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?
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."
Or the DMA has its hand in his pocket. I don't always assume that's the case, but it's always a possibility.
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?I do NOT agree with the court, but from a judicial stand point I think he's looking at the legality of one agency imposing rules that is not it's job.
I agree with the DNC List, but the judge is probably right that it should have come out of the FCC.
I know the government sucks when it comes to effiency but hopefully the FCC can just pick up and run with the FTC's program.
J
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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' ;-)
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