Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List
DirkDaring writes "Yahoo is reporting that a U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national 'do not call' list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls. With around 50 million phone numbers currently signed up this could get very messy."
No matter if you agree or not, you must realize that this judge just ticked off roughly 50 million Americans. He must really, REALLY think he's making the right decision (or lives in his own little world...).
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
We're hosed.
I can see the fnords!
Or has an enormously inflated sense of self-importance and likes that sort of thing.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
One important help in countering this threat, is by making it widely know which politicians, judges and other electable officials are opposing this do not call list.
This is an excellent way to use votes to pressure these people, without waiting for the next election. Let them know this influences your votes
the pun is mightier than the sword
Most of the telemarketing firms are in these backwater states. I'll bet he was getting pressured by local businesses to strike it down.
Ruling for business over private citizens. Now that's something that takes real guts in the US.
Yup, Big Business does indeed have more lawyers than you and me. This was to be expected.
Yesterday, I got wiped on the floor for suggesting that this will happen to the new Anti-Spam law in Cali.
Well, froth at the mouth all you want, it *will* come to pass.
So now the bozos are about to have access to 50-million recently *verified* phone numbers that were provided by the do-not-call list so that those clowns wouldn't call?
Yippie. >:|
The article claims that the arguement was that a national do-not-call list violates free speech. How can a list which is opt-in violate free speech? These telemarketers are perfectly free to say whatever they like - I just dont them to call my house to say it.
.
This is ridiculous. It's my understanding that signing up for the national do not call list was about a person's right to privacy. Free speech laws do not protect someone in the case of harassment or stalking. The do not call list seems kind of like getting a restraining order on them. I hope this decision gets overturned quickly.
Everyone stop right now, and CALL the Oklahoma Judicial branch, and tell them ALL about unsolicited phone calls, and how much you just LOVE to get them.
Maybe after a few hours.... They might understand how we feel.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
What happened to for the people by the people who cares what a judge thinks. 50 million people can't be wrong. Its our phone number if we want it on a no call list it should be our right to put it there. The only time it would be over stepping a boundry would be if the FTC signed the numbers up without your permission.
The question seems to be whether U.S. congress gave the FTC the authority to create such a list. This is a popular measure with a lot of support. Would it be possible for congress to explicitly give the FTC this authority?
But if it's an issue of Free Speech, the congress won't have the authority to grant the FTC this authority.
No sig
I work for a list marketing company and as such I get a unique perspective on this issue. Much as I'd hate to admit it this really is a good thing. My company has been growing and expanding but this law was going to seriously hurt our business. We market real lists, not spam crap lists and as a result it was going to cost us a ton of money to clean our lists to ensure DNC compliance. In addition our business was about to take a serious drop as a result of this legislation. Combine the 2 and what you have is increased cost with decreased business. Not a good thing for job security.
We are a small firm, only 12 employees. Imagine the damage that this would have done across the industry. Many people (read programmers) were about to lose their jobs and with the current state of the US economy that sucks.
That being said, its all just a matter of perspective. When I go home and my phone rings during dinner I want to throw it across the room. As a matter of fact, despite the company I work for I was one of the first to put my name on the DNC list.
no easy answers...
I disagree. This just shows that this is a very popular program. If the FTC did "overstep its bounds", then I'm sure congress can be convinced to change the FTC's 'bounds.' Better to have a Congressional stamp of approval on it anyway. I get worried when federal agencies start taking too much on themselves.
The court said the FTC didn't have the power to make this law and had overstepped its bounds...
Excuse me, but not only did Congress approve this, but 50 million Americans did, too. If 50 million Americans say a law should go through, then I'm thinking that it should go through. If 100 telemarketing companies (and their 2 paltry million employees) say it shouldn't, well, majority rules in a democracy. 25 to 1, we win.
There are still plenty of appeals to come... this is a district court, so it can still go up to the Supreme Court if it has to. Even if the FTC can't get it done, there is more than enough support in Congress to pass their own law or do whatever they can do about it.
IANAL, but I play one on
I went here to the FTC site on rulemaking re: telemarketing calls, and it looks to my eye like this is authorized by existing legislation. Also, I read this on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (Amended) and how it derives from Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
I guess this is just a case of the court being overly cautious here, but I fail to see how this is a restraint on Free Speech, since (a) the speech we are talking about here falls into the "commercial" category (b) it is "speech" directed into people's private homes without their authorization, permission or any expectation that they want to be bothered with it. Free Speech doesn't mean the freedom to yell your speech into my ear whenever you feel like it.
well the majority of american voters at one time supported the enslavement of black people. They also supported geneocide for native americans. I would say 50 million people could be dead wrong.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Hold on, hear me out.
If the Do-Not Call list goes into effect, then that will essentially be the Last Word on the subject. By putting yourself on it, you are declaring to the world you have no interest in Telemarketers. And, reversely, if you do NOT sign up, you are implicitly inviting them.
Now then, two points:
Number one, running a call center takes a LOT of money. The job is so odious that you can't pay minimum wage, you have to pay well above the standard wage for what is, otherwise, not a terribly difficult job. Plus overhead, huge phone bills, etc.
EVERY BAD NUMBER wastes money. A lot. We've seen those things about how you can screw TMs over by leaving the phone off the hook, etc. So, first of all, this would be a boon for the industry since it would weed out everyone they know would never, ever buy something over the phone. Far less wasted money in calling "Not Interesteds."
And, number two. Going with what I wrote at the top, you assume that any number NOT on the list is up for grabs. You then hire some market consultants and make God's own targetted marketing base. Every citizen not on that list, you start running background checks, sales figures, anything you can get at publically, and start fine-tuning your pitch to target those people specifically instead of taking the shotgun approach.
It would take a little setting up, but the end result would be a huge leap in actual sales, and less money wasted in worthless calls.
So, all this really just gives me even LESS pity for the DMA than I previously didn't have. Just like the RIAA, they're attempting to use the government and the court system to block a "scary" change to their business model, which would actually be a boon if they'd just open their eyes.
Such businesses do not deserve to exist.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Without the authority to prevent telemarketers from calling numbers on the list, does the list become a telemarketer's call list (since they have apparently had access to it for some time)?
There's a difference between door to door canvassing and telemarketing...first being that if I don't like you coming to my door at 6am handing out Bibles, I can answer the door in a pair of boxers holding my Colt 1911 and a bottle of Wild Turkey, thus assuring you never ever come to my house again. You have no such recourse against cowardly telemarketers (and spammers!) who will continue to bother you even after requesting not to be contacted again.
I'm all for a capitalist society, but these people need to fucking learn to sell their product in a way that doesn't make me want to destroy all that is good in their life.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
I think that this is something that should go to vote. I mean 50 million votes to get rid of telemarketing is a lot. If the American public would turn out to vote like they did to stop telemarketers I think the governmental landscape would look very different in America. But never the less isn't this the voice of the people just the same? Shouldn't government officials take notice of such a turnout? If this was a list for not getting unsolicited email the turnout may have even been bigger.
The problem with this assumption is that Congress created the FCC and the FTC. Congress defines the roles of these organizations. Congress picked the FTC to create the Do Not Call List. So I don't understand your assertion that the FCC should have done it. The Justice system has no Constitutional right to overrule the Congress on which agency should perform a function.
Let's imagine a world where the courts throw out the FTC do not call list based on the idea that the FTC has overstepped it's authority.
In such a world there are 50 million plus voters who all support an issue during a time of a very divided government. It's a legislator's wet dream. An easy issue with bi-partisan approval that constituents love. Just the thing to go into re-election trumpeting. Oh and cheap too. When congress gets done with it the DMA may be facing all kinds of restrictions beyond a simple do not call list.
Hey everybody, before you start calling, remember that a Federal District Judge is not just some idiot spammer. I would expect that there are laws against harrassing judges, and even if not, the judges certainly have the power to throw you in jail for contempt just on their say so.
In short, use a pay phone.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
Clearly, somebody is interested otherwise the calls wouldn't keep coming.
That's why it's an opt-in list. If you're interested, you don't sign up.
Username taken, please choose another one.
What happened to for the people by the people who cares what a judge thinks.
Remember, this is America: Land of the Fee, Home of the Paid.
Justice and equality is only for those who can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to pay for it.
Jory
I don't see why your industry should be granted special protection or favors. I've had to switch lines of work at least half a dozen times because of shifts in the economic winds. I don't recall ever arguing that the government should go out of its way to protect a livelihood that I had enjoyed but was ditching because it wasn't covering rent and groceries.
It wasn't that long ago that the ownership of human beings was considered a stand-up way of doing business in this country. Get over it, and get a different job.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
...and you hit the nail on the head. I have 3 telemarketing companies within 3 miles of my house, lots of call centers to. Ive heard were a major telecom hub due to our location (Tulsa) The sleazy business/litteralist is right on the head. It seems the more they have their head in the bible, the sleazier they are.
The phone number for the district court is 405-609-5000. I think we should all exercise our free-speech rights by calling them and telling them what we think of their decision.
(My compliments to Dave Barry for the inspiration.)
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
As annoying as telemarketing calls are, they do serve a function. Just because 50 million people believe that they shouldn't have to be bothered saying "I'm not interested." doesn't necessarily mean Congress can shut the industry down. Clearly, somebody is interested otherwise the calls wouldn't keep coming.
The industry isn't being shut down, 50 million people are simply telling it in advance that they are "not interested." The DMA should be thanking the government for pre-screening leads for them.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
This guy must be competing with the Calif 9th circuit for the coveted "The Law is an Ass" awards.
Judges who try to litigate from their appointed positions need to be reined in.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You'd think the morons would recognize the fact that if someone wants to sign up for this list, that means THEY WON'T MAKE A SALE BY CALLING THEM. But no...they have to play the victim like every other half-baked fool in this country.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Yes, harassing an officer of the court is well looked upon by federal authorities. No thanks.
"You get what you pay for after all." --
The FCC regulates the nation's communications infrastructure. The FTC regulates, in part, how trade is conducted. If overuse of the telephone network's bandwidth were the primary problem created by telemarketing, it might make more sense for the do-not-call list to be in the FCC's domain. But that isn't the problem, so it makes perfect sense to give it to the FTC.
Regardless, as others have said, it's Congress choice, whether it makes sense or not. The only party who appears to be overstepping his authority here is the OK judge.
Besides, as we all know, the FCC is a captive agency-- i.e., it primarily serves the interests of the industry that uses public resources (airwaves, et al.) that the agency was ostensibly created to regulate in the public interest. So, assuming that you want to actually do something in the public interest, it's best not to give the job to the FCC.
This is not a constitutional issue. The ruling will be overturned. If for some reason it manages to pass the appeals process, there is a good chance that congress will simply make it a law. The 1st Amendment protects your right to speak freely to others in public places. It protects your right to speak out against the government with the spoken or printed word. It does not empower you to threaten or harass others. It does not allow you to enter a person's private property (either on foot or over electronic line) to sell your wares. That is commerce, not speech. There are enough rulings on this to be sure that do-not-call will eventually go through.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
The court held that it was "inappropriate" for Congress to have allowed the FTC to interpret the congressional orders on its own, saying it "raises serious constitutional questions."
Recent US Supreme Court decisions have ruled that Do-Not-Call registries are legal, so there is no free speach issue no matter what the DMA wants to argue.
The constitutional issue is the seperation of legislative and executive power. The congress granted the FTC the authority to make rules concerning telemarketing fraud. The court felt that this rule was outside the authority granted by congress. An executive branch agency does not have the ability to make law, but the do have the ability to make the rules used to implement a law. The court held that the FTC overreached, it tried to make law instead of rules.
Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.
It is important to our system of checks and balances that executive rule making authority not be unchecked.
I admire the FTC for creating the list, but I also agree with the judge's opinion that the agency overstepped its authority in creating it. Fortunately, several states' attornies general have worked together to create do not call lists that can stand up to court tests.
While I'd like to see this as a federal government project (I can hardly believe that I just wrote that) because it involves interstate communications, it seems like any single federal agency that tries to implement one is going to end up stepping (in a legal sense) on some other agency's toes, something that the telemarketing industry will certainly exploit. But at least it seems to work pretty darned well on a state level.
-h-
It's not Congress, it's the people who opt-out. Congress merely gave people the power to opt-out. How is that unfair to the industry? Hell, the industry should be glad! That's 50 Million phone calls they don't have to make because those people would have said "No" anyway.
The sad thing is, that's not the case. Telemarketing is successful because they reach people who are submissive, insecure, mentally deficient, or elderly -- people who would have a hard time saying "no" to a telemarketer.
If those people start joining the DNC list, a large portion of telemarketers' revenue will go away. (Ahd pesonally I couldn't be happier.)
Jay (=
National Popular Vote for Gore: 50,996,116
;-)
National Popular Vote for Bush: 50,456,169
The question of course is WHICH 50 million was 'wrong'
The 50+ million who chose not to exercise their right to vote?
Judges should be elected, and not appointed. They should go through the same process as any other official.
// End Rant
I don't need some idiot in some appointed power back when Lincoln was president, making rulings that slavery is still the way to go.
(yes, fecicious... but still you get the point)
Same thing here.. we have old farts in the system that don't even know how to use a computer, ruling on cases such as Copyright, that affect the lives of people who DO know how to use them.
So instead of this moron judge voting this way because the top two busineses in OK are telemarketers!!!! He should have voted the will of the people 50 million of them, and said FU to them. And he would have, if he was elected. But instead, he's there for good, and could give two craps about what the people think.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Oh yeah? I'm betting at least 50 million people have chosen Windows over Linux. By the standards of
50 million people most definitely can be wrong, though in this case I would agree they are not.
Now if only 30,000 people would tie up his phone for 15 days. That'll teach him! Make him cower in fear!
Right. Nothing makes a federal judge quake in his boots like the unwashed masses armed with speed dial. He passed this ruling down because it's the *law*. And pestering a judge is only likely to make him really resentful of the public at large in the future. Do you know anyone who responds well to threats and mob rule? Really?
Why not post something useful like a congressional phone number or two and give people someone useful to talk to. The general populace of slashdot seems to think that vigilantism and mob rule are the best way to go about solving problems.
Corporate America has long figured out that if you want something done you lobby for it and make it the law-of-the-fucking-land.
The technology community for all it's intellectual prowess still can't figure out how to code in politics.
Remember that just becuase the judge ruled in favor of the telemarketers done NOT mean that he supports them, what he supports is the Constitution and Laws of the US. Judges can't ignore the law becasue they don't like what it allows. Think of cases of Double Jepordy, the judge is required by law the toss the case, even if it means that a person who is now clearly guilty of murder is going to walk! It's a hard job to make the unpopular calls that side with the people you dis-like, but it's a judge's job!
The whole reason the can call and harass us is because corperations have been given constitutional rights over the years. What we as an american public have to do is take these constitutional rights away from corperations.
This case tests their right to free speech. Corperations have no right to free speech, buisnesses do (the difference being, a corperation has stock, a buisness doesn't because a buisness is run by an owner and hence, derives it's rights from the owner. Read gangs of america, it's free in pdf if you search google.
The reason I didn't sign up is becuase of 1 simple reason. If the list is made useless in this sense meaning nobody can uphold it, guess where it's gonna be sent or rather sold to? It has names, addresses, and phone numbers all ripe for the plucking. Normally they have to go through a phone book or some other service, but this database can be added to other databases to make the databases even more complete. Whupdefucking do.
Plus, the whole "you havta send it in NOW NOW NOW!!!" smelled of all kinds of bullshit. I'll believe it and sign up when I see it.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I doubt that it would have the effect that you want. The best thing to do is write your Representatives, Senators, and President about these issues. Removal of a judge can occur at that level, but not at the district court level.
All that you'd be promoting is one really pissed off court receptionist.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
The lack of decent net connectivity affect rural Oklahoma as much as anywhere else in the US, though in Tulsa, OKC, etc you'll have no problem getting a decent (in my case 3mbps/256kbps) net connection for cheap. On a business level, both WorldCom (yeah yeah) and Williams being in Tulsa meant plenty of carrier infrastructure is in place for fatter net connections.
Cellphone coverage and facilities could do with improvement but they work. Having come from the UK I'm not impressed with the US cellphone setup anyway, but that's another flamewar.
Analogue and digital cable TV are readily available though it's quite sad how even with the hundreds of channels offered by the latter, there's still nothing decent on half the time.
Good things about Oklahoma
Reasons to go elsewhere
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
This is a commercial matter, not a human rights matter. Morality doesn't enter into it; the majority should rule.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Yes, some households have several phone numbers per person. However, other households have one phone number for several people. Cell phones, second lines, etc are moderately common, but far from ubiquitous.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
He didn't rule that the do not call list was illegal or unconstitutional, he simply ruled that the FTC didn't have the authority to enact and enforce the list. Congress didn't specifically give the FTC those powers and it's best that government agencies don't just accrue more power without specific grants from our elected legislators. You wouldn't want the FBI to suddenly be able to enact their own 'do not call list' of people they arrest do you? Oops, they already did...
If the industy can't survive without calling people who DO NOT WANT TO BE CALLED, then they deserve to die. There's still tens of millions of people *not* on the list.
I do not do business with telemarketers. I do not give to charities that bother me over the phone. Why would they NOT want to know that they are wasting their time when they call me? I don't pay my phone bill every month so some asswipe can bother me. They can advertise to me through the mail; that way they'll have to use their tiny little brains to figure out who might actually want their product, and I'll have something to use to help start my fireplace.
If you can't see the difference between a "do not call" list and making telemarketing illegal, you're not too bright.
Oh, and BTW, a judge isn't supposed to rule because of how it will affect the industry, (s)he's supposed to rule based on something called the "law".