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."
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?
So do the Telemarketers now have a list of phone numbers that they know are valid? Can they use the DNC list to target their marketing for "difficult" or "hostile" numbers? Was this really just a scam all along?
Or is their access to the DNC list numbers restricted?
Name of the judge?
Addresses of the judge... Home, Courthouse?
Phone numbers for the judge? Home, Courthouse, Cell?
Docket # of the case...
I want to file an Amicus brief, and I WANT TO CALL THIS ASSHOLE.
After about 50 million people give him a call, he might get the message that we've told the industry to go fuck themselves for a reason...
My anger notwithstanding, there is US Sup. Ct. precedence for upholding the list! The Supremes decided this regarding regular mail, and I fail to see why telephone calls ought to be any different...
Even if this decisions is upheld, it doesn't necessarily mean that a constitutional amendment is required. The ruling says that the FTC overstepped their bounds. Legislation passed by Congress might be perfectly acceptable.
Also, there's no reason to believe that the database will be available to the telemarketers. If shouldn't go active until the decision of its legality is made, and if it's not legal it should be destroyed.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Let's slashdot the Direct Marketing Association. Their number is 1-800-969-6566. They PAY when people call their 800 number. Call them. Get ahold of a customer service rep, and ask to talk to their supervisor. Offer to sell them something (a beer can, a lawnmower, the DeCSS code, something). Every minute you talk to them they pay for it.
They've just said that they have the right to call us, so that naturally must mean we can call them, right? With any luck they'll be slashdotted before 3pm.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Yes, actually. This is not a simple do-not-call list, which reputable companies take pretty seriously. This is the government actively soliciting the names/numbers of people in order to prevent marketers from contacting them. Furthermore this list prevents marketers from contacting you ever, whereas the normal existing situation was that you would request that they not contact you again. Finally, this list places a burden on speech and is bound to create some difficult lawsuits, especially as to what constitutes an advertisment.
Forcing a company to obtain this list prior to making calls is a much different situation from requiring them to keep and honor a list of numbers they have called and been asked not to call again. The crux of the matter is the notion that advertising is not fully protected speech... which is fine. Regulate away. But to blatantly allow not-for-profit organizations to solicit donations while restricting for-profits from calling? Whatever.
I find the telepanhandlers way more annoying than the people who actually want to sell me something-- I don't see why the "speech" of charities is somehow more worthwhile than the speech of corporations. Want to guess how many more calls I'll get after this list goes into full play from groups like the Nation Foundation or the ACLU Foundation? Can't wait to see which new foundations are founded just for the purpose of making it possible for companies to do "branded" mailings and callings under the cover of a non-profit. Even without a sales pitch, anything with a corporate logo on it could very well be considered "advertising" (witness the recent Nike lawsuit).
Of course I talk to very few telemarketers/telepanhandlers/bill-collectors anyway... I use caller ID and an answering machine to my benefit. Best of all, neither of the above can realistically be regulated into existence or arbitrarily wiped out of existence by a capricious Judiciary.
I do not have a signature
As annoying as telemarketing calls are, they do serve a function.
A corporate function. I'm not interested in corporate functions. If I want to talk to someone, I give them my phone number, and say, "Call me sometime. We'll do lunch."
If this is a question of free speech, then I say we get the numbers of the telemarketers, and start calling them at all hours, just to chat.
It's just free speech, after all.
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.
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.
Also, corporations do not have any fundamental "right" to exist. Corporations are charters granted by the state. Until the late 1880s in the US, the state could excersize the right to revoke a charter if it were determined that the corporation were not acting in the best interest of the citizenry.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Just record those three tones that indicate a telephone number is unavailable. That is the first thing my answering machine plays when playing "my message" to the caller. If I recall correctly, these tones are what telemarketers "listen" for to determine if a telephon number is valid or not. Of course, all my friends know to leave a message after grandma bell plays the tones and says "tone tone tone, the number you have reached, blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah is no longer in service. Please make a note of it [repeat]".
Works every time!
According to this MSNBC Article: President Bush on Tuesday signed legislation creating a national "do-not-call" list intended to help consumers block unwanted telemarketing calls.
But according to this new article: The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City said the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it set up the popular anti-telemarketing measure, according to a court decision filed late on Tuesday.
OK, now I'm confused....How did the FTC overstep its authority if it supposedly did exactly what the President wanted? Or was the DNC list supposed to implemented by some other government organization?
...small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri...
either telemarking is legal or it isn't... clouding the issue with a "do not call" list is stupid.
WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO BE ON THAT LIST?!
by creating the list you kill the industry. this judge realizes that and is taking action.
if the list is legal, then you might as well just make telemarking ILLEGAL... same effect.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Since I've seen this in numerous posts... please people, count right. The article said 50 million phone numbers are in the list, not people. I don't know about anybody else, but my household has 3 phone numbers associated with it, I have some friends that have 4 or 5 numbers that they have. Presumably, someone would list all the numbers associated with them, not just a single one.
At a quick estimate, that puts the number close to 15 million people, not 50. (Okay, okay... still a big number, but a much smaller one when you consider that the US has about 275 million total. Around 5% instead of 18%)
Getting the judge's office number is easy -- just call up the courthouse. But if you did call, you will probably just get a secratery that will say that the judge makes his rulings BASED ON THE LAW.
I don't know about you, but I've already written my congress-critters and referenced the court case, asking that if the case has any merit, they need to pass a law explicitly permitting the DNC ban.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act does not authorize the FTC to create a Do-Not-Call database. It authorizes the FTC to collect fees to support the operation of the database.
The authorization to regulate telemarketing call (including creating a Do-Not-Call database) was explicitly given to the FCC in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act "TCPA" of 1991. The FTC was given authority to make rules concerning fraud, harrassment, and abuse in telemarketing By the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud Abuse and Prevention Act "TCFAP" of 1994. The authorization to create a Do-Not-Call registry was not part of the TCFAP.
So congress screwed up. The FCC has the authority. The FTC has the money. The FTC cannot usurp the power explicitly granted to the FCC, just because they feel like it. Neither can the FCC get the money from the FTC.
Congress needs to fix this, but it should be easily fixable, either by shifting the authority form the FCC to the FTC or by shift ing the money from the FTC to the FCC.