Slashdot Mirror
House Votes to Launch Do-Not-Call List
Zendar writes "Yahoo! has a story on how it took less than an hour with a final vote of 412-8 to approve the 'do not call list'. "Votes to overturn the judge's order are expected mid-afternoon in both chambers, according to Republican leadership aides." The President is expected to sign today. Some choice quotes: "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong." and "This bill will pass faster than a consumer hanging up on a telemarker at dinner time." CNN also has the story."
Why can't they pass an anti-spam bill as quickly?
Hopefully voters will remember how well the dissenting congressmen "represented" them the next time they go to the polls.
..hell just froze over.
Harald
Wait, my government went against a bussiness interest for the sake of the people?
They did a good thing?
I take back some of the bad things I have said about them. Now if only they could continue this trend...think about it...RIAA ruled unconstitutional, it's members shot. MS seperated into many different companies, forced to develop OSS.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
Unless those same 50 million people are using P2P software.
Trolling is a art,
Shouldn't you have predicted that the telemarketers would have just passed on some cash to the campaign funds and won? Ooops.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Small industry to offend
plus
Lots of voters to please
equals
Lopsided vote
plus
Passage in record time
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
What about that judge that i read about on Slashdot. Is he overruled now? It was only a few days ago. Couldn't he have waited for this vote?
The funny part is that the DMA started whining about harrassment when it started receiving all those phone calls yesterday. A lot of the calls were reported to its telco.
-
"Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
I posted my incisive and witty commentary on this matter of vital national importance earlier this afternoon.
While 50 million Americans may be right in this case, they can DEFINITELY be wrong. For example. more than 50 million Americans believe that the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever bullshit theory that is). One cannot automatically assume that a large number of people are right. That's plain bullshit mobocracy.
While I am on the list and would very much like to see it go through, it irratates me when I hear statements like "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong.".
Popular votes are routinely wrong and a number of them have had horrible consequences.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
Thats why 60million fileshare and thats not ok.
Hey telemarketers!
Whats that?
You what?
You don't like it?
Well have your people call my people.
OH WAIT THEY CAN'T!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Several analysts have ponted out that this coud mean milions of lost jobs in an important industry.
Yeah, and laws against murder have thrown millions of hitmen out of work.
While many of us don't like people selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.
If I want to buy something, I will contact them, or I will leave myself off the list. People on the list have made their decision. They don't want to buy telemarketed crap.
This is slashdot, we don't like capitalism, because we got fired from our dot-com jobs when it turned out that we generated nothing of value. We want all that free stuff back and we want the rich people to pay for it because they aren't giving us free music, are making OS' we don't approve us, and are generally conspiring to keep us down.
Sincerely,
A. Slashbot.
No, of course not. Not like 50 million Americans still believe in frikkin' astrology or anything.
Hell, 25 million Americans still probably believe in Santa Claus. Sure, they're children, but that's really no excuse. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Cynicism and pessimism is not original or insightful at all. It is empty and braindead...a drag on progress. If that's all you feel, may I recommend the Church of Euthanasia.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Telemarketing will die because the telemarkers finally managed to make themselves obsolete by increasing their most annoying habits (pre-recorded autodialers, calling during dinner every night) that people had finally just had enough. This will be bad for the economy in the short term in some places where this business thrives, but it's not as devastating as some would have you believe.
Industries form and evaporate all the time, yet the economy survives. Those people that are currently engaged in telemarketing will find some other way to make money, and markets will adapt. The economy didn't implode when the automobile devastated the buggy whip business, and it won't implode due to this either. The real fear is what sort of even more annoying marketing tactics will be invented now that this one is being slapped down.
Anyone want to bet these Congressman have telemarketers in their districts?
Fezzik: "Actually, it seems to be coming from the direction of the Direct Marketing Association Washington offices..."
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
well that was fast. the only thing that i can recall having been passed in faster fashion were the House & Sentate approvals required to purchase the land for and the construction of the Pentagon. Took something like less than a month for the War Dept to go from concept to groundbreaking ceremony. Then another couple months for actual work to start in the first wedge.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
And more importantly, what does this have to do with my right online?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I mean come on, doesn't the Constitution guarantee every American the right be heard...over the phone? Also, whose free speech is being trampled if they can't put those messages on my answering machine anymore.
I cannot stand bad thinking. And bad thinking is just what the Telemarketers are engaged in when they argue that the DNC list will cost jobs.
They could make an arguemnt for free-speech. I say the could make it (without me laughing), but I will disagree in the end with that one too.
But as for jobs -- it will actually make the telemarketer MORE money -- if there are less telemarketers! The current game plan is simply to call everyone on the planet from the time they are born until the time they die like every second of every day. I would suggest that TARGETED, AGREED, and WARRANTED solicition will result in a lower-cost of SALES OVERHEAD than currently spamming everyone on the plantet, with the same rate of success!
Of course, the telephone companies sit quietly in a corner and pout as it was their corner upon which the pimp was solicting his wares.
I would love to wake up in an opt-in world, but until that day I have to have some way to say, "No, I don't want a year's subscription to volvo-hotrod magazine.".
Peace Out.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
It's great that this is finally going into effect and all, however, 90% of the telemarketing calls I receive are prerecorded politicians trying to get me to vote for them.. Something needs to be done to stop that nonsense.. I don't need to hear about how you plan to fix California's debt when i'm trying to eat KFC and watch Joe Millionaire damnit!@!
-- pX
if this was an opt-in to being called instead of an out-out of being called list, NO ONE WOULD SIGN UP.
so all this list does is force every american to sign up for it. we ALL want to be on it.
why don't they just make telemarketing illegal?
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Elections are coming up fast... an issue that annoy's EVERY voter out there and you can say "I voted for that for YOU!"
the Judge was doomed by making a really dumb decision, and he just got bitch-slapped by the Government on one issue that is guarenteed to make your elected official look good in one way.
yeah, it's the DUH vote....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's certainly pleasing to see that on at least one issue of national import, our elected reprentatives can all pull together for an effective resolution.
I'm rather disappointed by the negativity that has been heaped on Judge West for his ruling suspending enforcement of the law, though. It's the job of the judiciary to keep the executive branch (in this case, the FTC) from overstepping the bounds of their authority granted to them by the legislative branch. If there was a question as to whether or not Congress granted the FTC sufficient authority to create such a list, enforcement of it certainly should be suspended until the matter is resolved. In this case, Congress (well, the House, anyway) has made itself clear on the matter -- they have explicitly placed the creation and enforcement of the list in the mandate. Unless West does something foolish at this juncture, like continuing to try to fight the enforcement of the list, he should be commended for doing his job of keeping the government consistent.
Funnily enough, in the UK, many people find that most of their spam comes from the USA. If you could kindly get your government to do a similarly fine job on spam, I would get less offers for enlargement of body parts and other tempting offers...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Great. I hope it dies. Telemarketing is the phone equivalent of spam.
If only we could deal with spam so easily.
Leave my fucking phone alone.
How long have telephones been around?
Doesn't sound quick to me at all. They aren't passing a bill saying No Telemarketing, they are passing a bill saying the FCC can have a Do Not Call List. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Call the FCC for a Do Not SPAM list.
I'm all for this list, heck my numbers on it, but shouldn't they just have the FCC do it instead? Wasn't that the problem, that the FTC didn't have the congressional authority to regulate telephone calls like the FCC did? I mean if there's this much support in congress and the administration doesn't it just make more sense that rather than add another law to the books (and give the FTC jurisdiction over something that they may not be suited for) just let the FCC take quick action? We know the FCC supported the idea since they "combined" their authority with the FTC's and just let the FTC run the list. The only reason I can see for the FCC not doing it is because supposedly the FCC chariman is independent of the administration and isn't supposed to be influenced in day to day matters, but they are supposedly in support of this, so what gives?
...to a wonderful land called "Spameria" where they'll actually make up any significant sort of majority. Otherwise, it's the people who voted against it that will probably get nuked come Nov 2004.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"...hanging up on a telemarker at dinner time"
I wouldn't hang up on a telemarker. You should see their kneel turns!
I'd fancy some telemarking any day!
Just to clarify - the judge held that the FTC did not have Congressional authority to implement the list. This vote simply gives explicit Congressional authority to the FTC to maintain a "Do Not Call" list.
The role of a judge is to interpret the laws, and he interpreted the law as he saw it. Congress took note and now fixed it. Now, unless there's a serious Constitutional question (doubtful), and if the FTC now has explicit authority from Congress, then this *should* be the end of litigation by the DMA.
So, just to clarify, the judges ruling was complied with, not really overruled.
I pay a phone bill to use my own phone as I see fit. I'm not paying to have some dipshit try to sell me stuff I don't want. If I want something, I'll go buy it.
Every time I answer one of these calls, I tell them to put me on their do-not-call list. But you know what? There's always some new dipshit company calling.
Enough is enough. Fuck 'em. Let them find new jobs.
Based on today's vote, I think it is pretty clear that the legislature had given the F.T.C. this authority. The reason for the hurried vote is not just the public outcry from yesterday's ruling. Legislators take offense when a court misreads their intent. They are simply clarifying their earlier position.
And why is the end of telemarketing a bad thing? Sure people will lose their jobs, but industries die and employees are forced to gain new skills everyday. This was an industry that made their profit by harrassing people in their own homes. The telemarketing industry should never have been allowed to exist to begin with.
As far as those employees who lose their jobs, perhaps the fines collected for violation of the do-not-call list could go to a fund to pay for skill training programs for former telemarketing workers? Sounds like a plan to me.
--Kobayashi--
Fifty million Americans can't be wrong. That's going to be the mantra in Congress for the next two weeks as frantic resolutions are passed authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to implement the proposed National Do Not Call lists. It is ideal legislation; what self-respecting member of Congress is going to vote against those annoying calls at dinner to sell you vacation rentals or offer a credit card.
Ignored in the fracas is a startling truth: The Do-Not-Call list is going to be a failure. It's also an example of the worst sort of government regulation. The two arguments against a Do Not Call list are job loss and the power of marketing. The direct marketing industry has been crying out about potential job losses. Losing two million jobs, many going to low income rural Americans, is a bad thing. And I can believe that the choice direct telemarketing offers (would you like to switch your phone service for 2.9 cents a minute?) helps consumers in the long term. But let's break down why the Do Not Call list is going to fail: Nonprofits, Politicians and Business Process.
The two biggest abusers of telemarketing are politicians and nonprofits. I can't tell you how many times the Virginia State Police Association has called me asking for money. And my phone rings off the hook come election time with Get Out the Vote Calls. These two groups are exempted under the Do Not Call list.
But the exemptions, once created, can only be expanded. Do nonprofits that hire commercials solicitors need apply? What about nonprofits cross-selling commercial products (Greenpeace offering a MBNA Credit card? The NRA offering AT&T phone service). If our intent is to create a zone of privacy, why let in two industries off the bat. And why it may reduce the number of calls, the FTC does not have the staff or expertise to go after the multitude of nonprofit cross selling opportunities which will arise.
I can understand the hypocrisy of politicians removing themselves from the Do No Call regulations, but how is the average American going to react when they get 15 calls to vote for their local congressmen, city council members or Senator come election time. Didn't we sign up for the Do Not Call list, dear? Oh, yes, but Politicians can still call you.
But the biggest weakness, and why the Do-Not-Call act is going to fail, it that it trying to regulate an admirable process (stop telemarketing) but isn't setting out the tools necessary to do so. Let's look at how a telemarketer works. They buy data from a data company - say 15 million records on people who moved recently. They run that through some sorts and come up with 250,000 phone calls they need to make, and then hit the digits.
The national data companies will take the data a few times a year and add a field for people who signed up for Do Not Call. What that means is that if you move, or change phone numbers, it's going to take a while for that information to be updated. And if you name was already sold, say two years ago to a telemarketing firm, how is that company going to find out you where on the Do-Not-call list. Are they going to take their existing data and clean it (which costs money that the companies don't want to spend). And what if you run a business out of your house? Business to business calls are still open, so that means you are still open for calls. There's a hundred other examples of this, and the net result is that a lot of the 50 million Americans who signed up are still going to be gettings calls at 6 pm, and after a long and complicated procedure they are going to find out there's not much you can do. The Do Not Call list is government regulation that ignore business process, and it is going to do very little to stop the calls.
Congress created the FTC, and Congress can change the FTC's mission. Congress explicitedly told the FTC to create the Do-Not-Call list. Hence, they did not stray outside their area.
It has been pointed out that this claim is hyperbole. Most people who work for call banks work for a specific company. For example, a bank which calls its own customers. Such calls are still legal.
But that is laisse faire captialism, which we don't have in this country.
The Old Burke wrote: ... industry.
(quote edited for accuracy but not spelling)
> Several analysts have ponted out that this coud
> mean milions of lost jobs in an
Good. I have no sympathy for those people who will be put out of work by the DNC list. They should have paid attention in high school so they could have gone on the college and obtained worthwhile jobs. I have no obligation to support the mentally weak and lazy.
Spigi
Does that mean we have now voted god into existence?
Does this mean that astrology is real?
Does this mean I can talk to the dead?
Does this mean that Friends is really a good show?
I think not. 50 million people can sometimes be real doofuses.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
The Direct Marketer's claims of lost the jobs is very hollow. A large numbewr of those jobs reside overseas for the lower wages and increased profits. So, the jobs would have been lost as these telemarketer's would have slowly moved these jobs to places overseas anyway.
I wonder why the FCC didn't do it?
Where are all the Texas trolls? I haven't heard anything since September 13th or so. Saved me loads on my OU Texas tickets.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong"
It is statements like that that show what bozos we have in public office. Fifty million Americans are wrong on a daily basis, and simply the fact that lots of people agree doesn't make something right. We need leaders in office, not sheep.
Qualifier: I am an American, and in favor of the do not call list, and Congress doing what it takes to get it to take effect.
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
Fifty million Americans can't be wrong
I'm on the list, and I'm not an American - I'm a British expat.
I guess that makes 49,999,999 Americans.
It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's area.
Clear? Outside its area? How so? That is the Federal Trade Commission. It would seem that they are in charge of regulating trade that crosses state lines.
Several analysts have ponted out that this coud mean milions of lost jobs in an important industry.
Boo hoo. No one ever guaranteed that "industry" a profit.
Everyone knows that this could mean the end off telemarketing as an economical way of doing bussiness.
So be it. See above. Let them find a different business model. One that is not so intrusive upon the consumer.
While many of us don't like people selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.
Capitalism does not include the forcing of your selling mechanism upon me. You can advertise all you want. I have the right not to be bothered with it if I don't want to.
With telephone advertising, there is really no method, short of unplugging the phone, to turn it off. The DNC list provides citizens that method.
look at it this way.
the people out there who have bought stuff from telemarketers in the past aren't likely to sign up on the do not call list, just the rest of us who slam the phone down on em.
Basically, the people not on the list are now self selected to be the ones likely to buy something. this will push UP the percentage of calls that generate a sale, increasing revenues for telemarketing companies.
I think it's a win/win situation.
"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
Ring.
"Hi, my name is Bill, and I'm calling on behalf of [one of the 412 representatives] to remind you to vote for [name of rep]. During his/her last term, he/she fought for your rights to eat dinner without the interruption of annoying commercial telemarketing calls. Of course, this call is exempt, since it's part of a political campaign."
"How did you get my number?"
"From the national Do-Not-Call list."
If they successfully pass this, it will increase the amount of spam and paper junkmail that we are barraged with.
I'm all for it. I get about 30-40 telemarketer calls a day at work. People trying to sell all kinds of crap, pump me for information, or generally just waste my time.
Sometimes it's entertaining to mess with them (my boss advocates this) but other times, i don't have the desire to put up with any shit. Especially the bastards that call right when you hang up on them:
"Hey! I think we got disconnected."
"Yep, and it is gonna happen again" click
"Why are you hanging up on me? I need to talk to your purchasing department about some incredible deals on copier equ-"
"Say, tell me... What do you think about fisting and donkeysex?"
"err.. uhhh. huh?"
"You know, fisting... like burying your arm up to the elbow in a donkey's snatch. If you catch them while they are in heat, you can make a lifelong-"
click
It works sometimes (especially on chicks), but they always end up calling back.
do() || do_not();
Someone needs to patent a do-not-call list and method so the american govt owes you $$$ for each person that signs up!!!
er..
1. create do not call list method
2. patent said method
3. sue the hell outta the govt
4. get landed in jail for being a terrorist..// DOH
You don't see me bithcing because my shit on a stic service didn't pan out do you?
*Why not then let the court decide the case?*
Yeah, why don't we just let unelected, unaccountable judges decide everything? Heck, we can let them write laws from the bench, too. I submit the Florida Supreme Court and the US 9th Circuit be given that job, since they're so good at it, although the US Supreme is catching up quick.
Let's just chuck this whole representative government thing and submit happily to judicial imperialism.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
I think that this law is a bad one.
If a citizen wants to choose to have a telephone hooked up to the entire rest of the world, then that citizen should accept the responsibilities that come along with that.
If you don't want strangers calling you and selling you things, there are several solutions to that problem that don't involve the government.
You can have all phone calls with blocked numbers (the ones that telemarketers use) go into a special queue for screening. This is a service available to just about everybody with a phone. I don't see why the government has to solve this problem.
I think that if you're too dumb to configure your phone to not take calls you don't want, that you deserve to get called at dinner time by a stranger selling discount vacations to Mexico.
The definition of "Important Industry" is, I'm sure you'll agree, purely subjective in this case.
I for one, do not find the 10-15 marketing calls a day I get on my home # (I screen all calls, and if they don't leave a message, I assume they want to sell me something) to be an important business, rather I find it intrusive, a virtual trespass into my home, a waste of my (billable) time, etc.
As for "Big Brother List" I'm far more afraid of all of Mr. Ashcroft's new lists (library books, reading habits, slashdot postings, etc) than a list that contains only telephone #'s and not names.
It's obvious to me you're either a troll, an industry rep, or simply deluded.
Your corperate croney run Republican administration has cost more jobs in the last three years, in the name of "Captialism" than this move will. Besides, most of these call-center employees could pick up a bigger paycheck at the local McDonalds than what they're being paid now.
If these same call center employees walked into your house, which not only would offend you for having someone who's likely a minority in your house, but not cleaning you laundry, and sat down at your dinner table and started trying to sell you Insurance, or a food dehydrator, you would probably take your constitutionally protected shotgun and either chase them out of your house or shoot them on the spot.
Telesales is, like door to door sales were, a dying method of shoving products down a customer's throat. If the industry fizzles and dies, no one will miss it, no one will even recall it fondly, like they do the Milkman.
Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
Um, no, they were influenced by citizens. Fifty million pissed-off citizens.
If we're worried about killing off industries that employ, hey, let's legalize heroin trafficking. Plenty of folks gainfully employed there.
It's a shame that the FTC needs help from Congress to carry out its mission, actually.
Everyone knows that this could mean the end off telemarketing as an economical way of doing [sic] bussiness.
Why do you think we all signed up for it?
While many of us don't like people selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.
I have some Viagra substitutes to sell you, along with an opportunity to move money out of Nigeria. What's your phone number?
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
In case anyone's interested, the actual text of the bill that was just passed is here.
How To Get Humans To Mars
I disagree about your description of this industry. "Important" is not a word I would use. There are already ample marketing methods available to people who want to sell stuff. If you doubt this, turn on the radio or TV, or surf the net.
The fact that a "do-not-call" registry was thought up doesn't mean additional lost revenue for the telemarketing industry, it means I don't have to listen to an assinine sales pitch for however many seconds it takes for me to get my "no thanks" in. Marketers are required to remove you from any calling lists at your request, and this list streamlines that process, and helps everyday people that (like me) don't buy anything from anybody who calls uninvited.
This doesn't necessarily mean the end of telemarketing as an economical way of doing business, only 50 million of the over 250 million people living in the US signed up.
I don't mind people selling me things, but I *do* mind being interrupted in order for them to do it.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
That's funny, I seem to remember the US government putting out a PSA saying 'only 20% of americans smoke weed.' Well, if we have around 300 mil americans, that means around 60 mil weed smokers, right? Yet I don't see congress saying that those 60 million americans aren't wrong. Not that more proof of government hypocrisy was needed, but there it is anyway.
http://xkcd.com/386/
If you would ever thing of buying something over the phone then you wouldn't sign up on the do-not-call list. But many people like myself won't even give these telemarketers anytime to sell because it pisses us of too much. Its a waste of our time and money and their time and money. They can be more productive as a result by only calling people who actually don't mind it.
"Why not then let the court decide the case?"
It did. And since the court said, "Congress never explicitly gave you the power to do this, so you can't", Congress is now saying to the FTC explicitly, "OK, here's the power!"
It's tough that some people will lose their jobs over this, but our democratic society has spoken: we want no-call lists, and to hell with the industry. The bulk of the telemarketing industry is low-skills, I should think, so they won't have to be retrained too much to find a new job.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Isn't the government supposed to do what the people who elect them want? I know people can feel powerless, but that doesn't mean we should just let the big dogs make our decisions for us. I'm glad to see that the officials are listening to the people rather than telemarketing lobbyists. This bill getting as far as it has shown that the people still have a voice. If you want to change something, just holler loud enough and with enough people behind you. That is something that money will never be able to take away.
The real outcome of this is that the direct marketing industry will realize that they don't spend nearly enough money on Washington lobbyists and campaign contributions (like the tech industry realized after they started getting beaten up by the hill).
Expect a significant increase in spending by the direct marketing industry on lobbyists and campaign contributions. Then, a few years from now, expect several new bills expanding the list of exemptions to the do-not-call list.
Let's see...there are about 280 million people in America (my country, FYI). 69% of them believe Iraq had some role in 9/11. 0.69*280,000,000 = 193.2 million.
Do I need to go any further in explaining the relative "worth" of popular opinion in this country?
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could repeal the DMCA in one day...or perhaps lay the smack down on the RIAA/MPAA in one day...?
...the home phone nubmers of the 8 who voted against the bill, we'd be all set to show them what a mistake they made. Call THEM during dinner, I say!
/.'ed?
What happens when a phone is
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Well then, just post your email address and I'll sign you up to make sure a lot of spammers can put food on the table.
Frankly, another person's right to earn a living ends when it invades on my right to privacy.
I don't know how much difference this is really going to make. Political campaigns, charities, ANY organization that you have done any prior business with are exempt.
Dear DMA,
FUCK YOU.
Yours truly,
Michael
Do you have ESP?
Millions of lost jobs in an important industry? End of telemarketing as an economical way of doing business?
Millions of lost jobs, yeah tell that to the damned auto-recording that calls my number almost every freaking day, I'm sure that machine's job will be missed. Why not move telemarketers over to call support - about the same thing. Better service is why I cancelled one telco to choose another - at least one telemarketer a week wanting to switch my local but 45 minutes to get support, from the same company... If my number is on the list, it is saving a telemarketer money - I'm not buying so why waste time calling?
Advertising as a whole is a scary business model to build upon. This is just one of many examples where people are just plain sick of it.The year and a half I spent without a land line (all cell) was heaven, I'm ready to go back. Caller ID never worked and neither did "take me off your list, don't call." I'm not going to pay extra for a privacy manager or a private PBX so what am I supposed to do? IMHO telemarketers inflated their own worth and ignored growing anger towards them for at least four years now, so good riddance...
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
The DMA, our worst domestic terror organization, has finally been stifled thanks to the bipartisan efforts of congress. Hopefully its 5,000 members can now be captured, tarred and feather, and executed. We truly are winning the war on terror.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I heard on the radio this morning. Seems that some telemarketing firm in Baton Rouge was getting sprayed for cockroaches.... and about 60 of their employees got sick from the fumes and had to be evacuated.
Coincidence?
How many alcohol distillers were put out of business during prohibition?
How many dealers and wait staff were put out of business in states that banned gambling?
I think you get the drift that when an industry is made illegal, it will obviously force those working in the industry to find a new career. What's next -- do we ban further research into alternate-energy sources because it will put a bunch of pipeline welders and gas-station attendants out of work?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
> If there was a question as to whether or not Congress granted the FTC sufficient authority to create such a list, enforcement of it certainly should be suspended until the matter is resolved.
You know, there's something to be said about enforcing the 'letter of the law,' but what this country really lacks is understanding of 'spirit of the law.' In fact, this country's judicial system has about NONE of that, it seems. Judge Moron, err, sorry, West, seems to have an IQ of 0 when it comes to common sense.
Oh for judicial review of this guy's rulings...
"We should probably call the bill 'This Time We Really Mean It Act'"
I don't normally agree with Tauzin, but I just love the fact that the house put the smack down on the judges decision. Hopefully he will be smart and realize his carrier is toast if he continues this. Next stop the Senate and Pres desk.
DP
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
Do you need skirts around your trailer? How about some shiny new degreaser for the '77 Olds in the front yard?
Damn okies...
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
You must be joking.
Telemarketers exist, mostly, to reach into people's homes and harass them until they spend money on something they don't need.
Let me put forth a simple analogy.
Lemons are sold in my local grocery stores, of which there exist 5 or more within a 5 mile radius of my home. If I want lemons, I don't have much trouble finding and purchasing them.
Now along comes entrepreneur Bob. Bob realizes that by utilizing technology, and by sprinkling in some tough selling or irritant selling, he can steal marketshare away from my local grocery stores and sell the lemons himself.
Bob contracts out this cold calling of lemon pushers to bother me every few days. He probably does indeed sell some lemons, and probably at the expense of the local grocery stores.
In the end, all Bob has done is take money from the grocery stores and bother me at home.
So in other words, this industry exists only at a really shitty alternative to other methods of selling.
I cannot think of anything in my life that I have happily purchased from a telemarketer that cold-called me. I've given money to some charities that called me, but I have since stopped that since I learned that many use a shrink-wrapped telemarketing service that skims (or lops) 70% off the top for itself.
I now give my money to Heifer International, and I do it on my terms.
Telemarkers are worthless and unneeded in our modern, connected country.
As an aside, I think I should invent a cheap little phone device that you plug into your phone line, enter an 800 number of a company who telemarkets, and repeatedly calls them and puts them on hold. Perhaps if everyone who bought a TeleZapper bought one of my TeleBuster gadgets, the tables would be turned (in a most amusing way).
.sigs are for post^Hers.
It's pretty clear that the politicians and the political parties are relying on passage of the Do Not Call list as one of their accomplishments to trump for the upcoming election season. They probably already had pre-written speeches and events planned for next week when the FTC list went into effect. Having a bought judge derail that probably pissed off a very large number of party handlers, especially when they already made clear to the telemarketing industry that this was a dead issue.
And as others have pointed out, TIME = MONEY therefore if we all have that much more time everyday, not only at work but at home, our lives as inviduals will be less stressful and more productive!!!!
Thus creating jobs from the increase in productivity and healthier employees! Everyone knows that stress leads to illness.. if employees are happy and less stressful.... we can conclude that more work is getting done, in all industries (Reputable ones).
My 2 cents!
No, this is
Hell, heroin trafficking is more respectable than telemarketing -- at least the junkies actually want heroin.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Here is the deal about freedom of speech. It does not equal freedom to be heard. If I own a television station/radio station/whatever - I can very well choose to not publicize what you have to say. That is because your constitional right to say whatever you want STOPS right at the entryway to my PRIVATE property. All the federal government is doing here is allowing the compiliation of a list of people who want their privacy respected - and enacting fines for those who ignore that privacy. The telemarketers aren't having their free speech halted, rather they are being stopped from performing the equivalent of trespassing.
Well then, I think we can add this to the Non-Libertarian FAQ. Which incidentally is the first thing on google that shows up when you search for "libertarian faq". I guess that probably means there are less Libertarians than there are people out there who are extremely annoyed by them.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Jeebus I wish I had mod points right now.
Only 80% of Americans believe in me?
I think you were called so much because of all them porn sites you visited and gave your information out to get free passwords. Dont be mad at the "tele" for your mistake!
Don't let these people try to get your sympathy about job losses. There are deeper problems in this country if telemarketting is the only growth industry.
Don't get me wrong I hate receiving calls as much as the next guy, but their argument is that the U.S. Congress over-reached when they made exceptions for political calls and charities in the do-not-call list.
How come the Republican party can call me, but Sears can't?
I think _NEITHER_ should be able to if I ask, but if you tie the two together there is no way in hell Congress would vote for that.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Because we all know that people let the issue of not being annoyed by telemarketers trumps less important ones such as abortion, the degree of environmental protection, the merits and demertis of social security and medicare and other welfare programs, etc.
It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's [sic] area. It's not at all clear. A bill was passed by the Congress and signed by President Bush directing the FTC to run the Do Not Call list, describing the penalties for telemarketers who called numbers on the list, and allocating the money from those fines to the maintenance of the list. Basically, the judge ruled that Congress had made a clerical error in not explicitly stating that the FTC was authorized to do that which Congress had just directed them to do and given them a budget to do.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
In fact, I think the judge's decision was something like, "The FTC can't enforce this list unless Congress gives them the authority." Well, Congress just gave them the authority!
They are not overturning a ruling. They are simply passing a law granting the FTC power that the judge ruled they didn't have based on current laws.
And it's the Executive branch that "implements" or, more correctly, enforces the laws. The judicial branch interprets laws. In this case, their interpretation was the the FTC didn't posses the authority to create the do-not-call list.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Ron Paul, R-Texas - 202-225-2831
Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. - 202-225-2635
Kendrick Meek, D-Fla. - 202-225-4506
Tim Ryan, D-Ohio - 202-225-5261
Ted Strickland, D-Ohio - 202-225-5705
Lee Terry, R-Neb. - 202-225-4155
Rob Bishop, R-Utah - 202-225-0453
Chris Cannon, R-Utah. - 202-225-7751
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
There are 10 million more than that who admit to file sharing, and probably twice that who actually do but won't admit it. So why is it that the telemarketers are instantly smacked down in an afternoon in congress, but the RIAA has not been seriously rebuked once in five years of legal intimidation and planned erosion of our civil liberties? Not once! We got a weak, 'gee, maybe you are being a little heavy handed in suing children for hundreds of thousands of dollars' a couple weeks ago, but no action. None.
If the congressmen think they could get hanged over this one, think what will happen when file-sharers ever get off their butts and vote accordingly.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
People are more pissed at telemarketeers than they are with a government that just proved that if they want to get something done they can act quickly rather than dragging their feet as usual.
Perhaps cynicism is not the only motivation that exists?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
Now if they'd just decriminalize filesharing using the same logic.
For that matter, lots of legitimate incoming call centers are short-staffed (as evidenced by the time I have to wait on hold when I want to talk to a business on the phone). Let the obsolete telemarketers look for work in that market -- it uses similar skills.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
"This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up on a telemarketer at dinnertime"
Even as I post this comment, my phone is ringing yet again.
Caller ID says: Unavailable
Fifth telemarketing call today, and it's not even 3PM. In the last few months, the calls have gotten much more frequent. They call from 9:30 AM until 9:30 PM, making at least 10 calls daily. I guess it's a last ditch effort before the DNC list goes into effect.
"...on the verge of becoming a national figure."
He has no idea how true this is.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I haven't said anything until today, but I've gotten annoyed with this whole 50 millions people being on the list thing. There's a lot of bad assumptions around this estimate which could amek the actual number higher or lower.
First of all, you're assuming that each person registered one phone number. Let's assume that each person registered their cell phone, their home phone, their beeper, their fax machine, their dsl line and their office line. That's six lines for a single person. Let's say corporate IBM registered every one of it's office lines, even though the individual's using the lines didn't have any particular problem with telemarketer phone calls. The actual number of people who support this could be much lower than 50 million.
On the other hand, let's say one person registered their house's phone on behalf of an entire family. Now that one phone number should really count for all ten people who live under the roof and use the same line, the actual number of people who support this legislation by that logic could be much higher than 50 million.
And what about people who went stir crazy the day the list was unveiled and started registering every phone number they could get their hands on. Their friends, their coworkers, their family members... they probably thought they were doing everyone a public service. OR, how about if someone set up a script to register a LOT of phone numbers, just to try to put the telemarketers out of business. How hard would it be to automatically register EVERY US phone number? Not very, is the answer.
So, everyone should be saying that 50 million phone numbers were registered, not that 50 million people support the registry. There's really no way to know how popular the registry is without doing (wait for it)... phone surveys.
Sigh.
--
RumorsDaily
It won't. It doesn't stand a chance.
I was an evil one. I used to call you during dinner.
3 days later you had a dude at your house selling you windows, and it costed you $850 a window.
Our business was on the up and up. We didn't break any laws. We confirmed all of our appoitments and kicked old single people off our schedules.
But what always impressed me about the company was there resiliancy.
I see at least two tools they can use to get out from under this.
The first is the polling hole. If politicians are serious about this thing they need to close that hole. They won't do it, cause politicians can't make up there mind without a poll, but the only way to make it work is to close that hole.
'Hello Mr. Smith I am calling on behalf of Windows company.
We are conducting a poll. Does your house have windows?
How many?'
---end of polling portion of call----
See how easy that hole is to exploit?
There is another hole. I can't really think of a way to close this one. But if the consumer is careful they don't have to worry about it.
That one has to do with the customer contacting the business first. If the business can show that the customer contacted them then it really isn't the kind of telemarketing call that this 'do not call' registry covers.
I know what you are thinking.
And you are wrong.
There is nothing new about this hole, or the exploit.
All you have to do is offer a 'free' drawing.
When will people learn that only 'nothing' is free?
We used to set up kiosk stands in malls, fairs, home shows and just about anywhere else we could find to put them. We would put up a couple samples of windows and offer a free drawing for windows.
It was on the up and up we did give away free windows just like we said.
But once you fill out that card, guess what you have done?
You got it. You have now made a contact with our business. You have given us permission to call you.
Even if I am wrong on this, I am not very wrong. All these cards have small print (think EULA) on the back. All that really needs to be done is add a sentence that says 'by filling out this card homeowner gives permission to window company to make farther contact and phone calls to the homeowner.'.
I will be quite honest with you. I don't do that anymore. Now I am a computer operator. I make good money, I enjoy my job, I could do without the night work though. I don't really regret the 5 years I spent in that industry. On the contrary, I learned some very valuable lessons. Hell I don't think I would be doing what I am doing today without them.
But I am probably more annoyed with telemarketing calls then the average person. I work nights, 6pm-6am.
Know what 11am phone calls do to me?
That being said I have pity for the honest people in the industry. There are a lot of people that are honest, hard working and intelligent. There are retired people that need extra income. I would hate to see the industry shut down and these people all be out of work.
With that attitude I kind of look at telemarketing calls as my problem. When I get one I tell them to take me off the list. That is a legal thing by the way, there is more byte to that phrase then you would think. If they get too annoying I unplug the phone until I wake up.
I agree with you that I shouldn't have to do that. I understand everyones point as well. That is why I am not saying that the 'do not call registry' is evil.
It is not.
It just won't work.
hmmm wasn't it about 50% (150 000 000) of the people thought that there were WMD in Iraq, thus justifying the war?
The whole "the majority is always right" doesn't seem very democratic.....
just my 0.02 (cdn)
Telemarking might not exactly die, but it will fade down, people will realize, that its a dying industry and it will slow down. it may even bring back the "door-to-door" salesman. whom you could slam the door on in a much more satisfying way. The Telemarking industry has gotten very cocky, especially with their auto-dialers. Its really annoying to answer the phone, hear a recording say, "please stay on the line for an important offer!" then play hold music. I mean really, why call me and put me on hold right away. and usually if you hang up it calls right back!
I have better things to do than to answer a phone to be put on hold... If i wanted to be on hold I'd call my ISP.
I never signed up nor would I ever. The whole idea is dead to rights wrong from the start. If it gets struck down for whatever reason, how valuable would this list of contact information be? I mean shit, here are 50,000,000 potential customers and we have their phone, email, name -- this is great! That much information in one spot up for sale or mismanagement is scary thing indeed. No thank you.
Speak truth to power.
...are power-grabbing politicians that exempt themselves from their own shitty laws.
All you people posting trite crap about how stupid the "50 million people can't be wrong quote" is, try to think about the quote in context.
50 Million People can't be wrong (about wanting to have a no-call list).
Take any sentence out of context and you can make it mean whatever you want.
-i
Ron Paul isn't my rep, as that I'm in Austin, but he's the rep for some folks outside Austin. I know there is a really good reason why he voted against this, and I've emailed him to see if him or one of his aides can send me a synopsis of that reasoning.
Make no mistake, Ron Paul is one of the few patriots we have who continues to speak for the people. If he voted against this, it's may be because:
As soon as he emails me back I'll post something in reply. But, please, understand that Ron Paul and his aides are amazing. They stayed late at the deadline of the submission of the Patriot ACT and read through every word of it before voting against it. I'm sure he has good reason to vote against this measure.
If you want people calling you and selling you shoddy merchandise for 3 easy monthly payments of $39.99, the leave your number off of the list. I personally hate those bastards and their cheap crap.
Have you watched a crime show where a criminal gets off on a technicality, or a law even gets struck down on such?
Or perhaps you could come to Canada, and look up recent history on various pr0n laws...
Judges are quite subject to law and procedure. Laws that are perfectly right in idea can be killed due to technical errors (until such errors are corrected).
Murderers can get off on loopholes. It may not happen exactly as it does on TV, or as often, but it can happen. Think about when police enter a residence without warrant, and seize compelling evidence of rape, murder, etc. You think a judge wants to invalidate such evidence and chance letting a killer off? No damn way, but it does happen, to prevent police from illegally entering another residence of an innocent suspect.
Laws are upheld, and good laws are struck down because of other good laws, in order to prevent bad laws from sticking for the same reasons.
selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.
uh - there are 300 million Americans. 50 million, aka 1/6 of all Americans basically said 'Fsck You' to people peddling their products in their private space. good enough reason to have a law....and generally when you have that kind of turnout - it will be made law quicker than you can turnaround.
and nobody gives a rats ass about the lost jobs- they are pointless jobs anyway. if no one had ever thought to do telemarketing, the jobs would never have been created in the first place.
now they might have to find a real job - you know, like flippin burgers..
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Little old lady computer neophyte running a Mac.She was sued for using Kazaa, and it doesn't even run on Macs. The RIAA had to apoligize.
..........FULL STOP.
The difference there is that no one is solving those problems. But if you vote against a plan to get rid of telemarketers, you are politically dead. And 412 Congress(wo)men in the house know it. This is also something where everyone's on the same side. If you take a stance on social security, you *can't* please everyone. Here, you can. So yes, it's going to be a big deal - why else would Congress have moved so quickly on it? Because they understand the importance politically.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Arbitrary business plans do not have an inherent right to be profitable, nor even to exist in the first place. Nor do the people who work under such business plans have an inherent right to their jobs.
.
Think of all the crack cookers who are out of work and drug pushers whose business model is under attack just because crack is illegal. Think of the poor, starving children of all the extorsionists and contract killers "just trying to make a living."
I fully support the right of free speach. I personally don't believe there is any such thing as a "bad" word, image or thought. Only bad actions. If you swing your arm around and fail to hit my nose I really don't give a damn and think you have every right to swing your arms. I may, however, "opt in" to your hitting my nose.
So. .
You have a right to speak freely. You do not have a right to make me listen. That's hitting my nose.
Existing law already acknowledges this situation and does so in a way that has been deemed Constitutional. You may speak, but you may not harass.
The survey person at the mall may solicit your participation, but she can't follow you around the mall all day.
Your ex-girlfriend can't call you up all time if tell her you opt out of such behaviour.
Opting out of receiving calls already has legal standing.
The do not call list is opt out. It does not infringe on free speach. It protects rights to not have speach impinged upon you in a manner that is inherently personal (as a opposed to a billboard which is in the public sphere, and even banning billboards has withstood certain Constitutional challenges already since they are an issue of building codes, not speach per se).
I believe the judge was probably right in ruling that the FTC didn't have the authority to directly impose the do not call list. I wish more judges would make like rulings against all the various "authorities" who abrogate and pervert the Constitution and allow Congress to violate the very nature of American legal philosophy through the use of "codes." Why the American public has even allowed this is beyond my compreshension.
However, if Congress passes a law allowing me to opt out of commercial harassment in my own home a priori I have no more philosophical problem with that than I do with the law that says you can't just walk up and punch me in the nose.
KFG
"Common, why not call a spade a spade. Everyone knows that this could mean the end off telemarketing as an economical way of doing bussiness."
Why should this hurt the telemarketers business? It could be a great thing both for the public and for the telemarketers. They now have a list of the 16% or so of the U.S. population who have no interest whatsoever in buying their product, so they can focus their efforts on the people who might be.
Imagine you are trying to get a job, so you wander randomly from building to building, handing resume's to the HR staffs. Then someone hands you an up-to-date list of every company in town who have no positions available in your field. You could whine about how missing out on being rejected by these companies firsthand is somehow ruining your job search, or you could use it to your advantage, concentrating on the remaining firms, where you at least have some chance, and have your overall success rate at getting interviews go up.
I take it your a telemarketer then? Important industry to whom? The other worthless sh*t's that call when my family is ready to sit down to dinner, or the one's that call, infallibly, 5 freakin minute's before we're ready to try and get the kids into bed?
Let them ALL burn in hell, let anyone who would have the brass balls to pick up a telephone and willfully call someone at what is now a known time that the most family member's are home, and attempt to sell some slimy, 'made in ' stamped piece of crap, or useless 'insurance' that you will a) never need, or b) the gods help you when you attempt to place a claim, end up at hell's gate with a demon hung bigger then the goatse.cx gent just drooling over the thought of 'getting a piece of new meat'.
Sorry, but thier livelyhood ENDS at my door, and yes, Virginia, that does include my phone.
Your right, it is capitalism. Part of capitalism is also 'Consumer Choice' and 'Free Markets'. I, as a 'CONSUMER', CHOOSE NOT to get these calls, and for the moneygrubbing telebastards, the 'FREE MARKET' has other, proven, way's of making money that aren't so obnoxious.
Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
is people like me who go over to our mom's and put her on the list. Telemarketing has such a bad reputation that even people who fit telemarketer's target demographic are going to want to opt out. Normally they probably wouldn't know about things like this list, but then there's that bad rep biting them in the rear again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's fifty million phone lines, not fifty million people. My unscientific guesstimate is its probably more like 80-100 million people.
Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com
All I know is that telemarketing is a huge invasion of my peace and quiet. I look forward to coming home, closing the door behind me, and leaving the noise behind me on the other side. And I can't do that anymore. I've had to resort to leaving the ringer off the phone 24/7.
I shouldn't have to have people harassing me if I don't want them to. I have to be exposed to that the second I step out of my house, turn on the TV, read the paper, etc. I should be able to have one tiny little corner of the universe where I don't have to hear anyone else's voice except mine and my family's.Remember when the internet was new, and the goal of collecting information from people registering was to be able to send targeted offers?
Stupid people realized (in a short term game) that it would be easier/cheaper to just blast everyone with the ad.
The telemarketers and the spammers both could be sending very targeted offers, and their % sales/offer would be quite high. But like most people, they've opted for the short term gain at the long term cost.
If someone called me in the evening and tried to get me to buy a green laser pointer for 49$, I just might buy it. But I don't want another offer from a credit card company to pay off my debt if I die. If I die, I don't care! (joke, I know it's more complicated)...
Point is, the technology exists for marketers to be very specific about how they market, but they all have the short term over long term mentality. And now it's time to pay the piper.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Google for "corporate personhood". It will blow your mind.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Amen, brother. I used to play the "put me on your do not call list" game, but it never really made a difference because as you so elequently said, "there's always some new dipshit company calling".
After a while I just got sick of talking to telemarkers. Nowadays I don't even bother picking up if the caller id says "unavailable", but it's still an interruption and an annoyance. A national telemarketer do-not-call list is excactly what we need. With this list, we take away the power from the shady telemarketer companies and put it in the hands of the people.
Just think if we used popular vote for the presidential election, Al Gore would be president. On the other thing think of all the things he could have invented....
well, i live in a 4000 sq ft house, i drive an 03 z71 chevy, and my phone number could easily be found by whois'ing domain name for my website listed above...but that is my house in dallas. you are a stupid son of a bitch. i hate people like you.
What is slashdot?
I'm sure they have plenty of cash...they are fighting this in the courts. So many people default to the cynical/pessimistic judgement that they can't consider the alternative.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Okay I want to know how the judge's secretary is feeling after the /.'ing yesturday...maybe even an offical word from the telemarketers how we validated their business model.
I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
i hope you have that attitude when you get old and sick, and can no longer afford to pay medical bills, so nobody has to pay for your social security and medicare benefits.
Unless those 50 Million Americans want P2P trading of music.
Does this mean that the RIAA gives more money to political campaings than the ATA?
I'm not saying that using other peoples creative works without compensating them is right. But if 50 Million Americans can't be wrong shouldn't compulsary liscensing been more of a slam dunk?
yeah good luck getting Republicans voted out of office in Utah.
I really don't understand how this do-not-call list will result in lost jobs. These 50 million people who have signed up DO NOT want these calls, and as a result WILL NOT buy anything form these telemarketers.Calling people who won't buy anything is just a waste of time. With this list the telemarketers can/should concentrate on their customers who actually want (for some odd reason) their calls.
- The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind. -- Humphrey Bogart
If the do-not-call list goes into effect because "fifty million Americans can't be wrong," then... How can sixty-five million Americans be wrong about file sharing?
Just wondering...
I think this idea was summarized best by a this Slashdot post:
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
It's official! Windows is sup...
Hmm...
Do I really want to lose karma over this joke?
"Derp de derp."
Then your NOT an okie? Why did you say you were an Okie to begin with? With a URL like sexxy.net your some pimply twert who can't put down the lotion. Get a real job and stop wakin off!
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Why not then let the court decide the case?
Um... because courts don't make laws, they interpret them? If Congress decides to make a law, then great, they're doing their job, as long as it's a law that... say.... 50MM people want.
milions of lost jobs in an important industry
Important? I want what you're drinking! Is it important to rip off retired people on a fixed income by selling them an "Amazing new invention" or a timeshare they don't need and won't use?
All this list is doing is allowing the people that know they don't want to buy anything over the phone to quit getting calls from people trying to convince them otherwise. Get it? The people that want to buy things over the phone simply do not add their name to the list.
There. Problem solved. And time and $$ saved for those telemarketing companies.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Reader #7 says: "I am a telemarketer who has been feeding my family through this type of work for 17 years...[cut]...Telemarketing has made jobs available to those that were laid off from Corporate America. Unfortunately more people will be laid off if this law takes effect. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect people's rights. I'm just saying leave our jobs alone."
I didn't touch your job, b****. Quit calling me! Come on. Times change. Our family newspaper went under due to the popularity of eBay. Should I sue ebay? (RIAA would).
Honestly though, no one is touching these jobs. People survived before phones, they'll have to survive now.
Check out Reader #9: "I guess the only question for the people who advocate the Do Not Call List is: What would you rather have us do? Should we loot, burn, and take what we need to survive? Or would you rather look at the caller i.d. and not answer the phone?
Excuse me? You're saying 2 million workers are suddenly going to loot & burn just to survive. Because they are unable to get a job besides Telebitchemarketer? I don't remember looting after the dot com bubble. Listen, I'm quite the liberal & democrat, but even I don't mind sounding like Ronald Reagan on this issue. Get another fsking job!
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Any business model which pisses off the majority of your customer base is doomed to failure.
Unfortunately I doubt this. Look at spam, it doesn't get more annoying than spam, but enough people buy their crap to make it profitable. I understand that it cost more to call instead of e-mail, but it still doesn't take too many suckers to keep the business profitable.
- The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind. -- Humphrey Bogart
Of course one could argue that an unsolicited call is a violation of property rights. "I didn't give you permission to send a phone signal into my household. You're trespassing!" Perhaps that is an argument even a libertarian could accept. Though since that argument is certainly a grey one, let's look at it this way: is legislation really needed?
Handling telemarketing is quite easy. One can use caller ID. Then you only answer the phone when you want to talk to the other person. Though not the norm, I personally know about when I can expect phone calls, and I know the hours when telemarketers don't call; I'm pretty accurate in only answering calls I want without caller ID by keeping this in mind. So with either approach, you can easily not answer telemarketers. I've found that not answering their calls makes the amount of calls come down drastically. I probably get only 1 telemarketing call every week or two that gets to talk to my answering machine.
Furthermore, many telemarketers get people's number because people are too lazy to read privacy statements and mark off what is needed to tell a company not to contact you or share your information. For example, when my mortgage got sold to another bank, I actually read the "junk mail" the new bank sent me to find an easy way to let them know that I do not want any telemarketing from them. Most people probably would have just tossed it out without reading it.
And finally, there is a telemarketer's alliance you can contact to have your number removed from all its member companies, and if you bother to tell a telemarketer on the phone not to call you again then they are legally obligated not to call you. (Some people have gotten rich suing those who disobeyed, so there's a good revenue oppurtunity if it fails!)
So in summary, it seems to me that there are plenty of options for stopping telemarketing. I believe the thrust of this demand for legislation is due to people's laziness/stupidity in taking advantage of these options to take care of themselves. Now granted, some will rhetorically ask why they must do this? That only holds water if you believe that you have some sort of divine right to use phones in an omnipotent manner to your liking. Using these methods to take care of yourself is no different than paying money for a Tivo and taking the effort to push a button to skip comercials on the cable networks you already pay to see.
I think it all boils down to the "inertness of mankind", demanding that other people take care of them because they are too lazy to take the minimal effort needed to stop the telemarketing problem. It seems an example of what Bastiat pointed out in "The Law", as per my sig.
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
I HOPE people lose their jobs over this. It might sound harsh, but come on, telemarketers who peddle shit are looking to scam consumers, not help them. We all know this.
Having a job scamming money from people should be no more LEGAL than having a job selling drugs to kids or being a hitman for the mafia.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Don't you own and operate your site at the sufferance of your ISP/upstream, and according to their terms of service? By your definition, it seems that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to you, either.
The 1st amendment only restricts activities by the government, not private individuals or corporations. It protects you and those using your mailserver equally. Of course, post patriot-act, you've got equally zero protection to your speach, but hey...
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
i work for a university in oklahoma... i have a house in dallas, and a house in guthrie oklahoma, now go die in a car wreck or something.
What is slashdot?
I don't give a fuck what you communist wannabes want out of my phone _I_ don't want you calling. Thanks for the government to make that possible.
Sounds to me like your kind of disappointed about being on Okie.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
*sarcasm* yes, that is exactly what i said. Seriously, you are about as cool as a kick in the nuts.
What is slashdot?
Its putting food on someone's table, and is better than them being on welfare.
I am going to have to question this assertion.
Welfare takes my tax dollars and puts it in the pockets of those who can not afford to feed/house themselves.
Telemarketers waste my time to put money in the pockets of some greedy bastards, and a bunch of people who might otherwise be on welfare.
Well... My time is worth a lot (time is money), and I would rather have them taking my taxes (through welfare) than my time (through calling).
I guess the meat of my assertion is that employing people is only better than having them on welfare if thier jobs are at the very least not destructive (productive wouldbe better...).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
That's a bit rich. I'll keep my whistle I blow into the phone when one of these 'hard working not-on-welfare' calls me during a meal.
Blar.
When did bending-over for big business become "defending the constitution?"
Read the document sometime, you'll see the ideals of the Enlightement in print which include but are not limited to protection from government, protection from others, personal autonomy, democratic voice, freedom from religion, etc.
If an industry is considered a nuisance by a vast majority of Americans and is limited through grassroots effort this can easily be seen as a democratic action at work. Dissenters might say its the tyranny of the majority, but they can have my telemarking calls if they truly believe that. Something tells me they won't volunteer. Would Ron Paul "defender of the Constitution" let coal burning plants pollute your neighborhood because an overisght comission via the EPA is more "big bad government?"
Just because an industry exists doesn't mean that limiting it is 'big government.' Does Ron Paul want to live in country where we're citizens of corporations because of an irrational fear of "big bad government?" Probably. Would he let Microsoft go with a light slap on the wrist like Bush did. Definiately. Sorry about how your upstart was illegally crushed by the big business, but better that then more "big government" eh?
All the neolib economists, starting with old man Milton, would just love to tear down the state and the protections it provides and let us become modern day serfs.
Funny thing about free markets, they have a problem remaining free. Don't let that fact get in the way of a some irrational ideology though.
Telemarketing will die because the telemarkers finally managed to make themselves obsolete by increasing their most annoying habits (pre-recorded autodialers, calling during dinner every night) that people had finally just had enough. This will be bad for the economy in the short term in some places where this business thrives, but it's not as devastating as some would have you believe.
This legislation is specific enough that it doesn't make much difference. Telemarketing would have gone away with or without it. The more annoying advertisements are already occuring (e.g., those commercials between commerials, where an animation destroys the show by taking up the bottom third of the screen to advertise other shows, which are a clear indication of what tripe the Discovery and TLC channels are as they were among the worst offenders).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
If you're that worried about the economics of this, by all means keep yourself off the list. And go talk all your friends into staying off also. I'm on the PA do not call list and it's great, I can't remember the last time we got a call. I never buy the stuff anyway, so I'm just saving their employees some time. They can call the people who really want their product. This will obviously improve the economic situation for the telemarketers as it reduces their overhead a lot. I should think the telemarketers would love this.
6 of the 8 who voted against this were from states centrally located in the U.S.
:)
It makes sense because long distance rates are cheaper there. A few cents a minute savings really adds up when you've got a phone room filled with hundreds of people working the phones.
I own a business programming online surveys and a lot of my work comes from research studies that used to be conducted by huge phone centers out in the midwest. I like to think that I'm helping put them out of business. Too bad that telephone surveys aren't affected by the do not call list. It would earn me more work!
Here's a fairly comprehensive list of CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) phone centers in the U.S. sorted by state.
Doesn't this remind anyone of the old quote: "Eat Shit! 20 billion flies can't be wrong!"
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I believe that the RIAA (and soon the MPAA, I'd imagine) are on the right track by filing lawsuits against 12 year old kids and grandparents. Why? Because with the news of indiscriminate lawsuits against normal people being filed on a regular basis, people will go back to paying for their music. Responsible adults will punish their kids for pirating as if they were being punished for shoplifting. They won't turn the other cheek.
Some argue that they are innocent for this or that reason. Nobody with an IQ greater than 70 downloads an album or movie for free and thinks that it's all perfectly legal. People know it's a petty theft and they'll continue to do it until they're afraid of getting busted. If grandpa gets sued because his grandson pirated, he'll pay the fine and his grandson will be punished by the parents. It's the same way with most other fines resulting from illegal activity conducted by a minor.
-Lucas
From FoxNews: "Egged on by talk show hosts and angry Web sites, people have flooded West's office and home with calls and faxes, apparently trying to show him why they wanted to ban unsolicited sales calls. "They are just calling to tie up our lines," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office. "They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess." The phones at the federal courthouse were jammed Thursday morning and voicemail boxes were stuffed with messages blasting West's ruling that the Federal Trade Commission (search) lacked authority to create and operate the registry. West's home and office telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, and consumers angry with the ruling were encouraged to call. Calls by The Associated Press to West's home seeking comment were blocked by busy signals. The ruling even made late-night television talk show host Jay Leno's monologue Wednesday night. "The judge says the telemarketers can call you whenever they want," Leno said. "You know what we should do? Let's all call this judge tonight at home during dinner." West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Rick Ratliff, president of U.S. Security, Inc., one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the list, said his company laid off half of its 600 employees because of restrictions on telemarketing. "U.S. Security does not sell anything over the phone," he said. "We simply ask for the opportunity to tell someone about the lifesaving benefits of our security and fire systems in a face-to-face meeting." The do-not-call registry appears that it will go forward after all. The House approved legislation Thursday intended to ensure the list goes into effect next week. After less than an hour of debate, which included potshots at West from both parties, House members voted 412-8 to approve the bill."
"This bill will pass faster than a consumer hanging up on a telemarker at dinner time."
:D)
Do they have to call us consumers? Can they not refer to us as people, or at least constituents? *sigh*
(if unsure, mod "Funny"
I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.
Why the change of URLs? You don't wanna be associated with sexxxy.net while working at a University?
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
A mere couple weeks ago I was somewhat surprised how few people I know in real life have heard of the Do Not Call list until I told them about it. Now that the telemarketing companies won a court decision and forced Congress' hand, the news (TV, newspaper, Internet) has been abuzz with this story.
So now instead of losing out on 50 million people, most of which one would assume are very ANTI-telemarketing and extremely unlikely to buy anything from them anyway, the industry will probably lose many millions more who didn't even know about the list until it hit front pages everywhere in the nation, thanks to the court ruling.
So now when the list DOES go into effect, and it will since the ruling was just a temporary setback, the industry will probably have doubled the names on the list simply by bringing the existence of it to the national forefront with their stupid lawsuits.
Way to go telemarketers! Keep up the good work!
I hate those things! They not only take up the bottom third of the screen, but most of them have sound that drowns out the sound on the show you're actually watching. I don't know how many times I've missed dialogue on some show because of that stupid crap.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
Umm.. they are if the other 240 Million of us don't think so.
For those who care who the 8 who voted AGAINST this peace at dinnertime / TV / whatever legislation .. here they are
.. does telemarketing employ more Utah residents than the rest of the US is aware ?
Ron Paul, R-Texas
Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.
Tim Ryan, D-Ohio
Ted Strickland, D-Ohio
Lee Terry, R-Neb
Rob Bishop, R-Utah,
Chris Cannon, R-Utah
Who knows
There have been plenty of hacks. Consider the devices which would play the first tone or two of the error beep you normally get when the line has been disconnected. There's also Caller ID, which is all too easy to block, and so forth.
Every time someone uses a device like this -a clear indication that they wish to be left alone- the telemarketers eventually find a way to circumvent the device and call us anyway, despite the fact that we have already left a clear indication that we want them to deave us alone.
If you or I were to do such a thing, we could be charged with harrassment. In some states we could even be charged with stalking. The Do Not Call list simply ensures that telemarketers fall under the same laws that everyone else does. Businesses aren't above the law, you know. Or are you saying that they should be?
When yesterday's story about the initial judge's decision was posted, Slashdot got hundreds of posts from people pissed off about it. Has it occurred to anyone that the judge did us all a favor? One of the telemarketing industry's possible open doors for a legal challenge is getting slammed shut with a very loud bang. This would not have happened if the judge hadn't provided a spur for our lazy do-nothing Congress. And without this action, the industry may have been able to tie up the do-not-call list for years while the FCC, FTC, and courts argue over jurisdiction and authority, etc etc ad nauseum.
The judge did us all a big favor, whether he intended to or not. (I suspect he did.)
RING RING ME: "Uhhh, Hello?" TM: "Hello, can I speak with the person that is in charge of the phone bill?" ME: "We don't have a phone here." TM: "Umm.... " click... Idiots...
What will this legislation look like once it's ready for the president? How many riders will be attached? Will Alaska be open for drilling?
The DO-NOT-CALL issue is so popular that I'd be surprised if it survives in it's currently lean form.
This is not my sig.
Congress can only pass federal laws which in this case means only inter-state phone calls are affected. If the phone call originates in my own state, the law doesn't apply. I guess that means the telemarketing jobs won't be going to India any time soon.
The thing that bothers me about legislation like this is how freely people are willing to trample on free speech. To me, it's just not that big a deal to hang up on a telemarketer that it's worth sacrificing free speech rights for. I don't like telemarketers but I really dislike seeing rights incrementally eroded even more. Telemarketers may be the current black sheep but who's next?
I secretely believe that most Americans are lonely, and look forward to receiving phone calls from strangers, asking them to purchase exciting new products and informing them of new opportunities they may not have been aware of.
Are YOU ever disappointed when an exciting new product becomes available, yet you have no idea how much it could improve your life? Are there new services available to you that you would like to try, but you're too timid to call the company yourself? Sign up on the Do Call Registry, and you'll never have to eat dinner alone again!
The Do Call Registry uses an exciting technology known as the internet to collect your information, and all you have to do is provide your name, number, and e-mail address! Take control of the number of telemarketing calls you receive.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
The phone system is all regulated and controlled. While anyone can get a line and use it, only certian people can provide the service. It requires right of way to lay copper, millions of dollars of equipment and so on. So, all the companies that do it, have to coperate and obey regulations. One side effect is that they always can tell where a call came from. If someone blocks calling line ID for you, that just means that your box doesn't show you. The phone switch that serves your line knows where it came form, it must by the nature of the system. IT logs it too.
So, if you get an unauthorised call and you file your complaint, it is a simply matter for the FTC to check on. They get records from the phone company confirm that, yes, the telemarketer DID call you and so on.
However with e-mail, they can use some anonymous relay off in Asia with an admin that won't respond to e-mails. It is then much harder to track anyone down and prove anything. Not saying it can't be done, it is just a more difficult job and one the FTC understand less well.
Agreed, as ambiguous as something being the size of 50,000,000 elephants. But let's try a simple poll. As statistically inaccurate as a /. poll, but what the hell, is the white collar crowd I'm with here likely to view this any different than urban gangsters? I mean after whipping out your gat and popping some caps, etc. who wants a call while gettin' jiggy wit it wit the bitches n' hoes?
I sampled the 17 people in my hallway at work, excluding my wife whom I registered for. Of those people, 9 were on the do not call list and couldn't wait. 7 had not heard about it but agreed it was a nuisance and expressed interest, 1 said "I don't need it, telemarketers don't call me anymore".
The last guy is known for being somewhat odd, but I digress, his vote counts as much as anyone elses.
Not a single person, not one, spoke out against the list and we have a pretty contradictory crowd. No one claimed that the list as implemented violated anyones first amendment, no one claimed that they felt for the millions Americans who were allegedy put out of jobs (and this is a sensitive issue to this crowd, who have endured biweekly layoffs for over 3 years), no one felt that this was a great way to do business.
So there you have it, unscientific results that significant interest in a do not call list exists. Will this issue likely tilt the scales for politicians come election time? I doubt it, but I think this one time they're actually in agreement with the will of the people.
ring ring ring who's there?
opted out, why a call this evening?
Mexico, you have phone too
Equal protection is for individuals only. Any claim to equal protection on the part of a company arises from the shaky premise of "corporate-personhood". The Supreme Court, however, has decided that business practices are not protected by "corporate-personhood". See the Nike free speech case, where Nike had been lying to consumers about where their shoes were being made and claimed that was within their rights as free speech. The Federal government is fully within its rights to regulate this under the "thank god they wrote it so vaguely" interstate commerce clause.
It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's area.
How so? Honest question.
Everyone knows that this could mean the end off telemarketing as an economical way of doing bussiness.
It probably will. This does not bother me. Business models come and go. In business, just as in nature, the rule is to adapt or perish. I see nothing wrong with that. I do see something wrong with corporate lobbyists manipulating the law, simply so that businesses won't have to make the effort to adapt to the markets. When a business controls its market, rather than the other way around, capitalism breaks.
While many of us don't like people selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.
No, it's not. It's often mistaken for capitalism, but it's really the opposite.
Allow me to explain. Capitalism is characterized by the law of supply and demand; that is, business adapts to the open market. In essence, the markets control business; when the market wants something, business rises to meet it, and when the market ceases to want it, the businesses either adapt or perish.
But within the past fifty years or so, a new phenomenon has arisen. Businesses are tired of being at the whim of the markets. They want to turn the tables and control the markets instead, by making us accept whatever they want to throw at us. They do this by lobbying Congress, manipulating the law for the sole purpose of preserving their business models, so that they no longer have to make the effort to adapt. Good for them, bad for the consumer. Why do they want this? For most, it's a matter of cost more than anything else; if they don't have to be at the beck and call of their customers, they save a lot of money.
This is not capitalism. In fact, it's the opposite. Some have called it mercantilism, though that's not quite correct (that's the name of a different system). I'm not sure there's a good name for it yet. In the end, though, it's bad for the consumer, because it takes yet another measure of control over our own lives out of our own hands.
That's why I'm not worried if the Do-Not-Call list breaks the back of the telemarketing industry. I doubt that it will; if half the households in the US have categorically rejected telemarketing, and the telemarketers no longer call them, then theoretically their response rate should double, which should make them more economical, not less. But frankly, that doesn't bother me either way. I'm sick and tired of this crap that corporations are feeding us, calling it capitalism when it's anything but. Let it float in the markets without its governmental safety net, and let it sink or swim, as it will.
I want my capitalism back.
How many of our legislators answer their own email? Almost zero. How many politicians listen to the staffers after they read email? Almost zero. How many of these politicians listen to lobbyists when they start spreading campaign contributions? Quite a few.
-- No sig for you!
Wizard's First Rule: "People are Stupid. Given the proper motivation, people will believe anything because they either fear it is true, or because they want to believe it is true. People's heads are filled with knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is not true, but they think it is true. People can rarely tell the difference between the truth and a lie, yet they think they can, so they are fooled more easily. People want to believe, so they do."
Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
you know, few sentences are as annoying as "[N million people] can't be wrong.". Not in this case mind... but OF COURSE so many people can be wrong! Remember that law of mass stupididty? "The intelligence of a mob is equal to that of it's stupidest member divided by the number of people in it", you get my point.
So people thought the earth was flat. And the center of the universe. that matter was made of earth, wind, and fire. Manifest Destiny, racism, ANYTHING! Now why big news sources (CNN?) really trustworthy anymore? Because they bend to those millions who "can't be wrong". Think it's time I found myself some deep cozy cave...
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
...that Congress is basicly telling the judge "Don't get formal on us, you insensitive clod!" How many people got screwed over by the judge, that the list is a good decision in the best interest of the people and all that is of no consequence. Just a little demonstration of who's running the country, congressmen or judges...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
They not only take up the bottom third of the screen, but most of them have sound that drowns out the sound on the show you're actually watching.
It's also interesting how I rarely watch those channels anymore. I hope Discovery sees it in their ratings...but with TLC doing tabloid "when cops attack" type garbage their ratings are probably through the roof. Truly sad.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Fuck you... ...no really, FUCK YOU!
Sincerely,
Congress.
I'm tired of getting junk faxes at 2-4am on my home phone number that there is no fax machine attached to.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
You're missing a critical element here, as I pointed out in a reply further down. Congress is telling one group of people that they cannot talk to another group of people; people that have specifically requested not to be talked to. It basically boils down to "They don't want to talk to you, so stop calling them." The government is not selecting people to put on the list, they aren't paying incentives to be on the list, nor are they forcing people to sign up. This is no different than each individual telling the telemarketers "put me on your do not call list," except now there's just one big do not call list.
No, extra services as in "Well the normal phone service allows telemarketers to call you. If you would like we'll provide an extra service to block them as best we can."
It's not extortion any more than when McDonalds charges for extra ketchup.
Ron Paul is the House gadfly. He's a former Libertarian candidate for President, and reflexively votes against anything that expands government regulation.
Well, as one with strong Libertarian tendencies, I reflexively want to believe Ron Paul is making sense here, but if your theory as to the rationale is right, I just can't see it.
Just how does this expand government regulation? It is an opt-in list of people who don't want to be bothered on the phone at home. So the government will enforce it. I can't imagine any other way to do it effectively. If the Libertarian Revolution ever comes about, then there are other non-governmental ways postulated to accomplish this kind of thing, but the Revolution hasn't happened, or maybe I missed it.
flies don't eat shit, they lay eggs in it.
more aptly, go roll in shit.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I wouldn't claim that it wouldn't be much of an economic loss. Since they are basically selling people things that they don't want to begin with. They are taking advantage of certain types of people, the weak-willed, the elderly, and the gullible. Sure it provides jobs, but not very good ones. Who wants to sit connected to a headset all evening reciting the same script over and over to irate people who take their anger out on you?
The truth though, is there is enough loopholes in the law that the telemarketing industry won't exactly whither away. I'll bet we'll be getting a lot of "survey" calls that are just thinly disguised attempts to sell us something real soon:
Phone Call: Good Evening Sir, I'm taking a survey about telephone service. How would you rate your current phone carrier. A) You're so happy with it that you write love sonnets to the CEO. or B) You don't do that.
You: B
Phone: Since you've indicated that you are not at all happy with your phone service, would you be interested in...
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Come to Oklahoma to see the ancient ruins of the telemarketing industry! Scour the vast halls of ruins once known as "call centers". See how underpaid slaves worked and lived. Learn aobut the society they preyed on. Learn about the judge that ended this great empire. Oklahoma! We're Naive America!
I'm sure far more than 50 million people speed a little, not that much above the limit but some. And they still accept fines, nobody is suggesting to abolish speed limits. (Not that it couldn't be done, I've done 220km/h on German Autobahns, that's about 137mph...)
In the same way, I'm quite sure most people are happy with "big offenders" getting caught when it comes to copyright infringement, release groups, commercial gain, that sort of thing. That'd be like the people doing 2x on the road where your kids go to school.
However, in the eyes of the public, 12yo girls, granddads, Mac users and whatnot aren't big offenders, they're small offenders, and they're getting hit hard. It doesn't matter if Lucy (12) is sharing 50gb of mp3s on their fast broadband connection, the public will never see that as being a "hardcore big-time criminal".
To the average citizen, that is like taking some random speeder and throw them in jail for life as a deterrent. And people will react to that, because they don't feel the punishment reflects the crime, or that it is "fair" compared to the "real" criminals.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm sorry, but it's consent as soon as you turn on the ringer of your phone.
If you choose to use the phone service you have no grounds to complain when it works as intended. Strangers being able to call you is as it is intended.
Filing your name in a book somewhere doesn't remove that consent to be "bugged" by the phone system, it only creates a contradiction. You are in effect saying "Yeah! Anyone can use the phone system to call me! Oh, and telemarketers can't."
It's precisely the same thing as publishing a public web page and then filing suit when Jewish people access it.
Although it represents progress that Congress has become sensitized to privacy issues, it's a little early to declare victory. Congress is also considering legislation to impose weak national standards for protecting information collected by companies, and preventing states from imposing stronger standards (e.g. gutting the recently passed California data privacy law). Unlike DNC, this legislation is likely to pass, and methinks many politicians will use their DNC vote as protective coloration hoping nobody notices their caving on the arguably more important issue if data privacy.
1) Sorry, but that's the way the quote went.
2) Why do flies lay their eggs in it? Hint: Because when the larvae hatch out, they need something to eat!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
> Heck, I believe that I presented good, valid arguments.
You did, actually.
> Out of curiousity, are you telling me that it should be legal to hand out copies of copyrighted work?
But this isn't necessarily one of them. Your implication relies on an assumption, and that's where we part company. See, I feel that it's wrong to violate copyright wholesale, since it's designed to protect creators' value streams for the protected content. Where we part company, however, is in how far that protection should go. There is no valid reason, based on the reasons for copyright to exist in the first place, why Mickey Mouse should not be in the public domain. His creator has been dead for decades, and benefitted vastly from copyright during his life. The sole and complete reason he's not is that the Disney Corporation has poured a bunch of money into hyperextending what copyright means, so that they can continue to draw revenue exclusively from Mickey Mouse. So, in answer to your question, I think it should not be legal to hand out copies of copyrighted work, but we disagree greatly on what "copyrighted work" should mean. When you can offer a valid reason why it should be considered illegal to go into a music library, pull a book of classical piano pieces that's been out of print for thirty years by a company defunct for twenty, and scan a copy of one of the pieces for me and my friends to use, then I might agree entirely with your assessment.
Virg
C-SPAN just showed end of vote 95-0
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
Anyone know what reasoning the 8 dissentors used for voting against this resolution?
Now I have no clue how many of these muggers' jobs may or may not be lost if mugging is illegal, but the fact is, voting to make mugging legal is voting to protect those jobs. I personally fail to see how it is some great inconvenience to have muggers taking your money every so often. Its putting food and someone's table (and drugs in someones bloodstream), and is better than being on welfare. My brother in law worked as a mugger for a time. In that impoverished area of the country good paying jobs are hard to come by.
So yes, I think congresscritters voting to legalize mugging represent their areas well. They want to protect some jobs that some people have, regardless of the slight inconvenience of a few. If you don't like it, don't leave your home and have your telephone disconnected!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It's different than just walking away because you've precluded their speaking to you at all.
The law buys us the small convenience of not having to say "No, I'm not interested in hearing this" at the expense of stifling someone's right to speak to us. To paraphrase Huey Long, "This isn't a law against you or me, it's a law against that fellow behind the tree."
Would Ron Paul "defender of the Constitution" let coal burning plants pollute your neighborhood because an overisght comission via the EPA is more "big bad government?"
Well, of course I can't speak for Ron Paul, but I rather think he would. I know I would. You see, while it is difficult to argue that "allowing" pollution is a good thing, it is easy to make the case that this kind of regulation always goes too far. The EPA is the very epitome of "big bad government". If it were a person, it could be said to be suffering from paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and power mania. Around 1980 or so it had succeeded in cleaning automotive exhaust in new cars by a couple of orders of magnitude. Anyone of average intelligence would have declared victory, stopped raising the bar, and gone on to other concerns. Instead, to this day, they bear down harder and harder, beating this dead horse to an insane degree, with no indication that they will EVER stop raising the bar.
Who will govern the governors? The voters? Bwahahaha. That doesn't work. No government, absent revolution, EVER gets smaller. That's the reason the US Constitution is full of limits on government power, but contains not a single limitation on personal liberty, and scarcely any on commercial freedom.
When I really need them.
We need a +4 Funny on this pronto.
Chop-chop, lets get modding on this now.
Your assistance is appreciated. Thank you.
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
Great, "more than 60 million U.S. citizens ... use file-sharing software" - so they can't be wrong either then? ;-)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It's called following the spirit of the law instead of the letter.
... To condone in these instances the practice of talking in terms of the intent of the legislature, as if the legislature had attributed a particular meaning to certain words, when it is apparent that the intent is that of the judge, is to condone atavistic practices too reminiscent of the medicine man."
More accurately, this is called "judicial activism". Also known as, "when the judge substitutes his or her idea of what the law ought to do for what the text of the law really does."
I don't want to be at trial and have the judge decide, "you know, Mr. Hansen, the law as written in the books doesn't work the way I think it should work. So instead of applying the law, I'm going to apply what I think ought to be instead. Deal with it."
That, Zath, is called judicial tyranny. Some very sharp people wrote some essays warning against allowing this to happen. You can find these essays collected into convenient book form and sold as the Federalist Papers. I strongly suggest you read them.
Let me give you a couple of scholarly references here, too--this one comes courtesy of Justice Antonin Scalia's monograph, A Matter Of Interpretation, which argues compellingly against judicial activism:
"It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver. That seems to be the essence of the famous American ideal set forth in the Massachusetts constitution: A government of laws, not of men. Men may intend what they will; but it is only the laws that they enact which bind us."
Or, as Dean James M. Landis of Harvard Law School wrote in Harvard's 1930 law review,
"The gravest sins are perpetrated in the name of the intent of the legislature.
Moving again to Scalia:
"Of all the criticisms leveled against [strict interpretation of laws], the most mindless is that it is `formalistic'. The answer to that is, of course it's formalistic! The rule of law is about form. If, for example, a citizen performs an act--let us say the sale of a certain technology to a foreign country--which is prohibited by a widely publicized bill proposed by the Administration and passed by both houses of Congress, but not yet signed by the President, that sale is lawful. It is of no consequence that everyone knows both houses of Congress and the President wish to prevent that sale. Before the wish becomes a binding law, it must be embodied in a bill that passes both houses and is signed by the President. Is that not formalism? A murderer has been caught with blood on his hands, bending over the body of the victim; a neighbor with a video camera has filmed the crime; and the murderer has confessed in writing and on videotape. We nonetheless insist that before the state can punish this miscreant, it must conduct a full-dress criminal trial that results in a verdict of guilty. Is that not formalism? Long live formalism! It is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men."
(All emphasis is as found in the original documents.)
Of course, his position is nothing to sneeze at either, but it worries me to have such a strict justice in that position.
Only those appointed to the Supreme Court are called "justices". Everyone else is just called "judge".
1) Business phones cannot be registered in the database. That's why businesses have receptionists; their main job is to tell telemarketers "f**k you!" in a pleasant, professional voice.
2) You can't easily register somebody else's phone number in the database. Using the web page requires you to give an email address, which is then sent a confirmation message which you must reply to. I suspect the FTC would begin to get a little suspicious if every phone number in the US was registered using the same email address -- or even if more than a dozen numbers were.
3) I have an unlisted phone number, so I never get telemarketing calls anyway. I added my number to the database for one reason: to send a clear message to the telemarketers that making unsolicited phone calls is NOT a viable business model. It relies on finding people stupid enough to work on commission calling people up and being abused by them. 99% of the callers are making far less than minimum wage for their time; they have a huge turnover rate.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think it is a significant inconvenience to nearly everyone, particularly if it is a call per hour despite having done nothing to get on the telemarketer's call lists. I image that a significant share of the people that DON'T have any profit connection to telemarketing would agree.
IMO, protecting jobs for the sake of protecting jobs is backward. If the quality of life of everyone else has to suffer then I'd rather they be on welfare or flipping burgers like an honest person whose sole job is to pester and harrass people.
Besides, it is bad enough that my parents have given up on owning a home phone, and they've done nothing to deserve it. So I guess the telco is going to have to lay people off for people cutting off phone service?
I concur with your assessment that H.R. 3161 does not appear to have room for loopholes, given its extreme brevity.
However, by ratifying and giving the FTC the ability to enforce the huge legislation that H.R. 3161 enacts (found in U.S. Code here), there may be impetus to vote down something so powerful, especially in the hands of the FTC. It's a balance of power I suppose. I haven't had time to read 16 CFR Part 310, but I suspect that Mr. Paul is concerned about the extension of powers given to the FTC that could be abused.
I'm not sure though, as that he hasn't replied to my email yet. He may be getting a huge influx of mail as that the vote was so lopsided.
Unless it's harassment, you're wrong. You have every right to speak to someone who doesn't want to listen.
look it up... :)
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Your "permanent link" takes me to "To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reduce the annual income level at which a person petitioning for a family-sponsored immigrant's admission must agree to provide support... (Introduced in House)". I don't think that's the real link :)
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
AP-wire
The US House voted today, 412-8, to green light the launch from the Kennedy Space Center of Do-Not-Call List 1, NASA's most advanced satellite to date. DNCL 1 will be launched into a low-level geosync orbit over the West Coast later this month, to be followed by DNCL 2-5 to cover the contiguous US if intial test are positive.
DNCL 1 will be armed with frickin' lasers that are linked via Carnivore to an IP tracking database. Upon going online on October 26th, DNCL 1 will handle all SPAM complaints by tracking down the senders and turning them into "molten magma".
A NASA spokesman said "With this project, we are thrilled to not only tell the nations spammers that we already have a good mortgage rate and passable penis size, but we have finally found a good use for that dubmass Carnivore system."
You know what?
Why would you register a Cell Phone? They aren't allowed to call them already.
This sig is the express property of someone.
50 million cant be wrong about spam phone calls but 60 million can't possibly be right about file sharing?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
50 million people have expressed a desire of how society should work. And as long as it is not about discriminating some minority, that is with all likelyhood how society should be, simply because the people in a society define what a good society is.
That doesn't mean that people define facts, we're not shaping reality, we're shaping society. Of course, there is some disagreement about whether the majority is fit to rule, but of all the forms of government, at the base democracy generally looks better than the alternatives.
OF course, sometimes the people are wrong about their own best (e.g. I think a couple countries might have been erased from the map on 9/11th, if the launch button had been controlled by polls). However, no country that I know of is a direct democracy, for the actual running of the country we have a form of "aristocracy", quite litteraly a rule of the best citizens, in the form of elected representatives.
The reason I say that, and not a representative democracy is that if you listen closely, you will hear that they define their task not to be to represent the will of the people (as seen in e.g. popular polls), but rather to act in the best interest of the people, i.e. they know better.
Most of the time, this keeps society running better, because a lot of it is in fact complex and beyond the grasp of the average citizen. And sometimes it also keeps the public from making rash and poorly considered decisions. That is part of the checks and balances that keeps the system working.
But sometimes, like this time, the people get directly involved and clearly express their desires. And when they do, the representatives should be humble and remember that while they should ensure that reasons for and consequences of the decision have been properly considered, the people ultimately decide what is "right" for society, if not here and now, then at election day. At least, that's how it should work...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And any chance at sympathy was lost when I asked to be put on their don't call list and was told it would take at least three months. What do they do, circulate those lists by Galapagos tortoise?
Before I get flamed to oblivion, lets get it straight --- I HATE TELEMARKETERS . My phone numbers are on the DNC list.
While I like the fact that it will be passed, did we really need a bill that says "We authorized an action in 15 USC whatever. That law was ratified March 31 2003" ? In the future, whenever a law is being reviewed by the courts, shold congress have to pass a bill saying that they did indeed pass the laws earlier? When a department goes over budget, will we get a new bill saying "On August 12, Congress budgeted 123,456,789 to the Office of Stupidity In Government. The Budget was ratified on August 17." ?
It just seems odd to me. The original law is still being challenged, only that congress is telling the courts "Yes, we did that on purpose." The appeals court will still have to overturn the ruling. The bill is a stern message to the court, obviously, but the judge was ruling on the original law (which is unaltered by this) and stated that the law, as written, would give power to the FCC and not the FTC.
I guess I don't like the precident of Congress passing a bill that just says that they passed a bill. If the bill said something like "We acknolowedge that this power normally would be given to the FCC, but we are specifically giving it to the FTC" then I would have no mixed feelings.
frob
P.S. If the FSF naming people were in congress, (the same ones who came up with GNU and HURD as recursive acronyms) they could just start passing bills saying that they passed bills saying that they passed bills saying that they passed bills saying that...
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
As much as I hate telemarketers and their incessant calling during dinner time, the telemarketing corporations have this one right, and they are actually fighting the good fight.
The current do not call list discriminates specifically against corporations, because it exempts charities, non-profits, and political organizations from the regulation.
So the Christian Coalition, KKK, Republican National Congress, Greenpeace, United Way, and Democratic National Congress can call you all they want, while Joe Inventor who's selling his new widget to sanitize your toilet seat can't call you.
That is definitely a violation of the first amendment because it grants Group A more freedom of speech and access than Group B. Remember that the telephone system is a public resource and that the government is responsible for ensuring equal access to it.
The real solution is to also ban charities, non-profits, and political organizations from calling numbers listed on the DNC list. However, legislators will never do this because those organizations provide a large percentage of campaign contributions and exert tremendous policital influence.
What is with all of this BS about lost jobs? Whoever voted against this bill because they wanted to "prevent job loss" has their head firmly planted up their ass.
Tele-marketers have the worlds fastest turn-over rate. I know... I was tele-marketer in college for, ohhh, about 2 weeks. Ya, your boss has been their for a while, and there's always one pathetic person who's been making calls for 6 months, but that's about it. Most people do this stuff for a under two months. Seriously.
Loosing tele-marketers will have little to no affect on the economies of counties (well perhaps Telemaketopolis. they could take a hit).
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
No, extra services as in "Well the normal phone service allows telemarketers to call you. If you would like we'll provide an extra service to block them as best we can."
Except for those callers who have paid the extra "unblockable calls" fee, but for an even higher fee we can block those for you too, except for the ones that...
You feel perjury laws are unconstitutional then?
"Unless it's harassment, you're wrong. You have every right to speak to someone who doesn't want to listen."
Seriously, think about what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that you have a constitutional right to speak to someone who is actively trying to avoid listening to you. I would think that's the very definition of harassment.
Furthermore, I would think that's basically what the Do Not Call list is attempting to do; give relief to people who feel harassed.
If half the population wanted to marry their sister, the government would have nothing to do but make it legal.
I remember an inteview with Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, and she said that the whole goal of the Supreme Court is to simply reflect the current population's ideas. Politicians do it to keep votes.
So whether you are committing a crime today may change tomorrow -- remember the Prohibition? Remember abortion?
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Another federal Judge has stepped in and blocked it according to "Free Speech" rights.
MSN
nytimes
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham in Denver said, "The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech."
The FTC's list would prevent telemarketers from calling the phone numbers of those who did not want to hear from them. It would not apply to political or charitable calls.
End quote.
Hmmm 50 million people have voiced their decision by saying they don't want these calls. Stupid Judge!
What "some other way"? Specific, please. I am SO fucking tired of idiots like you bullshitting how everyobdy who lost their jobs recently will "just find another job". Manufactring to China, programming to India, telemarketing just out... WHAT fucking other jobs with comparable salaries have been created? Again, be fucking specific, company names, regions, number or positions, salaries... or go fuck yourself, dickhead.
New development this afternoon: Another federal judge here in Colorado handed down another injunction against the no-call list, arguing that it's unconstitutional because it exempts charities.
rj
Long ago I accepted the idea that the US Congress works for its financial backers, not for the voters. They are in the business of doing what the money people want, and pretending to do what the voters want.
I believe the deciding factor in this case was that the FTC managed to measure citizen opinion in a tangible way that couldn't be swept under the rug. They didn't just poll people, they promised them something and let them actually sign up for it. Basically they announced free beer and let the line form.
No matter how much money the telemarketing association spread around, there was really no way Congress could squash this thing without looking like a bunch of complete assholes. The feeble argument that telemarketing provides jobs doesn't stand up against the expressed wishes of 50 million people, and I feel sorry for the 8 dumb bastards who think they are going to get any mileage out of voting against it.
On one hand it could be scary that a government agency could do something on its own that Congress would be forced to go along with. But on the other hand, it only worked because so many people got behind it. This is a good lesson in citizen action, and a reminder to Congress that people still are citizens and not just consumers.
Edward U Nottingham, (303) 844-5018, 1929 Stout St, Denver, CO 80294
unless they're wrong.
The US is a Republic. Not a Democracy. We have representatives that are elected by the majority but are not required to bow to the whims of the majority.
The majority in many cases is wrong and the representative has to uphold the higher law over the poor judgement of the majority in those cases.
50 million can be right about the DNC list and 1 billion will always be wrong about "sharing" illegal files.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."
Next on the chopping block: speed limits.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
President Bush said he looked forward to signing the measure.
But its immediate future was in doubt after U.S. District Court Judge... Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win its appeal to reverse West's decision or have him reconsider based on the new law.
Here we have, figuratively speaking, the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and tens of millions of citizens held hostage by the men in black. We sit at the mercy of the Almighty Court. Since Roe v. Wade, there has been a trend of the Courts becoming more and more powerful. Whether or not this particular legislation is good, it really irks me that the courts can trump the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the apparent will of the people. Court judges have become like dictators, trumping the Constitution itself. What is the check on the courts' power? I think they can be impeached. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I am not advocating it in this case, but we ought to consider such a measure from time to time.
Wow, CNN has no conscience at all. I faxed This picture to my best hitman, and I'm sure plenty of others have already as well.
ôó
Free-speech grounds? Haven't we gone over this? Yes, we have. As far as anyone's concerned, though, the judge's opinion could've been on "coin-toss grounds" or "from the professional advice given by my cat." Now it *has* to be challenged. WTF do they see that we don't?
Another court already has placed another delay on the DNC list, this time based on free speech grounds. The next telemarketer that calls me is going to get a few choice free speech curses thrown his way. If they want to play that game, the 1st amendment street goes two ways. As long as you don't actually threaten a telemarketer, you can say whatever you want to them, their corporate execs, and their secretaries/phone screeners. Not to mention your free speech right to call every court and judge's home number and explain exactly how you feel about free speech applies to people forcing their words on you. Call it harassment, call it stalking when the same company calls you 5 times, call it verbal rape, the telemarketers are calling it free speech. Fight's on boys.
:)
Don't hang up anymore! Leave the phone off the hook and when you hear a real live telemarketer, first try to sound reasonable and get a customer service or supervisor phone number you can call back, then say the most offensive thing you can get out before THEY hang up. Then post that phone number up on slashdot
Precisely.
You have to pay extra for the extra special ketchup.
Or you could, you know, enjoy your meal without ketchup and buy a phone smart enough not to bother you...
a) This will drag on for a while. ("I reject your rejection of my rejection" thing)
b) Also, they keep saying this magic phrase which is apparently a telemarketers' slang - "ALL OR NOTHING". That's what they are lobbying for. What it means is that the law the way it written right now actually allows a couple of different categories of telemarketers call - namely, POLITICIANS and NON-FOR-PROFITS.
Well, the well-connected telemarketers (he-he) claim they are pretty certain that if they push the "all or nothing" rule hard enough - again, what it means is that you either pass the law with NO exceptions (which is not going to happen - politicians will not deprive themselves of this marketing channel) or you let everybody call, then they can get the whole thing called off. They sounded pretty certain of it. I guess there's plenty of those "all or nothing" people working on it in DC.
Perhaps the DMA's concerns are not quite so farfetched. The 50 million or so phone numbers don't represent 50 million dead ends. There is a large population of poor saps, suckers, and gulla-bulls that buy from telemarketers. These easy marks represent a LOT of dough, and they're exactly the type of folks who would jump at the chance to never be bullied into another humiliating defeat (read purchase).
And don't think that the >200 million souls who aren't on the list are any more receptive to telemarketers than you or I. First you have to cull out the large number of them that are
a) Too lazy to make the first cut
b) Too paranoid to publish their name/phone #
c) Too intelligent to publish their name/phone #
d) Too indifferent to get on the list OR to buy anything
e) Too frickin' stupid to get on the list
f) Too embarrased to junk their telezappers
g) Too juvenile to relinquish the chance to hang the marketer just one more time
SIG me baby, yeah!
the domain isn't even in use jack ass, it's a domain name my dad gave to me after he sold his ISP. Go get stuck in an elevator someplace.
What is slashdot?
My neighbors, a mother and her daughter-in-law, work for the same telemarketing company. She told me that they were "getting a new system" to comply with the do-not-call law. What the new system does, according to her, who is the manager of this company btw, is call you at home, then when you answer, a message comes on saying that it is a solicitation call, and tells you about the company, if you don't want to talk, you can hang up. This is just as annoying to me, so who knows if this law will do anything to lower the number of solicitation calls we get.
Go to the ATA site and send them as many e-mails as you can. Let them feel the pain of their sales tactics. Exercise your Constitutional writes to help them understand the truth about Free Speech.
Tim Ryan, D-Ohio - 202-225-5261
Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan happens to be my representative. When he voted against the FTC's creation of the list, passed by an overwhelming majority, I wrote a letter asking why he voted against something that people so overwhelmingly support. I received a letter back, indicating that he shared my concerns about the creation of a DNC list, and passed it off to ignorance.
When I wrote again concerning the DMCRA, I received a totally clueful response that indicated not only was he aware of the DMCRA, but several other pieces of legislation, and that he felt the industry had too much clout and needed to be reigned in. This filled me with warm fuzzies.
Seeing another vote against the DNC, this time with FCC flavor, pissed me off. So pissed was I that I immediately phoned his Washington office to see if I could schedule some face time with him when he's back in the district. I was told that certainly this is possible, and to contact the local office to schedule some time. I'll be calling tomorrow, as they had already closed up for the day when I did call.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Oh, shit, you're right! Now it's not funny or topical anymore! Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention!
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
I have lived in several parts of the country and I have not experienced anything like what is going on in Boston right now. I just moved here and my phone is ringing off the hook every twenty-thirty minutes. Moreover, these telefuckers leave long messages on my answering machine. On average, I end up with 4 messages per day that say "Hi my name is such and such and I am with this organization. We have a promotion in your area and blah blah blah...."
Does it piss me off? Absolutely! First of all, I feel that my privacy is being violated on a constant basis, secondly I hardly doubt that telemarketers are going to win by saying that their business is free speech and can be protected by the First Amedment. The "do not call list" is set up on purpose for people, like myself, who do not want to be contacted. Stopping telemarketers from placing calls is like having a restraining order from a group of people, which is perfectly legal in this country.
Oh, before businesses start bitching about unemployment among telemarketers, I would like to hear a thing or two about IT jobs being shipped off-shore (and what can be done about it) by a boat load on a daily basis...
My phone provider, SBC, just increased the monthly fee for having an unlisted number from $2.95 to $4.95. This was buried well within the fine print in the 5 odd pages of small type that forms my phone bill.
Isn't that neat? Not only do I have to pay SBC for having a phone, but I also have to pay them protection money so that they don't give out my phone number to anyone else.
Hail, modern America!
-
"Sending three variations of the same offer to the same recipient is a good way to improve
response rates."
This advice comes from Great Big Noise LLC, a California-based spammer located at 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833. You can call them toll-free at (866) 27-EMAIL. Ask about their "Send your first mailing FREE, up to 5,000 emails.", and SpamRank (sm), their program to help spammers get around Bayesian spam filters.They have what claims to be an "opt out" link on their site, but if you're not careful, it signs you up for their newsletter, "The Noisemaker".
Nothing on their site indicates that they tag their spams with "ADV:", as current California law requires. (After January 1, they either shut down or they're criminals.)
if the government didn't want drugs around, they would be a little more strict about drug restriction. The truth is... our government WANT drugs here. Fuck, 5/6th of the drug money gets spent on american made products!!! the government loves drugs!
What is slashdot?
Pardon my ranting, but the lack of basic knowledge of our legal system by the /. crowd continues to astound me.
Anyone with a junior-college level law course will learn on the first day that COMMERCIAL SPEECH IS NOT AFFORDED THE SAME DEGREE OF PROTECTION AS OTHER FORMS OF SPEECH!!! Commercial speech, like other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) can be and is regulated as to time, place, and content. False advertising is illegal (i.e., not legal, prohibited, verboten, y'all cain't do't and if you does, that there eff cee cee will shut'cha ass down,) Cigarette ads on TV are illegal. Various kinds of transactions need to have certain disclosures made (e.g., Regulation Z "Truth in Lending" disclosures.) So no, the First Amendment argument holds very little water here.
This is yet another example of a judge issuing a ruling based on his personal opinion, not what the law actually says. Fortunately for all concerned, cooler heads will prevail and the appeals court will layeth the smackdown on this idiot.
OK, I get it. Perhaps a case of RTFA? :-)
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
On the same note, hopefully pop-up ads will slow down a bit as more and more people install pop-up blockers and more and more software supports it. I suspect if IE were to ever incorporate a pop-up blocker the practice would die out fairly quickly. Granted, it doesn't matter to me anymore because I have a pop-up blocker (google toolbar) and could care less whether they're there or not because it does an exceptional job of blocking them out.
Good god - This is as bad as the corrupt morons that run the People's Republic of Massachusetts - Those self-righteous morons banned smoking in all public buildings except the house and senate chambers
Some people are truly more equal than others
Bad move, congress
Well that's why I said "unless it's harassment." Is a protest harassment? There are plenty of people who don't want to hear that, but it is not considered harassment. Can you stand on the street and tell people the world is ending? Of course you can.
> If we don't like a law, we shouldn't break it and hope that a massive rebellion causes the law to stop functioning.
Well, there have been a few examples of civil disobedience that demonstrate that this is sometimes an effective way to approach this problem, especially when used by those who do not have the political or monetary resources necessary to fight the legal battles you hold in such high regard. Do you really think that the American public defeated Prohibition by fighting it in court, or with fliers handed out on street corners?
Virg
Of course, the federal judge is blocking it yet again... This time on free speech grounds.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Whether the group of people asked to be on the list or not Congress is making a law abridging the freedom of speech.
The freedom to speak is not the freedom to be heard.
If the telemarketer wants to stand out on his front lawn hawking his wares, more power to him.
He's not allowed to walk into my living room uninvited and do the same thing because he has a right to speak - my right to privacy and trespassing laws see to that. He can stand out on the road in front of my house and try to talk to me, but I'm not going to hear him. He's speaking, but there's no law compelling me to listen.
So, he can't come into my living room using an electrical communication facilitator known as a telephone any more than he can using a non-electrical communication facilitator known as shoes.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Here is the judge's info
District Judge Edward W. Nottingham
United States District Court
U.S. Court House
901 - 19th St.
Denver, CO 80294-3589
Phone: 303.844.5018
Fax: 303.335.2155
E-mail: nottingham_chambers@cod.uscourt.gov
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
Nah, come on. Those jobs are still there whether drugs are legal or not. But if we make it legal, we need more lawyers, prosecutors, court clerks, court janitors, judges, prison guards, prison wardens, prison janitors, prison cooks, etc etc etc. See how many MORE jobs we can create by locking all those people up, too?
This reads, "By completing this form, you agree that sponsors and co-sponsors of this offer may telephone you, even if your number is found on a do not call registry or list"m odules. php?name=News&file=article&sid=10
http://www.antitelemarketer.com/nuke/html/
Read the fine print!
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
Here's what I gathered would be the impact of the new telemarketing laws:
1. Every time the laws change, successful teleservices firms shift their focus. When cold calls (those not borne from an existing business relationship) became less profitable due to legislation, most firms switched to clients that wanted to call their own customers, such as local telco's. This exception is in the new TSR as well, btw. Besides that, those calls are also starting to lose profitability, so inbound sales are becoming more and more the focus of these firms as their clients focus on other forms of advertising.
2. The DNC list would certainly save the telemarketer as much hassle as it does the consumer on the DNC list. As a telemarketer myself, I get extremely annoyed when people dance around pretending they're not available when in reality, they just don't want to be called. In short, if you don't want to be called, JUST SAY SO!
3. This goes along with #2: Even though charities, political groups, and companies that have a business relationship do not have to use the Nat'l DNC list, they still have to honor your DNC request. Again, JUST SAY IT! Don't dance around it.
My experience as a telemarketer has taught me so much about it, that I honestly do not recieve telemarketing calls anymore. No, I do not own a Caller ID box, I did not buy a "Privacy Manager" from my telco, I do not own a screening box (ex. TeleZapper). I simply answered them when they did call and asked them not to do so. For that matter, when you sign up with a telco or something like that, why not "opt-out" right off the bat? You do have that power.
BTW, According to the FTC DNC website, telemarketers will have to send caller ID signals after Jan 31, 2004, so don't count on your unidentified call block. Of course, you'll know them when they show up on your caller ID. It won't be completely useless to have, because other people can still block their CID signal, only businesses cannot.
On a side note, I do know another telemarketer who did sell "solicitor blocks". He says his sales are way beyond goal, LOL! People say they didn't appreciate his call, and he used that as a selling point!
Virg
Of course you can, but can you repeatedly ring somebody's doorbell in protest to convince them of your political views, even when you know that they don't want to hear from you? Trespassing laws aside, that's harassment. All the DNC list is is a list of people who *don't want ot hear from you*. There's a big difference between expressing your views in a public place and taking them straight to me in my home when all I want is for you to leave me alone.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"