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."
Just when you thought it was safe to answer the phone...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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!
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?
We're hosed.
I can see the fnords!
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?
From CNN
------
Objects in Mirror are Losing!
Call the judge to tell him how you feel, or just try to convince him to change his carrier.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
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
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...
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.
http://www.the-dma.org/, they seem to be quite proud of themselves
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.
I'm wondering if this judge is getting some sort of deal with a ton of telemarketer companies. "You cancel this 'Do Not Call List' and we'll take your number off of our lists."
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 will get done. The court just has a problem with how the FTC did it. I bet if Congress passed a do not call list bill there would be no problem.
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.
I was beginning to think people would actually get what they want in America. My faith in the system is restored!
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?
from Fox News...
A nice quote from that article:
Gee, I guess that never occurred to them before this list was created. Now that it has occurred to them, any bets on if they'll actually respect those wishes?Judge Lee R. West
http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/west.htm
You know what to do.
Well at least we didn't all just give our numbers to the telemarketers...
Two of the top businesses in the state are telemarketers:
f
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/budget/table1.pd
At least Walmart has more employees.
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.
Ok at 50 million numbers and climing. Its easy to see the US people do not like telemarketing. but seams the US legal system can not take this inot account. I would hope this goes to a higher cort,a nd all 50million people are asked to write in saying why they do not like telemarketing.
Also give out the phone numbers for the judge's house. And you can all call him around dinner time.
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.
"Where the phone rings freely while you dine..."
"Where your privacy's cheap, and things that beep
"Don't stop slammers - even on their dime...."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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)?
"The Direct Marketing Association and its fellow plaintiffs are grateful that the federal District Court in Oklahoma City understood and upheld the industry's belief that the Federal Trade Commission does not have authority to implement and enforce a national do-not-call list," the trade group said in a press release."
The article is erroneously missing the statement:
"Our check is in the mail, as promised."
I haven't had time to read it yet, but here it is: Order
--Kobayashi--
Oh, I should point out their phone numbers: President's Office -- 212.768.7277, ext. 1604 Privacy -- 212.768.7277, ext. 2408
A post on Techdirt has contact information for DMA (Direct Marketing Association).
This may be delayed, but it will happen. Assuming that it is really 50 million people, and not 50 million numbers (big difference, I myself registered 3 numbers), Washington politicians can not ignore that large of a group. 1/6 of the US population is large enough to push through legislation no matter now much money the DMA puts toward lobbying.
Children in the backseats don't cause accidents. Accidents in the back seats cause children.
405-609-5140
I spoke to a nice lady, told her the gist of my second paragraph above (redacting the personal comments) and that the judge had overstepped HIS authority. I warned her to expect a lot of calls.
She asked me for my name and phone number....
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
Halliburton will be allowed to bid on maintaining the 50 million subsciber list.
How sleepless is the egg, knowing that which throws the stone forsees the bone.
When did I say they were incapable of error? It was a short post and I can't find that statement or implication anywhere.
Let me phrase my post another way: What particular aspect(s) of the judge's decision do you think were incorrect? Feel free to be as specific as you like about his arguments, facts, etc.
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.
Except the Supreme Court has already held that commercial speech doesn't have the same protection as individual speech. The question is probably going to end back up in the Supreme Court as it's not clear how much latitiude Congress has in a case like this.
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.
Well, when my girlfriend has her hand in my pocket.. one could argue that she is indeed getting something out of it. But really, I'm the one getting fondled.
but er.. I think the way it's supposed to go is the judges end up in the pockets of the big corporations (alongside all of the politicians).
Telemarketers are not allowed to call cellular phones.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
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.
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
Our databases and applications have already been scrubbed against the FTC DNC list here.
Regardless of the court ruling, word has come down from management to continue forward and not rollback the some 26 million households we suppressed.
So I guess not even the direct marketers believe this ruling will stand.
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.
- "The DMA is a membership organization." Interesting fact.
- "We are here to help you." Good, because I need help right now- my blood pressure is up after reading this article.
- "You can reach us by mail, phone, fax or e-mail at the following addresses:"
And then follows a list of over 30 contacts. I wonder who could help... "Consumer assistance"? No, I never consume their products (although they try to force feed everyone) so that isn't me. Privacy? That probably goes to an overfilled voicemail. How about "Direct Marketing Educational Foundation"? That could work- I certainly think that Direct Marketing needs more education.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.
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
I wonder why these scum do not realize that congress/FCC/et al have done them a huge favor.
They have just been supplied a list - free of charge - of fifty million people on whom they should not waste their money contacting.
Friends, I have to admit that during my college days I was one of these bottom-feeders for about three days in the service of a nameless portrait company, you know the one (the things we won't do for beer money), and the biggest problem we faced was the endless string of not-interesteds we had to filter through to get to the one grandma who might take the pitch. In fact, we had a system (way back then we used rotary phones and a green-and-white fanfold printout, so it may be better, I don't know) to remove so-called "hostiles" from our list, a process which took about five minutes EACH number.
These clowns shouldn't be suing in court, they should be bowing down to our collective magnamosity.
"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."
-B
Your a pessimist, arent you? I give them 20 minutes after this post.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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!
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
Dude, I did basic training and AIT at Ft. Sill. If Lawton represents the rest of the state, you have a lot of explaining to do.
BWTF do I know? I live in Sitka, AK.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Feel free to give them a buzz and let them know how you feel about their minions calling you all the f---ing time!! Or better yet send a lengthy e-mail.
American Teleservices Association
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Toll Free: (877) 779-3974
info@ataconnect.org
Unforunately, there is a minor flaw in your logic.
Telemarketers often* sell products to individuals who have a very, very poor image of telemarketers, and are firmly resolved not to buy anything.
Maybe not you and me, but 90% of America. You have to understand, they have a very, very, very low positive response rate, but an extremely high call volume. I worked in a survey firm, and our response rate was something abysmal---like 1 in 60. Focus groups were notably better, but my friends who worked across the street at MCI or Access Direct got maybe a 1 in 200 response rate.
Didn't matter. Those autodialers are quick.
You see, part of the 'training' they give you is how to push products on to unsuspected clients. "Tell us how much your phone service costs". Or even worse (this one really pisses me off), "Give us your address and billing information so we can reduce your long distance rates". Or another terrible one: "We need your billing information to update your credit protection service".
Pressure, Pressure, Pressure, and all of a sudden, the poor sap on the other end of the line is tired of saying no, and they just purchase the thing that marketer is trying to sell, just so they don't have to be rude.
I thought it was bad at my research firm. I couldn't believe that crap that went down at MCI, comissions included.
I used to fall prey to this kind of crap before. I remember a set of ten magazine prescriptions, which were supposedly only $10 a month, which actually became $40 a month (because I was being charged in advance), and of which 6 of the magazines never came through.
Evil, blooding sucking, pus-filled bastards.
The only way to deal with these people is to tell them to shut the fuck up, stop calling your number, and find a real job.
I felt bad doing survey research on blood glucose measuring devices, and video game focus groups. The telemarketers out there have made a concious decision to get a higher paying, commission based job, fleecing people out of their money.
You don't have to be nice to them. In fact, they probably say really horrible things about you to their coworkers after they get off the phone with you.
But as long as 1 out of 200 American's do not have the backbone to stand up to them it will make sense for them keep racking up the calls---even out of a database such as the do not call list.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
10. Call everybody on it.
9. Use it to pick lottery numbers.
8. Send $1 to the first person on the list, then add your name to the bottom and forward it to 10 friends.
7. Same as above, but put your name at the top of the list.
6. Tell John Ashcroft it's a list of suspected terrorists.
5. Create the ultimate uncrackable password: echo `cat donotcalllist`
4. Reduce the national deficit by selling it back to the telemarketers for a pretty penny.
3. Register every phone number as a new Internet domain (212-555-1234.com) to help thwart Verisign.
2. Filter it through the Unix command "tr aeiou eioua" and remark how everybody's names look Swedish.
1. Turn in the bastards to the RIAA.
This is just so delicious. Year 2000 USA Election Statistics
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 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-
That's either going to be overturned on appeal, or the FCC and FTC will work out some organizational way to deal with it.
Even with the judge's ruling, the do-not-call registry should still apply to businesses directly regulated by the FCC, such as telephone companies.
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
I never really looked at the numbers associated with the DNC list. It seems like more Americans participated in this than they did in the last presidential election.
Woohoo!
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
that the list of 50 million do-not-call numbers be released to the DMA for "market research purposes". In other news, the Federal court in Oklahoma has suspend its judicial calendar to take a fact finding mission to Las Vegas where the judges will enjoy an all-expense paid bacchanal courtesy of the DMA.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Well, when my girlfriend has her hand in my pocket.. one could argue that she is indeed getting something out of it. But really, I'm the one getting fondled.
Dude, you post to Slashdot. When your "girlfriend" has her hand in your pocket, she's going for your credit card.
To see how many more minutes you can afford on the "date".
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
he'd have chucked his invention in the trash and announced voice over wire, if not impossible, something not desirable. "I had this vision - once the 'telephone', as I call it, had been installed in households everywhere, becoming an essential instrument, suddenly every quack medicine peddlar would begin abusing it. Mark Twain was right, I should not have invented it".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Odds are, as a judge, his home number would be unlisted. There are many professions where you will come into contact with people who you DON'T want to know your phone number and home address. Police officers, school teachers, psychiatrists, and so on.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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%)
It's unrestricted if you have the $7200 per year required to download it.
It is *not* a free download, something that has gotten little publicity. It's only free to charities and pollsters and the like. Companies are required to purchase it, at a cost of $25 per area code, up to a maximum of around $7300.
While I'm a fan of the idea, I was surprised to learn about the costs involved. I love the idea of a do not call list, but using it as a way to tax telemarking calls just seems a bit shady.
If it does get overturned direct marketers now have a huge list of people they CAN call. I'm sure they would have paind mega bucks for 50 million valid numbers.
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?
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
LEILA JEANNE HILL, AUDREY HIMMELMANN, and EVERITT W. SIMPSON, Jr., PETITIONERS v. COLORADO et al.
1 3699&c=86.
[June 28, 2000]
Majority opinion, delivered by Justice Stevens:
>> The unwilling listener's interest in avoiding unwanted communication has been repeatedly identified in our cases. It is an aspect of the broader "right to be let alone" that one of our wisest Justices characterized as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).24 The right to avoid unwelcome speech has special force in the privacy of the home, Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 738 (1970), and its immediate surroundings, Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S., at 485, but can also be protected in confrontational settings.
That covers all the cases above except for number 5. In that case, assuming the WTO officials include US political leaders, I believe that the right to express one's views to one's political leaders may prevail. See http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=
IANAL, but I can use google and quote things.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
So how long before Dave Barry publishes the Oklahoma judge's phone number? ;)
Actually I believe war-dialers like that ARE in fact illegal regardles of DNC lists.
Regardless, war dialers are used, and with increasing frequency. Where I used to work they had blocks of phone numbers and I would hear the phones ring at the other desks, and then hear my phone ring and hear a pre-recorded message about how I've just won a discount vacation to Disney[tm]land or whatever.
I've noticed a sharp increase in pre-recorded messages to my home as well. From what I understand these are a big no no and at one time the gub'ment cracked down hard on them. I guess it has been too long since and now the scum sucking telemarketers are using them again. (I think there was even a Simpsons episode about it.)
One time I was pissed off and decided to call the phone company to ask if there is anything I could do about it. The person would only suggest that I contact the Attorney General's office.
I have caller ID and most of the time lately I just don't answer the phone if it says "Out of Area" or "Unavailable" or whatever. I'm starting to think it is time to start f*#@ing with them.
If we can't have our national do not call list and they insist on bugging us, then lets waste their time as well. See how long you can keep the person on the phone without buying or agreeing to anything. I've also thought of just doing nothing but Meowing at them. But if you can keep them on the phone for a while without buying anything then it really hits the profits of the telemarketing company. Maybe I'll keep them on the phone for a while and then start Meowing at them.
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
He isn't going to change his mind for you. You're just going to piss him (and his clerks) off, and you might get the FBI or the Federal Marshals interested in you. Harassing a federal judge is a really bad idea.
Instead, if you feel the need to call anyone, call the FTC and/or the DOJ and ask them to appeal the decision. Or call your Congressman/Senator and ask them to change the law.
Or (if you live in DC like me) silently fume because you don't have a voice in government. Give DC voting rights now!
Contact your senators and representatives, at the very least by email, instead of harassing the judge who made the decision (no matter what your opinion of him). The directories are here:
House of Representatives
Senate
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.
Call the asshole judge and ask him where the U.S Constitution guarantees an audience for free speech...
.pdf
The Honorable Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151
clickity here and slashdot his website too... don't forget to download his
I'm concerned about people who provided cell numbers and unlisted numbers to the list.
Telemarketers have been able to download the list for some time now from donotcall.org. That means they not only have verified that your number is current but that they also have the potential to add to their call lists additional numbers they did not have before.
The nice lady at the court office said attorney's from neither side had ever mentioned that issue and that the judge had not considered it. I asked whether it was not incumbent upon a responsible judge to educate himself as to all the ramifications of any ruling he might make, whether those issues were raised by the parties or not. I reminded her that up to 50 million people are unofficial and apparently unrepresented parties to the suit and I would think the judge should have given a little thought to protecting my privacy rights as he made his ruling.
Congressman Tauzin's aide who is specifically taking calls re this ruling said 1) this issue isn't over - they are looking at legislation and/or challenges to the ruling and that they are moving quickly and 2) as far as she knows, no one at the legislative level has thought about the issue of unlisted numbers which might now be on that list in the hands of telemarketers. Oops. By the way, I started and ended that conversation by expressing appreciation to the Congressman for his efforts on our behalf.
Charlie, who answered the consumer complaint phone for the FTC Southeast region, was a little confused at first as to what my concern was. As soon as he "got it," he asked to be excused for a moment. When he came back a good while later, he reported that as far as they could tell, the download was still available on the website and they were escalating the question up the chain to the national level as quickly as possible so that someone could address it pronto. Good on Charlie! Very sharp young man -- he deserves a promotion!!
Don't you just love the level of foresight on the part of those working to "protect" our privacy? I mean, I truly do appreciate the effort, but they need to do their homework a little better.
computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the
50 million people signed up for this list. Which is not the same as eliminating 50 million people who would never buy from the DMA's clients from their pool of numbers. I'm on the list. I would never buy anything pitched to me through unsolicted phone or e-mail contact. I am not who the DMA is afraid of losing.
The DMA is afrain of losing the people who are too timid to say no the telemarketers. Grandma just can't say no to the pushy TM on the phone, but she can call up the FTC (or is the FCC?) and get her off the list. It's the people, the people who don't want stuff but CAN'T SAY NO when asked to buy it that the DMA is terrified of losing.
Joel.
asking, "so what part of NO don't you understand, so we can get a new bill in tomorrow?" FTC will appeal, hopefully a court with a clue will tell the good ol' boy just how the cows eat the cabbage in a few days.
u mn ists/dave_barry/6649728.htm
meanwhile, Dave Barry should get his second Pulitzer Prize for his column (syndicated through Knight-Ridder from the Miami Herald) printing the 800 number of the American Telemarketers Association... and forcing them to stop answering the phone. just who makes those nominations, anyway? just asking, because 50 million Americans want to know.....
oh, the link.... it's
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/col
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?