna order the whole lot. Then she says, "Okay, I need your credit card to continue." I calmly reply, "Credit Card? Oh no no no. That's how they get ya. I keep all my money in a box under my bed.""

    One time, I received a call from a marketing firm hired by my bank (so yes, there was a prior business relationship) asking about the AOL disc they sent me. They wanted to know if I remembered receiving it, what I thought of the service, etc. (Obviously the disc didn't make it anywhere near my CD drive.)

    So when she asked me what I ended up doing with the disc, I told her the truth: "I cut it up and added it to my AOL CD moasic collection." She was caught off guard by that one, but repeated it word for word as she entered it into the DB.

    Even today, the thing is pasted up artistically on the front of my wardrobe. I would have liked to see the marketing manager's reaction when they came across that entry.

    1. Re:another one by andreMA · · Score: 1

      Mosaics? Damn, I make mobiles out of them -- a few dowels, some monofilament and good to go! Pretty spectra on the walls on sunny days (I glue pairs of them label-to-label to maximize this)

  135. Telemarketers' Logic: by X!0mbarg · · Score: 1

    If followed, would also promote both kinds of Spam, the virtual, and the pulp-and-paper kind.

    See if you can follow this one:

    I have a physical mailing address, therefore, because anyone can send a letter/flyer/wad-o-coupons to that address as "Occupant", that they have the "right" to do so.

    I have an E-mail address, therefore, because (apparently) anyone can send an e-mail to just about anyone at a given ISP's client list using any form of SpamBot, or mass-e-mailing program that uses common, uncommon, or even downright ludicrus usernames before the "@" on any given ISP address, they have the Right to bombard my inbox.

    Ain't logic just grand?

    Don't you wish that there was a Law requiring any E-mail/Snail-mail/Phone Call to have a verified "Reply-To" field/visible Caller ID, so you could send THEM a Solicited responce to their message/offer/"opportunity of a lifetime"? After all, They contacted You in the first place, so you have the Right to contact them at your convienience and give them appropriate feedback, right?

    Right?

    Who's with me? *Arrr!*

    ~X!0

  136. As Count Rugen would say: by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    Stop saying that!

  137. Automate this by whoppers · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't there be a way to automate this somehow? I'd love to use one of the old P2's to call up a bank of 800 and local numbers that have dialed me electronically and "spammed" me.

    Is this possible and is it legal?

  138. Annoying beep calls by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    About 5 times a week I get calls like this when I pick up the phone there is a series of beeps, one every few seconds, and of course no human on the other end. Is this just a war dialer? It doesn't make modem noises; just beeps....

    1. Re:Annoying beep calls by Serveert · · Score: 1

      That's a fax machine.

      --
      2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  139. Moderators! by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 1

    C'mon mods. AC notwithstanding, this deserves +5 funny.

    HH
    --

  140. now you're listed on SLIMEYMARKETERS.COM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    When telemarketers call, I wait for the first pause and then tell them -- in a really bored voice like I'm reading from a script -- "I am obligated to inform you that because of this unsolicited call, your company will be listed on SLIMEYMARKETERS.COM . You have 30 days to appeal this decision or the listing will become final; see site for details."

    If they ask for clarification, I simply repeat the "statement" (hoping I remember it exactly), and say that's all the information I'm required to give.

    Very satisfying, particularly if I ask to speak to a manager -- sends them into a real frenzy about 30% of the time (especially when they can't find the site in order to appeal, since I always make sure it's bogus).

  141. How dare you by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    Thats the sort of thinking that arms dealers and the RIAA use (like how I tied those together?).

    Don't insult arms dealers like that.

  142. Later, at group... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alright. Let's welcome our newest member, folks. This is Tim Searcy.

    (Chorused: "Hi, Tim.")

    Ok. Today we're talking about learning respect for people's personal boundaries. Mr. Ralsky, would you like to start?

    R: *I* DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEM!!!11! IT'S NOT MY FAULT I'M GETTING 47 COPIES OF THE LATEST INTERNATIONAL MALE CATALOG!!! IT'S THOSE COX'UCKING SLASHDOTTERS THAT DID IT TO ME!

    Ah. Let's come back a little later....

  143. You might believe that... by raehl · · Score: 1

    If you were an idiot.

    Economic growth does not occur because people are paid. It occurs because more stuff is produced.

    Telemarketers do not produce anything - people pay for telemarketing because it either lets them steal customers from their competition, or get people to buy things they don't really need.

    Thus, eliminating 2 million telemarketing jobs will *HELP* the economy, as the money that was going to pay them can be instead used on something that will actually promote economic growth, like investing in more efficient production, or just psssing the money you're saving by not doing telemarketing on to the consumer in the form of lower prices, so they can buy more stuff (thus promoting growth).

  144. Other Ways to Communicate with the Telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like Slashdot did it again. The American Teleservices Association (Telemarketers Association) now has disconnected the toll free number listed in the article. Anyhow, if you still want to exercise your 1st ammendment rights to express your opinion to them here are two offices you can contact by phone: Legislative Office 1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Toll Free: (866) 500-4272 Administrative Office: 3815 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 20 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Toll Free: (866)) 500-4272 But I am sure you all want to email directly to them and tell them how much we appreciate them calling in the middle of dinner. Their key people are: Tim Searcy Executive Director tim@ataconnect.org Bill Morris Finance Director bill@ataconnect.org Lynne McCauley Director of Member Services lynne@ataconnect.org Mitchell Roth Government Affairs Counsel mitch@ataconnect.org Brad Rateike Manager of Member Services brad@ataconnect.org Jason Perry Marketing Manager jason@ataconnect.org Karl Jacobs Manager of Special Projects kjacobs@ataconnect.org Robert Fanger Manager of IT Systems bobf@ataconnect.org And if you don't want to get personal you can always express your opinion to info@ataconnect.org I wonder if there is someone out there with time to find their board of directors home phone numbers so we can call them and ask them how they feel about receiving calls in the middle of supper or their favorite TV show. If you have the time their board of director consist of: Chairman Thomas Rocca Interactive Response Technologies Kennesaw, GA Vice-Chairman Lisa DeFalco TPG Telemanagement Yardley, PA Treasurer Andrew Miller, Apac Omaha, NE Secretary Kathryn Barber Barber Consulting Atlantic Highlands, NJ Immediate Past Chairman Bill Miklas InfoUSA Omaha, NE Directors Stuart Discount Tele-Response Center Inc. Philadelphia, PA Benjamin Harris Unicall International Fairlawn, OH Connie Richardson West/Dakotah Direct II Spokane, WA Gil Stallings Consultant Hackensack, NJ Kathleen Thompson Bank One Wilmington, DE Mark Williams MBNA Wilmington, DE All this information was posted in their web site so I am sure they want us to find them and talk to them.

  145. They've had the number Dave published disconnected by DarkVader · · Score: 2, Informative

    They've had the number Dave Berry published disconnected, but here is the current contact information from their website (including toll-free numbers):

    Legislative Office:

    1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20006
    Toll Free: (866) 500-4272
    info@ataconnect.org

    Administrative Office:

    3815 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 20
    Indianapolis, IN 46240
    Toll Free: (866)) 500-4272
    info@ataconnect.org

  146. NEW NUMBERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The old one (877-779-3974) seems to be disconnected.

    The new numbers at:
    http://www.ataconnect.org/contact.htm

    Legislative Office:

    1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20006
    Toll Free: (866) 500-4272
    info@ataconnect.org

    Administrative Office:

    3815 River Crossing Parkway, Suite 20
    Indianapolis, IN 46240
    Toll Free: (866)) 500-4272
    info@ataconnect.org

  147. Re: Bullying people for money on the street--illeg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This actually happened to me. I was walking from work to the car. It's bad enough they have those little carts set up to sell crap along the sidewalk, but the bastards started going after people "offering" them "free" stuff. I totally ignored one guy that came after me and he took it personally. I had a hard time keeping my mouth shut. I knew if I said anything I would have just went off on him. It still gets my blood boiling today and this was years ago.

    Now if I see them I take the long way around, no matter how far the long way is. All I want to do is walk from my building to my car without being harrased by salespeople.

    90% of all of my telephone calls are telemarketers or wrong numbers. I usually miss the calls for me because I have to ignore the phone. Of course I signed up for the Do-not-call list, but there are so many exceptions for the list it won't help that much.

    We need a national "no begging" law that includes telemarketing of any kind.

  148. Do to their mail server what they do to our phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    You can send them a completely anonymous email using their own mail server by modifying their contact us page, available at http://www.ataconnect.org/contact.htm

    It uses the popular formmail.pl script and it's poorly configured. View the source to the page and save it to your hard drive. Then edit the code where the
    <form>
    tag starts.

    First, modify the action value to include the fully qualified path to the formmail.pl script as such:
    action="http://www.ataconnect.org/cgi-bin/formmail /FormMail.pl"
    Then, remove the following lines:
    <input TYPE="hidden" name="required" value="First_Name,Last_Name,Email">
    <input type="hidden" name="env_report" value="REMOTE_ADDR,HTTP_USER_AGENT">
    Save your changes and open up the page that's saved on your hard drive. Now you can put whatever the hell you want in the form and it actually gets sent. If you want, you can also change the address it gets sent to by changing the following line in the code:
    <input type="hidden" name="recipient" value="bobf@ataconnect.org">
    (Note: manually modify the code rather than copying and pasting, because Slashdot's anti-troll space-adding would cause it not to work.)
    <disclaimer>
    ......Of course, this is all just FYI type blathering in the spirit of open source hacking and I do not advocate anybody writing a script to exploit this poor design.
    </disclaimer>
  149. Strange telemarketing calls. by kalany · · Score: 1

    I put my phone number on both the Massachusetts and Federal DNC lists, and since then I've gotten exactly one unwanted call (okay, besides the ones from my senile grandmother):

    Me: "Hello?"
    Him: "Yes, you indicated your interest about in July, and provided this phone number. Are you still interested?"
    Me: "Uh, no."
    Him: "Oh, sorry. Thank you for your time." .

    I was quite confused about this for the rest of the day. But it was the politest telemarketer I'd ever met.

    My other favorite was the salesperson who called me my first week of college, and asked if I had a visa or mastercard. When I answered no, she asked if I had any sort of credit card at all. After I said no, she said "Uhm... thanks" and hung up.

  150. Maybe Dave should get an award by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Something like a big jackboot mounted on a pedestal, for kicking the telemarketer's asses...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  151. Unconstitutional? by scifiber_phil · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall something about not even the king may enter one's home without being invited to enter. Last I heard, I could walk away from speech that I found offensive. By signing up for DNC that's what I'm doing, walking away. I've been on the Pa. DNC for over a year. One night I got a prerecorded sales call. I'm champing at the bit for them to mention their company name or an 800 number I could call so I could write it down and complain on the state DNC web site to get them fined. neither was given, and at the end, it told me to give my name and phone number if I was interested. They got to call me, and got me to listen to their whole message without giving any information to me that could get them fined. It was a recorded message, and my guess is they got my number from the DNC list. The anger I felt at the end of that call was enormous. I hate those people more than ever, and now I really owe them one. Also, I got a call from Comcast with an offer. As I already get cable from them, they are allowed to call me under Pa. rules. The only thing is, Comcast contracts this out to a telemarketing company. The telemarketing company must have the DNC list, yet they felt compelled to call me in Comcast's name anyway. The next telemarketer that messes with me? It won't be pretty.

  152. Technically... by EaTiN+cOfFeE+bEaNs · · Score: 1

    This group argues that, if its members are prohibited from calling people who do not want to be called, then two million telemarketers will lose their jobs. Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers. But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home.

    If muggers intrude into your home, aren't they not merely muggers but burglars now?

    --
    No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
  153. That's fine by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Those people I can have arrested for tresspassing. Our condo grounds has multiple clearly posted signs. I'll just call the cops while they are busy harassing other residents.

  154. IF I make my living at the expense of another by phorm · · Score: 1

    Then perhaps I should be looking for another way to make a living? Just a thought boys and girls, but the "think about the poor XYZ" arguement can be used by almost anything. Yes, somebody is going to lose out on this.

    Personally, I'd rather pick up garbage or hand out cheeseburgers than do telemarketing, at least those are a public server. And yes, with the abuse you probably taking by pissing off people on a daily basis, plunging those clogged-up toilets might even be a better living as well. Gee, imagine that, looking for jobs that, while less sophisticated, are less offensive to the general public.

  155. Inevitable joke.. by Channard · · Score: 1
    SHE hung up on ME!

    A telemarketer hung up on *you*? Do you by any chance live in Soviet Russia?

  156. Funniest thing ever! by Channard · · Score: 1
    Man, someone losing their hearing is great! That'll serve those telemarketers right. (sarcasm mode off)

    Or alternately, they might actually make enough money to get out telemarketing when they sue the living crap out of the person who does this. I seem to recall hearing (pun not intended) about such a case, can't find an actual link to it though.

  157. This is a TCPA violation - Re:True story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    47 USC227 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS the use of prerecorded callsing gear to any number other than those who have explicitly authorised it (the latest FCC rule changes remove a previous exemption for religious, non-profit and political use) except in an emergency and goes on to describe emergencies as "safety if life" issues.

    It also specifically prohibits telemarketing calls to hospital numbers.

    $500 per violation, multiple violations per call mean more charges.

    Courts usually regard use of recorded calls as willful violation and apply triple damages to all charges.

  158. Re:Even Better (ooooo scary) by gosand · · Score: 1
    Just make sure you get the right ATA. Could be unwise to piss off the higher-ups at the American Taekwondo Association :)

    Yeah, they might come over to your house and break all your plywood! Of couse, you'd have to lend them the use of your stereo so they could play their "Mortal Combat" remix while they did it.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  159. How has Telemarketing *Ever* been legal? by milesObrien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AFAIK, I've never seen this argument used as a legal basis to end TM: the simple premise that my telephone service is a paid, private service. Commercial solicitation over a private service I pay for should not be legal. I've never heard of a class action suit against TM's on this principle.

    I expect some degree of spam and advertising from web-based mail like yahoo- I don't pay for my Yahoo mail account. But if I *did* upgrade to the paid premium level- then I expect not to receive unsolicited emails (if I never posted my email address to any forum, newsgroup or website) nor see any advertising anywhere on the web client.

    Similarly, my paid private voice service shouldn't be a conduit for unsolicited commercial interests.

    The only legal way TM makes sense is if I choose to appear on a "Commercial Solicitation OK" list. Then, I need to be compensated for every phone ring by a commercial interest calling me- whether I answer or not! TM's are abusing my time in distraction and using a paid resource in my home- the phone ringer and the single phone line, which another personal contact may be trying to use to reach me during the TM's attempt to call. The remuneration from each TM call ought to appear as a credit on my phone statement- again, only if I volunteer to be on a "OK to call" list.

    Telemarketing has *nothing* to do with freedom of speech, or the rights of commercial interests in any way shape or form. It is about exploiting (current) holes in the interpretation of personal privacy rights and abusing private communication services.

    Another post in this thread mentioned placing an indicator in current phone books next to personal name listings, a flag that means "no solicitors". Why this hasn't been available yet is dumb-founding, as it is no different than the ability to put a "NO Solicitors" sign on your front door (of your physical home).

  160. When the telemarketer comes a-callin' by Kazuko · · Score: 1

    Answer it like it's a secret agent "Thank you for your quick response 004, MI6 will be pleased by your efforts for Queen and Country. Your first objective is to contact your liaison, tomorrow night, 1930 GMT, at [insert place here, make it some place weird like Jakarta, Indonesia.] You will receive your instructions there." *hang up*

  161. The customer doesn't know what he wants by bfinuc · · Score: 1

    Any sales guy will tell you that.

    If the customer walks out of the store with exactly what he wanted when he came in, you have sold him nothing.

    Duh

    --
    I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
  162. Re:BofA by therealbev · · Score: 1

    A headhunter was especially obnoxious so my husband just said 'Go to hell' and hung up on her. A few minutes later she called back and yelled "I just wanted to hang up on YOU!" and slammed the phone down.

    Not a real effective sales technique...

  163. irony by tloh · · Score: 1

    I signed up for the do-not-call list. It needed email confirmation before being considered valid. I didn't know until the respond period had expired. Why? It sat in my bulk mail folder because YAHOO thought it was a piece of spam.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  164. Re:Bullying people for money on the street--illega by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    Man people are really eager to list "insightful" today, eh? What happened to earning such a rating?

    Begging for money is not the same as trying to sell you something. If fraud is involved, prosecute the fraud! Don't be a wimp and prosecute over a stupid and petty thing as calling you; it is not any different than "Mommy, Billy is looking at me!!"

    Now, stand on the street and try to *sell* something, then you can start to get close. Just because you don't like TM, and probably can't say no yourself (with or w/o a civil tone), is no reason to be so incipidly wrong.

    Why do I suggest you may not be able to tell them no? People that can/do typically do not complain about the suppposed "strong arm tactics" or compare TM to a mugging. They usually complain about the time and interruption.

    The worst thing to happen to this country was the abdication of personal responsibility.

    Don't like the show? Change the channel. Don't like the TM, hang up, don't take the call, or say "no".

    Hell, maybe gather some friends together, pool your money and run an ad campaign "Just say no to telemarketers." Just be careful to not use the phone to do it, or you lose your message.

    Like it or not, most TMers are college students putting themselves through school or second working parents, or single moms. Why? It pays better for one. This is not a "felel sorry for them" plea, far from it. However, it flies in the face of the pathetic claims that TMers are evil people out to bilk the poor and elderly from their life savings. It makes people feel better about yelling or cursing the other end of the phone out. People use it to justify something they know is wrong.

    You'd rather put these people out of a job than focus on nailing those who *are* committing the atrocities you mention. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

    --rant on--
    But hey, for some people they have to believe that shakey voice on the other end of the phone is a guy with horns a red suit and sitting in a room filled with brimstone, because they can't stand the cognitive dissonance that more governemnt means those people have to resort to telemarketing jobs, as opposed to staying home (if a working married mother), or giving up the TM as the second job they need to cover their living expenses or get out of debt because the government taxes the shit out of them to pay for all these "there outta be a law!" shouts from people who will not stand up and take personal responsibility.

    --rant off--

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.