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!
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?
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.
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...
http://www.the-dma.org/, they seem to be quite proud of themselves
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Sounds like a opening line to a horror movie trailer: The Night of the Telemarketers.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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
Before someone posts his phone number, I'd just like to remind everyone: You do NOT fuck with judges. Harrassing a judge, ESPECIALLY about a legal judgement he made, will get you into some SERIOUS shit. A good portion of our legal system is designed to protect itself and its human components, especially court justices.
Be careful.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Don't call the judge. Don't call his chambers. Federal judges are generally very honest, bright, and fair people who follow what they see as the law. I've read the opinion. He applied precedent to the facts as he perceived them. His opinion was that the FTC was not authorized by Congress to take this step. You may disagree, but his reading of the law was well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretation. He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought, or whether he might get lots of annoyed calls. His job is to apply the law, and he did his job. Now: if you disagree, the very best thing to do is to tell your congressperson. They pass the laws that authorize the FTC to act; all they need to do is pass on that authorizes the FTC to institute a national Do Not Call list and it's over for the telemarketers. This decision would no longer stand in the way. DON'T call the judge and make our side look as bad as the telemarketers.
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.
Fuck you, bastard. I was born and raised here and have shit things out smarter than you. ....
Just because we don't have smog, incessant traffic, extremely dense population, and 30% higher retail prices DOESN'T mean we're backwards.
Apparently, along with smog, traffic, high population density, and high prices, Oklahomans also lack a sense of humor.
(Maybe it's because Will Rogers is gone?)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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.
Now: if you disagree, the very best thing to do is to tell your congressperson. They pass the laws that authorize the FTC to act;....
What??!!
You mean we shouldn't bother a judge who honestly applies the law -- even if he may not like the outcome --, and should instead ask our Congresspeople to get off their asses and do their jobs?
You mean, it's not the judge's fault that Congress prefers to only pass uncontroversial laws, while leaving the hard and unpopular decisions based on those laws to judges?
Why, you!!!
It shocks and exasperates me to see such a sober and insightful opinon on Slashdot! Please learn to post only knee-jerk opinions and "Beowulf Cluster jokes"; you're not up to our standards here!
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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?
It isn't harassing, it is notifying him of some great opportunities that he might not know about. If he doesn't take my call, I will starve, as I am a single mother who is just doing this job to get by. Or some crap like that. Anyway, this judge could opt-out. In fact, he would be required to, since it is my right to call him. If I call him 5000 times, that is harassment, but if 5000 people each call him once, what is that?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You are mistaken - and you should realize that before you discourage everyone here from addressing grievances to their public officials.
While it is specifically illegal to threaten a judicial official (ie. higher penalties then for threatening an average citizen) calling a judge at any available number and registering your opinion about their work is entirely legal - though judges might wish it weren't. DO NOT harass this misguided individual - and if you don't know the difference between harassment and simply making a call DON'T do anything, but don't believe that judges are somehow above the law when it comes to public suasion.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
So how long before Dave Barry publishes the Oklahoma judge's phone number? ;)
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.
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
He quite properly did NOT take into account what 50 million people thought
Last I looked, that is 50,000,000 phones, *not* 50M people. Big difference. Our phone here = 4 people.
Now, given that we live in a democratic republic, and forgive me for being blunt, but the people behind 50M phones ARE THE LAW. I'm sorry, but that's likely well over half, perhaps over 2/3 of the country. If we want the fucking do not call list, give us the fucking do not call list. To hell with the DMA.
Do you have ESP?